Building A Consensus On The Professional Dispositions of Counseling Students: A Content Analysis On Counseling Student Retention Policies

BUILDING A CONSENSUS ON THE PROFESSIONAL DISPOSITIONS OF
COUNSELING STUDENTS: A CONTENT ANALYSIS ON COUNSELING STUDENT
RETENTION POLICIES
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Faculty of the School of Education
The College of William and Mary in Virginia
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Counselor Education
By
Jeffrey Kyle Christensen
May 2 0 1 5
UMI Number: 3662992
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Di!ss0?t&Ciori Publishing
UMI 3662992
Published by ProQuest LLC 2015. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
BUILDING A C O N SEN SU S ON THE PROFESSIONAL DISPOSITIONS OF
COUNSELING STUDENTS: A CONTENT ANALYSIS ON COUNSELING
STUDENT RETENTION POLICIES
by
Jeffrey Kyle C hristensen
Approved January 2015 by
C harles “Rick” G ressard, Ph.D.

C hairperson of Doctoral Committee
C harles “Rip” McAdams, Ph.D.
T hom as J. rd, Ph.D.
Ja m e s P7 Barber, Ph.D.
DEDICATION
To the woman who was sold to slavery at the age 9, only to be bought back a few years
later because she was “pretty enough” to be married o ff to a wealthier family. To her bravery at
swimming the Kowloon Channel to find a better life in Hong Kong. To her selflessness in
leaving all she knew to immigrate to a country completely unknown to her, with the only
exception being that it would mean a better life for her children. To her courage in finding
herself a single mother a few years later and finding the fortitude to raise those four children into
the responsible, loving adults they are today. And to her raising her children’s children and for
her unwavering belief in them, even while they were questioning that belief themselves.
To my A Poh, who is testament that each o f us are standing on the shoulders o f the giants
that came before us. Thank you for being the 4 ’ 11 ” giant I know. This dissertation is for you.
Dissertation - JKC 4
Acknowledgments
Being that the dissertation marks the culmination of years of schooling, sweat and tears,
the many individuals who played a role in this journey are too numerous to count. Though with
effort I will attempt to do so.
I am extremely grateful for the family and friends that were a part of this process. My
parents, Tina, Stephanie, Doug, Carson, Jarrett, Kendra and the rest of the A Team, the
Admissions Staff, Team Praxis and my fellow doc students both in Counselor Ed and Higher Ed.
The unconditional support that I received from you all will stay with me forever. Thank you.
To Dr. Thomas J. Ward, for being a fantastic teacher, mentor and coach. Thank you for
instilling and reinforcing a love for SPSS and advanced statistics. Coming from a constructivist,
that means a lot.
To Dr. James P. Barber, who served as a fantastic methodologist and a tremendous
support throughout the dissertation process. I hope that I can emulate to my future students the
kindness, patience and knowledge that you shown me.
To Dr. Charles “Rip” McAdams, for the several poignant lessons. Because of you, when
I review drafts of my work and ask m yself “is this the best it can possibly be?” there always
seem to be a Southern accent to it.
And to Dr. Charles Gressard, whose role in this journey was paramount to my success.
Because o f your mentorship, crossing that threshold and that belly of the whale realization was
manageable. I will always be grateful. Thank you for everything.

ABSTRACT
The ACA Code o f Ethics requires that counselor educators are responsible for monitoring
and addressing student deficiencies and counselor educators live up to this responsibility despite
the legal risk they may face in dismissing a student deemed incompetent (ACA, 2014; McAdams
et al., 2007). The Ward v. Wilbanks presented significant implications for the counseling
profession (Kaplan, 2014) with calls for counselor educators to clearly communicate these
policies to students, as well as moving to a more standardized evaluation and remediation
process (Rust, Haskin, & Hill 2013; McAdams & Foster, 2007).
The current study will present overlying themes from a census of CACREP accredited
counseling programs’ student retention policies (n=224) with specific attention to the
professional dispositions and personal characteristics that have been deemed ‘elusive,’ yet
regarded as important to successful therapy (Robiner, Fuhrman, & Ristveldt, 1993; Herman,
1993). Evaluating multicultural competence is arguably the most controversial and challenged
disposition in student evaluation and special consideration will be given to the themes in how
multicultural competence has been assessed and offer strategies in how counselor educators can
navigate the remediation process for students who are struggling in this area.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One Introduction............................................................................................................ 6
Chapter Two Review o f Literature...........................................................................................16
Chapter Three M ethod...................................................................................................................34
Chapter Four R esults.................................................................................................................... 47
Openness to Growth (Table 4 ) .........................................................49
A wareness o f Self and Others (Table 5 ) ........................................52
Integrity (Table 6 ) ............................................................................... 55
Emotional Stability (Table 7 ) ..........................................................57
Flexibility (Table 8 ) ............................................................................59
Compassion (Table 9 ) .........................................................................61
Personal Style (Table 1 0 ) ...................................................................63
Interpersonal Com petency (Table 1 1 ) .......................................... 65
Professional Com petency (Table 1 2 ) ............................................ 68
Clinical Competency (Table 1 3 ) ..................................................... 70
Chapter Five D iscussion.............................................................................................................. 73
References 86
Appendices Appendix A ...........................................................................................................96
Table 1 .....................................................................................................96
Table 2 .....................................................................................................98
Table 3 .....................................................................................................99
A ppendix B ....................................................................................................... 106
A ppendix C ....................................................................................................... 107

CH A PTER 1
Introduction
A chief responsibility o f counselor educators is evaluating the professional dispositions
o f counselors-in-training to ensure that future services provided to clients will not cause harm.
Evaluation is considered the “nucleus” of supervision (Bernard and Goodyear, 2009) and with
priority given to client safety, counselor educators must navigate a fine balance of adhering to
their gatekeeping responsibility, while providing students with sufficient opportunities to
develop into competent professionals.
Current evaluations o f professional competencies have come to encompass both the skills
required of counselors as well as the dispositions necessary for growing professionally and
establishing a working relationship with clients (Swank, Lambie, and Witta, 2012). While there
is a general understanding in the evaluation around professional competencies (counseling
techniques, application to theory, etc.), evaluation of professional dispositions is less understood,
leaving counselor educators exposed to potential litigious consequences when adhering to their
gatekeeping responsibilities (Henderson and Dufrene, 2012; Rust, Raskin, and Hill, 2013).
Accurate and transparent evaluative measures are essential for supporting counselor
educators and supervisors in this capacity (Foster and McAdams, 2009; Swank et al., 2012).
Though a number of screening rubrics exist that evaluate professional dispositions, the lack of
consensus on the specific criteria that make up non-academic competencies remains a problem in
the counseling profession (Henderson and Dufrene, 2012; Rust et al., 2013).
An inductive and emergent content analysis on student retention policies and evaluations
from Council for Accreditation o f Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP)
accredited programs can demonstrate the dispositions most commonly assessed. These results
can guide future studies to explore the specific professional dispositions of counselors and build
a consensus in the counseling profession that can better aid counselor educators and supervisors
in their evaluation efforts.
Description o f the Problem
Evaluation around trainees’ professional dispositions and subsequent remediation
practices has been a contested issue within the counseling profession. With the recent court
cases o f Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley et al., 2010 and Ward v. Wilbanks et al., 2010, counselor
educators are becoming more aware of the potential legal liability of upholding the gatekeeping
process to students deemed unfit to serve as counselors. As these cases are brought to light, so
too is the relative absence o f empirical research on evaluation measures and the counseling
profession’s lack o f consensus on the professional dispositions deemed necessary for counselors.
(Henderson and Dufrene, 2012). Several authors have written on defending a litigation
challenge from a student dismissed from a graduate program (Baldo, Softas-Nall, and Shaw,
1997; Frames and Stevens-Smith, 1995; Kerl, Garcia, McCullough, and Maxwell, 2002;
McAdams, Foster, and Ward, 2007), and from a 1994 lawsuit filed against Louisiana Tech
University for allowing a counselor to graduate without sufficient training, the prosecuting
attorney stated, “a university has an obligation not only to the degree participants, but also to the
public [to ensure) that a person who graduates from its program is competent in the area in which
the degree is bestowed” (Custer, 1994).
The American Counseling Association’s (ACA; 2014) Code o f Ethics require that
supervisors provide “ongoing evaluation and appraisal” o f supervisees and to be aware o f any
academic and personal (italics added) limitations that could impede the quality o f services they
provide to clients. Supervisors must assist supervisees in securing remedial assistance when
needed and to recommend dismissal when supervisees are unable to provide competent services
(Standard F.6.b). CACRJEP requires that program faculty conduct; “a systematic developmental
assessment o f each student’s progress throughout the program, including consideration of the
student’s academic performance, professional development, and personal development...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
o f study” (pg 5; Standard I.P).
Despite clearly defined responsibilities around gatekeeping, counselor educators are still
subject to legal challenges around student dismissal. Students filing the charge often claim that
the dismissal was malicious and punitive and it falls on the educational institution to defend the
decision is by providing sufficient evidence that justified the dismissal (McAdams and Foster,
2007). Justification is demonstrated by showing evidence that the student had advanced notice
o f the evaluative and remedial policies of the institution and that sufficient efforts were made to
remediate the student before the dismissal was finalized. These points o f defense fall under the
doctrines of substantive and procedural due process and serve as the primary standards in which
remedial policies have been evaluated (McAdams and Foster, 2007). Should the graduate
institution fail to adequately defend the dismissal decision, then court costs, compensatory and
punitive damages to the dismissed student are liable consequences for the graduate institution. It
is critical that programs adhere to a standard of student retention and enforce dismissal policies,
despite the risk o f being vulnerable to lawsuits from students or other third parties (Kerl, et al.,
2002 ).
While it is not clear how many students dismissed from a graduate program challenge
that dismissal in court, most counseling programs report one to three “problem” students a year
(Olkin and Gaughen, 1991). Other articles have cited the occurrence of counselor educators
living up to the stressful task o f addressing student impairment on a yearly basis, making faculty
involvement with students who fall below professional standards a common occurrence (Gaubatz
and Vera, 2006; Kerl, et al., 2002). In addition, several studies detail that more students are
asked to leave programs due to personal issues, such as interpersonal problems, or emotional and
psychological difficulties (Brear, Dorrian and Luscri, 2008; Enochs and Etzbach, 2004) and the
potential for students to pursue litigation to challenge dismissal decisions is even greater when
the dismissal is based on personal reasons rather than academic ones (Olkin and Gaughen, 1991).
Another complication o f student remediation is faculty reluctance to dismiss students
who have interpersonal deficits. Several authors write of the reluctance to dismiss students
outside o f meeting academic standards due to facing possible litigation (Baldo, et al., 1997;
Frame and Stevens-Smith, 1995; Kerl, et al., 2002). Another possible source of reluctance could
be faculty’s former roles as clinicians who, being trained in personality and behavior change,
take additional responsibility in working with students in addressing interpersonal issues that
affect their professional capacity (Kerl, et al., 2002). Lastly, the lack of preferred models of
pedagogy or content to assist counselor educators in determining the best remedial and
developmental approach to best meet the needs of students is another source o f faculty reluctance
(McAdams and Foster, 2007).
The following sections will detail how the topic of professional dispositions are currently
addressed in the counseling and psychology literature, the gaps that need further attention within
both fields, and the purpose of the current study.

Current Approaches
Many articles within the counseling literature on establishing professional competencies
o f students have been conceptual in nature, detailing student remediation policies and evaluation
o f the specific programs o f the authors. Several articles provide similar themes that include
individual programs’ evaluation measures and remediation policies of students (Baldo, et al.,
1997; Frame and Stevens-Smith, 1995; Kerl, et al., 2002; Lumadue and Duffey, 1999;
McAdams, et al., 2007). The policies proposed by these authors share the commonality of
providing a rubric for faculty members to assess students along several domains of professional
competencies, including areas such as flexibility, personal responsibility, ability to receive
feedback, etc. The rubrics are Likert-scaled and students who score below an acceptable
standard meet with faculty to begin a remediation plan. The nature o f the plans vary according
to each graduate program but most commonly involve regular progress evaluations and routine
meetings with a member or members from the faculty to ensure that the remedial plan is adapting
adequately to best fit the student (Kerl, et al., 2002; McAdams, et al., 2007; McAdams and
Foster, 2007). Other articles provide detailed ways in which programs can more effectively
administer evaluation policies in the mental health profession. Suggestions include creating a
climate o f transparency around evaluation to foster a sense of trust and understanding in the
importance o f gatekeeping for students (Foster and McAdams, 2009; Kaslow, Rubin, Forrest, et
al., 2007). Lastly, several authors have written on the importance of programs providing
opportunities for self-assessment practices in students, as it is a key component in competency,
due to it requiring self-awareness, self-reflection, self-understanding and self-evaluation, all
necessary as professional dispositions for effective mental health professionals (Kaslow et al.,
2007; Rodolfa, Bent, Eismann, et al., 2005; Swank et al., 2012).

There have been limited attempts to provide empirical support for evaluation measures.
Swank, et al., (2012) developed the Counseling Competencies Scale (CSS), a measurement
intended for assessing students in practicum, and compared the results with students’ final grades
o f their practicum course. Despite a low correlation (r = .407), the study was the first in nearly a
decade that attempted to empirically validate an assessment o f counseling students’ professional
competencies and dispositions. Prior to that, Eriksen and McAuliffe (2003) developed the
Counseling Skills Scale (CCS) another evaluative measurement designed for experts to evaluate
beginning counseling students. The study had a strong internal consistency of .90, but the
sample size was small (N = 29), with two raters evaluating students within the same university.
For the past two decades, the psychology profession has given increasing attention to
identify and define the professional competencies required of psychologists. Numerous efforts
in the form of councils and workgroups, have worked to define and appropriately assess the
professional competencies expected of students and professional psychologists. The
competencies outlined have established measurable learning outcomes for psychologists-in-
training and establish competency benchmarks for professional psychologists (Fouad, Grus,
Hatcher, et al., 2009). The first o f these task forces originated from the National Council of
Schools and Programs o f Professional Psychology (NCSPP) in 1986 (Rubin, Bebeau, Leigh, et
al., 2007). The model proposed by NCSPP identified and defined six core competency areas
relevant to professional psychologists and were based on scientific and practical knowledge and
skills, as well as attitudes, and ethical behaviors. From this model, the Council o f Accreditation
revised the Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation to require programs to tailor their
education and training efforts to reflect the areas o f competencies outlined by the NCSPP
(Peterson, McHolland, Bent, et al., 1992). Later models emerged from the efforts o f the Council
o f Chairs and Training Councils, the Association of Directors of Psychology Training Clinics
and the Practicum Competencies Outline in 2001, which established behavioral benchmarks
expected o f practicum students (Hatcher and Lassiter, 2007).
The next major step in the evolution of the competency movement was the 2002
Competencies Conference: Future Directions in Education and Credentialing, from which the
Cube model was formed (Rodolfa et al., 2005). The Cube model is a three dimensional, heuristic
model consisting of three domains that encompass the knowledge, skills, and day-to-day
activities required o f psychologists. The competencies covered in the model are arranged along
a foundational domain, which consists of personal dispositions and the foundational knowledge
that are taught and reinforced through graduate education. This domain encompasses the
necessary building blocks for understanding and implementing the day-to-day activities and
professional skill-sets of the functional domain. Both of these domains are integrated along the
professional life-span of psychologists, which makes up the third domain. The model illustrates
how the two areas o f competency vary dependent on the level of professional development of the
individual, and how development in one area o f competency, influences the development in
others, making each dimension interdependent upon the others.
The Cube model is currently cited as a standard in outlining the areas of competency
from which psychologists in all stages of professional development are evaluated (Fouad, et al.,
2009; Kaslow, Rubin, Leigh, et al., 2006; Kaslow et al., 2007). Building on the Competencies
Conference, the American Psychological Association (APA) Board of Educational Affairs
assembled a task force in 2003 to move beyond defining competencies to measuring those
competencies. A comprehensive report detailed the needs for competency assessment, the
different models o f assessment from other professions, and the challenges to accurately assess
competence and provided recommendations and guiding principles in meeting those challenges
(Kaslow et al., 2007; Leigh, Smith, Bebeau, et al., 2007).
More recently, the taskforce for the Assessment of Competency Benchmarks Work
Group (known as the Workgroup) met in 2006 to identify the levels of competence appropriate
for the developmental stages o f psychologists and to clearly establish benchmarks appropriate for
those stages (Fouad et al., 2009). Beginning with the Cube model, the Workgroup operationally
defined each competency and identified behavioral anchors that would demonstrate the
appropriate mastery of that competency based on the level of training. The Workgroup
established three levels o f training for each competency, which include; readiness for practicum,
readiness for internship, and readiness for entry to practice. The product of the Workgroup
(known as the Benchmarks document) was extensively reviewed by constituency groups and
APA Boards and Committees, and working with the Competency Assessment Toolkit Group,
expanded on the Cube model with the addition of three new competencies; professionalism (to
address issues o f behavior and deportment, labeled within the foundational domain), teaching
and advocacy, (both considered part of the functional domain) (Fouad, et al., 2009; Kaslow,
Grus, Campbell, et al., 2009).
Gaps in the Literature
Many articles share commonalities in the policies proposed for addressing remediation
plans, however the specific criteria o f professional non-academic behaviors vary in assessments,
with some authors having five domains (Kerl, et al., 2002) and others having up to nine or ten
(Frames and Stevens-Smith, 1995; McAdams, et al., 2007). There is a limited overlap to the
professional dispositions among the proposed assessments, as different programs value certain
dispositions more than others, or due to different word variations accounting for similar
dispositions or behaviors. This lack of consensus in criteria, limits standard practices in
protecting client welfare and providing a climate o f transparency around evaluation (Foster and
McAdams, 2009; Kaslow, et al., 2007; Swank, et al., 2012).
Another gap is the lack o f studies that attempt to empirically validate evaluative
assessments, or provide evidence of consistency among the counseling profession’s already
existing measures. Swank, et al.’s (2012) study is an exception to this, though in an attempt to
bring about empirical validation in evaluative standards, added yet another assessment to an
already widening pool of policies and criteria, furthering the lack of consensus on professional
competencies in the counseling profession.
No studies have empirically tested the competencies listed in the Cube model and
Benchmarks document to effective practices in psychology and it is questionable whether all the
competencies listed in the Benchmarks document are essential for all health care professionals,
or whether it is necessary to develop the same level of competence across all the areas
(McCutcheon, 2009; DeMers, 2009). Many questions remain unanswered around these issues
and a means for addressing some o f these gaps is by conducting a study that furthers a sense of
consensus on the specific professional dispositions that are considered essential of counseling
students.
Purpose o f Study
The purpose o f this study is to provide evidence on the current professional dispositions
used to evaluate counseling students. Through an inductive, emergent content analysis of
CACRJEP accredited counseling programs; themes can emerge on the specific professional
dispositions used to evaluate students from the many student remediation policies and
evaluations currently in place. The results of this study can help in developing evaluative
practices to guide counselor educators and supervisors around the professional dispositions of
counselor trainees. Doing so will not only better meet the needs of students but serve as
protective factors o f procedural and substantive due processes in a court of law. For this study,
the term professional dispositions will come to encapsulate other terms that have been used in
the literature, such as non-academic behaviors, personal characteristics, professional
performance, and personal development. Professional dispositions in counselor education will be
defined as; the ability to function effectively in a professional capacity with clients and others,
and takes into account the personal characteristics of individuals such as the core values,
attitudes and beliefs, that either enable or restrict that ability (Kerl et al., 2002; McAdams and
Foster, 2007; Spurgeon, Gibbons, and Cochran, 2012).
The following question framed and directed the study:
1. What are the professional dispositions that are most prevalent in student retention
policies, dispositional rubrics and evaluations of master’s level counseling students?

CHAPTER 2
Select Review o f the Literature
Balancing the responsibilities o f training competent clinicians with protecting client
welfare is a delicate task decided on the evaluation o f student competencies, including students’
professional dispositions. What follows is a review of the literature pertaining to the history and
challenges in the evaluation o f professional dispositions of counselors, current practices and
criterion within counseling, the Cube Model of Competency Development, and the proposed
approach o f the study.
History and Challenges to Consensus
It may be alarming for counselor educators that there is a lack o f consensus on the criteria
o f professional dispositions deemed necessary for counselors. Competencies in counseling have
been described as a “moving target with an elusive criterion” (Robiner, Fuhrman, and Ristvedt,
1993, p.5), which is a supported statement with literature spanning three decades that calls for
consensus in this area (Hensley, Smith, and Thompson, 2003; Rust et al., 2013; Weiss, 1981,
Borders and Benshoff, 1992).
Critics o f psychotherapy have written that the inherent subjective nature of counseling
makes the task of setting definitive criteria of evaluation impossible (Dawes, 1994).
Traditionally, evaluative criteria have focused exclusively on the knowledge and skills of
practitioners (Kaslow, Borden, Collins, et al., 2004), though studies have shown mixed results in
demonstrating that these competencies actually produce positive client outcomes (Herman,
1993). A large body o f research has demonstrated consistent findings that counselors’
professional dispositions used in the formation of the working alliance with clients, are most
predictive o f positive client outcomes (Herman, 1993; Jennings, Goh, Skovholt, Hanson, and
Baneijess-Stevens, 2003; Shaw and Dobson, 1988; Wheeler, 2000). Thus evaluative
assessments o f counselor competencies have started to incorporate a more comprehensive scope
to account for the professional dispositions of counselors, despite a lack of consensus on what
those specific dispositions actually are (Eriksen and McAuliffe, 2003; Swank et al., 2012).
Evaluation of clinical dispositions can be traced back to the beginnings of psychotherapy,
with Freudian psychoanalytic supervisors assessing future analysts on their ability to free
associate, uncover blind spots in their sub conscious processes, and more of a dispositional trait,
the general openness o f self exploration (Hess, 2011). Before Freud’s time, Lightner Witmer
(1907/1996), touted as the father o f clinical psychology, wrote of the responsibility of
supervisors making sure students had sufficient training to live up to the multiple tasks of
working with patients. Based on psychotherapy’s roots in medicine, evaluation of students
followed traditional medical practices in assessing supervisees’ ability to demonstrate effective
clinical practices and knowledge.
Whether these evaluations were grounded in Freud’s Psychoanalytic practices o f the
1920s, Rogers’ core conditions o f the 1940s, or the more recent microskills training approach
grounded in counseling techniques independent o f theory; the process o f evaluation has typically
required the supervisor to differentiate the supervisees’ capacity to work effectively with clients
through a reduction o f the counseling session into moment-to-moment demonstrations of
techniques and knowledge (Eriksen and McAuliffe, 2003; Young, 1998). Differing theorist
backgrounds held different beliefs in what constituted a competent clinician, and it is possible
that these differences account for the challenges of reaching a consensus on the competencies
deemed necessary for effective practice. Currently, the counseling profession continues to rely
more on the intuitive professional judgment of supervisors to evaluate their supervisees, than on
standard criteria established by the profession (Bernard and Goodyear, 2009).
The change in evaluative practices to include more of the professional dispositions can be
attributed to several developments, one of which was the movement of professionals away from
“purist” theorist practices toward embracing a more integrative/eclectic approach (Lazarus and
Beutler, 1993). This allowed for assessment criteria to be more generalized and less rooted in a
readily defined theoretical framework (Ivey, 1971; Truax and Carkhuff, 1967). This change
towards a more integrative/eclectic practice, in conjunction with both a movement in the late
1980s to control for clinician impairment and studies finding that personal characteristics of
counselors are more predictive o f positive client outcomes prompted a shift in attention from
clinical skills alone toward supervisees’ professional dispositions (Forrest, Elman, Gizara, and
Vacha-Haase, 1999; Lamb, Presser, Baum, et al., 1987; Lambert, 1989).
The counseling profession’s adoption of the “personal development” and evaluation of
“personal limitations” o f students has become a standard in the counseling profession as
reflected by the ACA Code of Ethics and the CACREP standards for graduate programs
(CACREP, 2009; Standard I.P; ACA Code o f Ethics, 2014; Section C.2.g). The ACA Ethical
Codes and CACREP Standards require that graduate programs and faculty identify counselor
professional dispositions and hold students accountable, inasmuch as failure to do so would
entail acting incongruently with a profession that prizes upholding its ethical obligations
(Henderson and Dufrene, 2012; Rust, et al., 2013; Swank, et al., 2012). Another factor
influencing changes in clinical evaluation practices is a more macro influence in Western society
toward becoming increasingly litigious (Bernard and Goodyear, 2009). This movement has
influenced attention to due process standards in evaluation as well as a strong push for graduate
programs to incorporate standardized evaluation criteria ascribe to best practices in evaluative
standards, including a call o f standardization o f criteria (Rust, et al., 2013).
Counseling Remediation Practices and Proposed Criterion o f Professional Dispositions
Frame and Stevens-Smith (1995) were one of the first researchers to evaluate students’
professional dispositions by describing the importance of the interpersonal and intrapersonal
characteristics, considered the “essential function” o f the competent clinician (pg 124).
Following an extensive review of the literature, the authors identified nine essential professional
dispositions for therapists including; being open, flexible, positive, the ability to cooperate with
others, willingness to use and accept feedback, awareness o f one's own impact on others, ability
to deal with conflict, ability to accept personal responsibility, and the ability to effectively
express feelings. These nine dispositions were incorporated into the Personal Characteristics
Evaluation Form (PCEF) that scored each disposition along a 5-point Likert scale. To provide
evidence o f due process for litigious accountability, students entering the authors’ counseling
program were introduced to both the student retention policy and the PCEF, with emphasis on
the possibility o f remediation plans of students, should a faculty member deem it necessary.
Though the Frame and Stevens-Smith model is credited as the best known model of its
time for assessing professional dispositions (McAdams and Foster, 2007), no empirical tests
were done to test the validity o f the nine dispositions (Eriksen and McAuliffe, 2003), and
subsequent refinements by other authors have replaced certain dispositions and eliminated others
entirely (McAdams et al., 2007). Evaluation of the PCEF model has been limited to evaluations
and surveys o f students and faculty in its authors’ program, with no controls for bias or
implementation of a comparison group. Nonetheless, the PCEF was the first evaluation that
centered solely on professional dispositions and despite the limitations o f its development, the
introduction o f the PCEF and a remediation policy to address deficient dispositions were
instrumental in furthering the discussion on professional dispositions evaluation.
Baldo, Softas-Nall, and Shaw (1997) offered an alternative evaluation framework policy,
positing that Frame and Stevens-Smith’s policy placed too much risk on individual faculty and
offered another standard of evaluation which is commonly seen in practice today. This included
having a retention committee made up of several faculty members charged with constructing and
overseeing both evaluation and remediation, as opposed to having those responsibilities rest with
a single faculty member. This policy evaluated six different professional disposition criteria in
students including: empathic capacity, maturity o f judgment, ability to work closely with others,
capacity to handle stress, and tolerance fo r deviance.
While offering a very detailed remediation policy for other graduate programs to emulate,
Baldo et al., did not provide any justification for the professional dispositions listed as evaluation
criteria, and they did not conduct any empirical testing o f their validity and reliability (Eriksen
and McAuliffe, 2003). Its effectiveness was assessed only through the support it gained at the
authors’ university, after being successfully upheld in two court cases. It is also unfortunate to
note the lack o f overlap between the proposed criteria of Baldo et al., with that of the PCEF, as
the additional criteria furthered the gap in determining a consensus of professional dispositions.
In 1999 Lumadue and Duffey introduced another professional competency evaluation
known as the Professional Performance Fitness Evaluation (PPFE). The authors stressed the
importance o f standardization in evaluating students in areas outside of academic abilities to
more effectively gatekeep students lacking the personal qualities needed of effective counselors.
In addition to suggesting having programs utilize a faculty review committee to handle
remediation, the authors felt that evaluative measure should be comprehensive in measuring both
students’ professional Competencies and dispositions. The PPFE model came from suggestions
made by the Texas Association of Counselor Educators and followed the competencies listed in
the ACA Code of Ethics, with criterion including; counseling skills and abilities, professional
responsibility, competence, maturity, and integrity.
The PPFE was the first instrument to provide a 4-point Likert-scale that let faculty
differentiate the degree to which they observe students fulfilling the evaluative criteria. The four
points included; N-no opportunity to observe, O-does not meet criteria for program level, 1-
meets criteria only minimally, and 2-meets criteria consistently at the program level. For
students who scored below criteria, then a detailed remediation process would begin that was in
congruence with the ACA Code of Ethics and Due Process mandates. However, the authors note
that the criteria o f the PPFE were not empirically tested and that further investigation would be
needed to establish the relationship with its criteria to student competency and the possible
impacts on program development and student remediation.
Building off the works o f Lumadue and Duffey (1999), Kerl, Garcia, McCullough and
Maxwell (2002) introduced the Professional Counseling Performance Evaluation (PCPE) which
is commonly found in use today among counseling programs. The PCPE came from the same
institution o f Lumadue and Duffey and like the PPFE, evaluated both students’ dispositions and
clinical competencies along basic communication skills, anger control, empathy, maturity,
professional demeanor, and conflict resolution. Unlike previous assessments, the PCPE provides
working definitions o f acceptable behaviors expected of students and provides transparency
around evaluation and protection against due process concerns.
Like Lumadue and Duffey’s policy, the authors o f the PCPE used the ACA Code of
Ethics as well as the ethical standards specific to Texas state law as a foundation for developing
the professional dispositions criteria. However, as had been the trend around professional
dispositions evaluation, no empirical testing was conducted to test the validity of the criteria
(Eriksen and McAuliffe, 2003). The authors’ demonstration of the model’s effectiveness was
solely based on the PCPE and remediation policy having been successfully upheld in court and
although successful court resolution currently serves as the main indicator of effectiveness of
evaluations and remediation policies o f graduate programs (McAdams and Foster, 2007), this
indicator is limited. Effective remediation policies need to identify optimal remediation
practices such as intensity and frequency of remediation specific supervision, whether sufficient
opportunity was provided to students to correct problematic behaviors, and establishing clear
indicators that indicate whether remediation was successful, none of which is provided (Kaslow,
et al., 2007; Rust, et al., 2013). While the PCPE has had great impact on the counseling
profession as a useful evaluation tool, it is unfortunate that it added additional criteria, furthering
the lack o f consensus of professional dispositions. It is even more unfortunate that it shared
relatively little in criterion with Lumadue and Duffey’s PPFE, from which it was based on,
demonstrating either a lack o f importance placed on establishing consensus, or a greater
challenge in identifying professional dispositions.
Recognizing the need for evaluative instruments that demonstrate both validity and
reliability, Eriksen and McAuliffe (2003), developed the Counseling Skills Scale (CSS). Unlike
most of the previous rubrics offered in the literature, the CSS attempted to serve as a more
comprehensive assessment o f counselor competence, by addressing both verbal and non-verbal
clinical competencies. Eriksen and McAuliffe used the Skilled Counseling Scale (Urbani, Smith,
Madux, et al., 2002), as a framework to develop the CSS, reporting that the measure had
demonstrated promise, but had several limitations in its construction as well as weak validity
findings. The finalized CSS consisted of 22 different behaviors and traits that fell into six sub
categories; shows interest and appreciation, encourages exploration, deepens the session,
encourages change, develops therapeutic relationship, and manages the session.
The authors’ efforts to test the validity and reliability were a true strength of the
development o f the CSS. Inter-rater reliability of two independent raters was .90 and pre and
post-course evaluations demonstrated a total effect size of .80. However, the sample size was
small (n=29) and though there was a strong internal consistency, both the raters and participants
were from the same university, providing minimal opportunity to control for bias. The authors
concluded that the CSS demonstrated satisfactory face and construct validity; however, the item
analysis resulted in over half the items correlating with other subscales. Additionally, the final
instrument only accounted for professional dispositions on one subscale, develops therapeutic
relationship, raising strong concerns about the CSS’s validity as a comprehensive measure of
professional dispositions (Swank, et al., 2012). Despite this limitation, the CSS is one of the first
evaluative instruments within the counseling profession that went beyond evaluating microskills
o f counseling students, to include the professional dispositions o f counselors.
Sometimes referred to as the William and Mary Model, McAdams, Foster, and Ward
(2007) developed a more comprehensive evaluation rubric based off the works of Frame and
Stevens-Smith (1995). Their Professional Performance Review Policy (PPRP) outlined 10
professional dispositions that students are evaluated on, which include; openness to new ideas,
flexibility, cooperativeness with others, willingness to use and accept feedback, awareness o f
impact on others, ability to deal with conflict, ability to accept personal responsibility, ability to
express feelings effectively and appropriately, attention to ethical and legal considerations, and
initiative and motivation. These 10 criteria are similar to the ones proposed by the PCEF but
differ in the inclusion o f ethical considerations and initiative and motivation criteria and
elimination o f a positive attitude criterion. In addition, the PPRP offers clear behavior indicators
that differentiate students’ professional performance along a Likert-scale scheme, in an effort to
control for potential subjective bias of evaluators.
To date, the PPRP is one of the most comprehensive measures in assessing for
professional dispositions and used in numerous counseling programs as a standard of evaluation.
Despite this, its main limitation is the lack of empirical validation of its criteria (Swank, et al.,
2012) and the lack o f justification given for the addition and removal of the PCEF criteria.
Another limitation can be seen in the counseling professions’ recent emphasis on developing
culturally competent counselors and whether the PPRP adequately accounts in assessing for
multiculturalism, a competency more understood as a disposition, that is collectively agreed
upon as being crucial in the evaluation of students (Ancis and Marshall, 2010; Bemak, Epp, and
Keys, 1999; Forrest et al., 1999; Kaslow et al., 2007; Rodolfa et al., 2005; Sue, 2010; Swank, et
al., 2012). Specifically, the PPRP accounts for diversity under its ethical and legal
considerations category, which may not be emphasized enough as gauged by the current writings
o f the counseling profession. This is evidenced with more recent models of competence
development and evaluations having diversity and multiculturalism as a distinct component apart
from ethical considerations (Fouad et al., 2009; Rodolfa et al., 2005; Swank, et al., 2012).
The most recent evaluative measure reported in the literature is the Counseling
Competencies Scale (CSS) from Swank, Lambie, and Witta (2012). The authors attempted to
make the CCS as comprehensive as possible, citing a strong need for the counseling profession
to have a comprehensive, standardized measure in place that demonstrates empirical validity in
the measurement o f counseling skills, professional dispositions, and professional behaviors. The
CCS consists of 32 items that organize into five scales that include; professional behaviors,
counseling relationship, counseling skills, assessment and application, and professional
dispositions. The two scales that are most relevant to professional dispositions are the
counseling relationship and, not surprisingly, the professional dispositions scales. Together they
assess the following 10 indicators o f professional behavior: professional ethics, professionalism,
self-awareness and self-understanding, emotional stability and self-control, motivated to learn
and grow/initiative, multicultural competence, openness to feedback, professional and personal
boundaries, flexibility and adaptability, and congruence and genuineness.
The efforts o f Swank et al., are noteworthy for several reasons. The CCS demonstrated
strong psychometric support, with the five scales having strong factor loadings (ranging between
.97 to .52, the mode being .71), with Eigen values greater than 1.0 and a Cronbach’s alpha of
.933 for the total instrument. In addition, the authors implemented a complex research design,
putting in place controls for potential bias, such as using the CSS in more than one program,
having a moderate sample size (n = 166), and having multiple evaluators (n = 16). Although the
CSS demonstrated a low correlation with final grades of students in a practicum course (.407,
17% of the variance), the authors indicate that the lack of variation of grades within counseling
and the inability to account for a portion of the sample due to a program grading on a pass/fail
scale, as potential reasons for the low relationship. Additionally, there were low reports of inter
rater reliability (a total o f .570), but unlike other studies that attempted to provide empirical
validation to counseling evaluative instruments (Elliott, 1979; Hill, 1978; as reported by Swank et
al., 2012; Eriksen and McAuliffe, 2003), the present study used evaluations of students working
with real clients and included the assessment o f professional dispositions.

The sophisticated research design and strong factor loadings of the Swank et al. (2012)
study lend optimism in the counseling profession finally meeting the challenge o f standardizing
an evaluative assessment. However, the instrument also has some limitations. For one, the
development o f the CCS was the result of a single programs’ efforts, and as in the case of
previous studies, the CCS evaluative criterion were program-specific and not necessarily
grounded in a consensus o f the counseling profession. Several authors have suggested that
consensus is considered requisite in providing the foundation necessary for empiricism to be
established and is needed to ensure ethical evaluation of students (Hensley, Smith, and
Thompson, 2003; Rust, et al., 2013; Spurgeon, Gibbons, and Cochran, 2012;). Also limiting was
the fact that while the CCS shared some overlap with the professional dispositions of the PPRP,
there was also significant variation, with little justification given by the authors to account for
this difference. While the CCS authors’ claimed an extensive review of the literature as
justification for including the criteria of the CSS, they provided little information about the
specifics o f their review, thus raising question as to its usefulness as a basis for grounding their
criterion selection.
Finally, Swank et al. (2012) may inaccurately assume the need for a comprehensive
assessment that encompasses both the professional skill sets with professional dispositions
criteria, by overlooking important differences between those two sets of criteria. Other
competency assessment models have differentiated between the two areas o f competency,
considering professional dispositions to be foundational to the acquisition of the professional
skill sets required o f the profession (Rodolfa et al., 2005; Kaslow et al., 2007; Fouad et al.,
2009). This raises doubt as to whether it is appropriate to evaluate professional dispositions
concurrent with professional skills evaluation. Also, with supervisees experiencing anxiety
around evaluation (Bernard and Goodyear, 2009; Foster and McAdams, 2009) it may be
disadvantageous to include the more sensitive area of professional dispositions in an evaluation
form that is paired with counseling skills competencies, a criterion often used in determination of
student grade.
In summary, this review of the counseling literature concerning outcome evaluation has
revealed two important findings: (a) there is a wide assortment of models for evaluating students’
professional dispositions and (b) there is considerable variation in the specific criteria used for
these evaluations (Appendix A, Table 1). Empirical validation o f evaluation measurements
remains a need (Swank et al., 2012) and justification of the criteria used in evaluation, through
consensus from the profession is a requisite for standardization (Forrest et al., 1999; Hensley et
al., 2003; Kaslow 2004; Kaslow et al., 2007; Ruben, Bebeau, Leigh, et al., 2007; Rust et al.,
2013). Psychology has reached a consensus of measuring competence for psychologists in
training, including professional dispositions, and what follows is a brief review of the model of
competence that has been proposed by that field.
The Cube M odel
Psychology has been very active in its “Competency Movement,” so much so, that the
initiative has been referred to as a “national Zeitgeist” in offering definitions and strategies to aid
in assessing competence (Ruben et al., 2007, pg. 453). In 2002, a major thrust in the movement
came from the Competencies Conference: Future Directions in Education and Credentialing
(Kaslow, 2004). An influential result of this conference was the development of the Cube
model. This model captured the intersection o f the foundational and functional competencies of
psychologists that took into account the developmental stages of training (Rodolfa et al., 2005).
The original model was further operationalized with the development o f the Benchmarks
Document in 2009 from the works o f Fouad et al., (2009). The authors o f the Benchmarks
Document served as a task force from the Assessment of Competency Benchmarks Workgroup
and provided definitions of each competency of the Cube Model and set behavioral anchors in
the forms of knowledge, skills and attitudes expected o f trainees from three stages o f training;
practicum, internship, and entry into practice.
The original version of the Cube model proposed 12 core competencies conceptualized as
either foundational or functional competencies and arranged along stages of professional
development (Rodolfa et al., 2005). The foundational competencies make up the x-axis of the
model and are considered the “building blocks” o f what psychologists do; they comprise the
knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that underlie the day-to-day activities of psychologists.
The specific domains o f competency represented in this area were; reflective practice and se lf
assessment, scientific knowledge and methods, relationships, ethical and legal standards,
individual and cultural diversity and interdisciplinary systems. The domain of professionalism
was added by Fouad and colleagues in 2009. These domains o f foundational competency
provide the groundwork for psychologists to acquire functional competencies. They are thought
to be primarily taught and reinforced in graduate training and during internship, and they are
expected to be continually expanded on by professionals, even after graduate training (Madan-
Swain, Hankines, Gilliam, et al., 2012; Rodolfa et al., 2005).
The functional competencies, located on the y-axis, encompass the major roles that
psychologists are expected to perform on a day-to-day basis. These domains of competency
include; assessment, intervention, consultation, research and evaluation, supervision, teaching,
administration and advocacy (Fouad et al., 2009; Rodolfa et al., 2005). Each of these functional
competencies requires an application o f the foundational competencies, and overall, the Cube
model assumes that the foundational and functional competencies are interrelated. The z-axis of
the Cube model reflects the stages o f professional development of psychologists, and includes
the stages of graduate training, internship, postdoctoral experiences and entry into practice.
In total, the Cube model currently encompasses 15 separate domains o f competencies
and dispositions and is considered the standard in outlining the areas of competency from which
psychologists in all stages of professional development are evaluated (Fouad et al., 2009; Kaslow
et al., 2006; Kaslow et al., 2007; Ruben et al., 2007; McCutcheon, 2009). Despite general
agreement on the competencies proposed by the Cube model, it is not inclusive of all specialty
areas in psychology, although it is considered an acceptable framework from which to develop
other competency models. For example, using the competencies outlined from the Cube model
and Benchmarks document, the areas of clinical health psychology (France, Masters, Belar, et
al., 2008) and geropsychology (Borrayo, 2006), have developed competency models that
incorporate other competency domains unique to their specialty.
Despite the major contributions of the Cube model and the extensive work of Fouad et al.
(2009) in establishing behavioral markers of trainees along the three developmental levels, it
should be emphasized that these benchmarks were set without any empirical validation (DeMers,
2009; McCutcheon, 2009), or any suggestions by the authors as to how the model could be
tested. In addition, closer scrutiny reveals that some of the competencies such as “teaching” and
“advocacy” may have limited applicability for licensing bodies (DeMers, 2009).
The Cube model and Benchmarks Document have sufficiently delimited the range of
criterion and attitudes that characterize the ethics and values of the psychology profession
(Hatcher, 2011). Although some o f the descriptions offered by the Benchmarks document are
relevant to the counseling profession,(e.g., the foundational competencies resemble the

professional dispositions valued in counseling), there are also limitations to the model as a
whole, given that only two competency areas in the functional domain (assessment and
intervention) relate directly to counseling (Hatcher, 2011; Ridley et al., 2011). In addition, many
studies have illustrated the importance of cognitive complexity in determining counseling
competence (Byars-Winston and Fouad, 2006; Fauth, Gates, Vinca, Boles, and Hayes, 2007;
Skovholt and Ronnestad, 2003) and the Cube model and Benchmarks document do not
incorporate cognitive complexity in performance assessment.
Despite these limitations, the works of Rodolfa et al,. (2005) and Fouad et al., (2009)
have been very influential in the field, with both articles having over 370 citations among them.
In addition, both the Cube model and Benchmarks Document have currently served as the basis
for several models o f competency, all within specific branches of psychology, with the specific
criterion found under the foundational and functional domains commonly seen in these models
(Madan-Swain et al., 2012; Nash and Larkin, 2012). Though there is an absence of empirical
assessments based off these works, several authors both within the psychology and counseling
fields, have stressed the importance of establishing a consensus among competency criteria
before such assessments could be made (Forrest et al., 1999; Hensley et al., 2003; Kaslow 2004;
Kaslow et al., 2007; Ruben et al., 2007; Rust et al., 2013). Both the Cube Model and
Benchmarks Document have wide agreed upon consensus among competencies, including
professional dispositions. With the common overlap between the fields of psychology and
counseling, the Cube Model and Benchmarks document are important frameworks to consider
with the questions of the current study, inasmuch as it hopes to answer the question of the most
assessed professional dispositions within counseling, with the hopes of establishing a greater
consensus in this area.

Proposed A pproach
The purpose of the proposed study is to establish a foundation for forming a consensus on
the current professional dispositions that used to evaluate counseling students. By conducting a
content analysis of student retention policies currently in use among CACREP accredited
counseling programs, the results can provide insights into what the most commonly evaluated
dispositions are within the profession. Content analysis offers a snapshot of “what is” and is an
“approach of empirical, methodological controlled analysis of texts within their context of
communication, following content analytic rules and step by step models, without rash
quantification” (Mayring, 2000, p. 2). As the units o f analysis will be comprised solely of
textual documents (student retention policies) describing professional disposition assessment
practices, content analysis is best suited for the task, as it is considered a good research
methodology for analyzing written forms o f communication (Krippendorff, 2013).
According to Holsti (1969), content analysis in the social sciences is commonly used to
make inferences and describe the antecedents, characteristics and effects of a communication
medium. Content analysis can also be used to make inferences about relationships between
content and intent, in that the quantitative description of communication content can demonstrate
a meaningful relationship with the themes and trends that are drawn from that content (Berelson,
1971). In accordance with Berelson’s conceptualization, an analysis of the student retention
policies in CACREP accredited counseling programs could help establish consensus by revealing
the themes of professional dispositions that multiple counseling programs deem necessary for
effective performance among counseling students.
Content analysis can vary in the process of how raw data is condensed into categories or
themes with the main influence o f variation being how inductive or deductive the reasoning is.
Inductive reasoning relies on the researcher’s careful examination of the content and draws the
themes solely from the data, whereas deductive reasoning is guided by a pre-existing theory in
the coding o f content and is often used to validate or extend an existing conceptual framework
(Zhang and Wildemuth, 2009). The process used in this study will be a summative content
analysis, a type o f descriptive content analysis, which utilizes both inductive and deductive
reasoning. This form o f analysis is more quantitative in the early stages, via counting word
frequencies and manifest content, then extends to explore the latent meanings or themes of the
words coded. The goal o f summative content analysis is to explore the usage o f words in an
inductive manner. In addition, this form of methodology uses both quantitative and qualitative
methods, which demonstrates stronger content-analytic studies in terms of reliability and validity
(Weber, 1990).
O f particular interest are the foundational competencies of the Cube model, since they
appear to relate most to the professional dispositions under question in the current study.
Though the Cube model was intended as a conceptual guide for doctoral level psychologists, the
professional dispositions needed o f professional psychologists arguably overlaps with that of
counselors. Comparing the foundational competencies with the themes drawn from the content
analysis could provide interesting findings in how the two professions, grounded in working and
helping others, are different and alike in the professional dispositions deemed necessary for
practice.
Conclusion
Competency evaluation is an evolving process and as the counseling profession responds
to new challenges, so too must evaluation practices shift in accordance. Counselor educators
have a responsibility to ensure that counseling trainees receive adequate training to work with
clients, and evaluation is one means to ensure this. Currently, a challenge facing the counseling
profession is forming a consensus on the professional dispositions deemed necessary of its
students. Before empirical measures and standardization of practices be established, a consensus
is needed around the criteria expected of students (Rust, et al., 2013; Swank, et al., 2012). This
study is intended to facilitate the development of consensus by examining and defining
commonalities among the professional dispositions that are currently being used to evaluate
student professional performance in the nation’s CACREP accredited counseling programs.

C h ap ter 3
M ethod
The purpose o f this study is to draw inferences about the professional dispositions of
counseling students through a content analysis of the student retention policies, evaluations and
rubrics o f counseling programs that hold the Council for Accreditation o f Counseling and
Related Educational Programs (CACREP) accreditation. Content analysis is defined as the
“systematic, replicable technique for compressing many words of text into fewer content
categories based on explicit rules of coding” (Stemler, 2001, p. 1). It has been used in the social
sciences to make inferences from numerous communication media, such as visual images,
auditory sound bytes, songs, commercials, and written documents (Krippendorf, 2013;
Neuendorf, 2002). This chapter will outline the research design of the inductive content analysis
used in the study, including; defining inclusive criteria for the units of analysis, sampling,
coding, the detailed steps o f the analysis, measures used to establish reliability and validity o f the
coding and inferences made from the analysis.
The research question investigated in the study:
1. What are the professional dispositions that are most prevalent in student retention
policies and evaluations o f master’s level counseling students?
Research Design
According to Stemler (2001) the steps o f content analysis include;
1. Defining the variables to be researched (units)
2. Selecting the population from which texts are drawn (sample)
3. Developing a plan for analysis
4. Coding the textual material

5. Analyzing the data
Units
In content analysis a unit is defined as, “an identifiable message or message component
which serves as the basis for identifying the population and drawing a sample on which variables
are measured and serve as the basis for reporting analyses” (Carney, 1971, p. 52). Units can be
words, characters, themes, time periods, interactions, or any other result of “breaking up a
‘communication’ into bits” (Carney, 1971, p. 52). According to Krippendorf (2013), there are
five different ways that units are identified; physical, syntactical, categorical, propositional, and
thematic. The units o f this study will be identified using categorical distinctions, in that the units
will be defined “by their membership in a class or category and/or by their having something in
common” (Krippendorf, 2013, p. 106).
The units o f research for this study include student retention policies of CACREP
accredited master’s level counseling programs, and dispositional rubrics or evaluations
referenced within the policy as being a part of the student retention process. All three units are
part o f a system designed to evaluate and differentiate student fit for the counseling profession.
When defining units to be selected for the study it is important to set inclusive criteria to
maintain consistency in the documents selected (Krippendorf, 2013). Student Retention Policies
were commonly found in counseling student handbooks and to control for extraneous content
being coded within the handbooks, the inclusion criteria for the units o f analysis in the current
study included;
1. Sections within counseling student handbooks headed as “Student Retention Policy”
or similar wordings were to be included. Similar wordings include; procedures,
standards, remediation, process, and evaluation. Some examples of headings used

from other programs that were included in the study were; “Student Evaluation
Procedure,” “Student Retention Process,” etc.
2. If a suspected section of the handbook did not contain a similarly worded heading,
but included within the paragraph content at least two areas of; student evaluation, the
importance of faculty assessing personality or personal and/or professional
dispositions, protecting client welfare, protecting the counseling profession, the
importance of faculty upholding the AC A Code of Ethics, and gatekeeping, then the
section o f content was included for analysis.
3. If a section did not contain the specific worded headings, or mention the inclusive
content criteria, and the section was still suspected to be a student retention policy,
then the section was flagged. Attempts were made to contact faculty of that program
for clarification and an expert, chosen prior to the investigation, was consulted to
decide if the section was intended to be a student retention policy. If either attempt
confirmed that section was a student retention policy, then it was included in the
analysis.
4. If a policy referenced a disposition rubric used for student retention and remediation,
then it was included in the analysis. If a policy referenced student retention requiring
successful evaluations of supervisor rubrics o f practicum and internship, then
referenced evaluations were included in the analysis. If rubrics or evaluations were
not available, then attempts were made to contact faculty from the respective program
to gain access to specific document. If the document was not available, then only
dispositions listed within the student retention policy were included for analysis.
Student Retention Policies were commonly found in counseling student handbooks.
Programs that made student retention policies available on program websites that met inclusion
criteria, were copied and pasted on a Word document to be included in analysis.
Sample
The sample included all CACREP accredited counseling master’s programs listed on the
CACREP website. At the time o f the investigation, there were 274 CACREP accredited
institutions listed, with some o f those institutions having multiple counseling programs and
counseling tracks. Because most units were readily available within program websites and to
better answer the research question, all programs were included in the investigation, making the
study a census content analysis (Neuendorf, 2002). The method for gathering the census of data
included a five step process designed to be an exhaustive attempt to maximize the potential for
gathering the units o f analysis. A brief summary of the steps are included in table 2 of Appendix
A. By the end o f the process, 224 programs were included in the study (approximately 82% of
the programs listed on the CACREP website).
The first step included navigating each counseling program website and acquiring the
most recent version o f the counseling student handbook. At the conclusion of this step, 199
programs had policies that met inclusion criteria and were included in the study.
The second step included contacting remaining programs that did not offer a student
handbook from their respective website, or did not list the policy online. Faculty listed on the
CACREP website as liaisons were sent emails from the primary investigator. The email detailed
the nature o f the study and offered informed consent (Appendix B). In total 75 emails were sent
and 15 were heard back from, with 12 o f those sending copies o f student handbooks or student
retention policies that met inclusion criteria. At the conclusion of this step, 211 programs were
included in the study.
The third step included sending a second, condensed email to the remaining programs.
This email was sent two weeks after the first email and if previous responses from faculty
referred another faculty member who they felt to be more appropriate for acquiring student
retention policies, then the second email was sent to them (Appendix C). In total, 60 emails were
sent and there were five responses. Two faculty sent student retention policies, but only one met
inclusion criteria. At the conclusion of this step, 212 programs were included in the study.
The fourth step included contacting specific faculty and program chairs by phone. In
total, 58 phone calls were made and the primary investigator spoke with 9 individuals and left
voice messages on the rest. A total of five student retention policies were received, but only
three met inclusion criteria and at the conclusion of this step, 215 programs were included in the
study.
The fifth step included a second round o f phone calls to the remaining programs. In total,
53 phone calls were made and o f those, the primary investigator spoke with 16 individuals and
left voice messages for the rest. Several faculty members made referrals to an updated website
and others sent student retention policies via email. A total of 9 programs were collected, six
from program websites and three from emails. By the conclusion o f this step, 224 programs
were included in the study.
O f the 224 graduate institutions sampled, counseling programs were from public and
private institutions, traditional and faith based programs, and varied in the number and type of
counseling tracks offered. The different counseling tracks in which student retention policies,
disposition rubrics and evaluations covered were; school counseling, clinical mental health
counseling, marriage and family, addictions counseling, vocational counseling and rehabilitation
counseling.
Student retention policies o f specific graduate programs were usually inclusive of all
counseling tracks, however some programs utilized different evaluative criteria for specific
counseling tracks and to control for misrepresentation of frequency counts, all relevant policies
and evaluations were included, though evaluative criteria listed more than once within the same
institution were only coded once. Policies that did not differentiate between master’s level and
doctoral level students were still included for analysis, though policies intended solely for
doctoral level students were not included in the study.
To ensure that inclusion and exclusion of specific units of analysis aligned with best
methodological practices, an expert in student retention served as a “peer debriefer” and was
consulted for each questionable student retention policy, evaluation or rubric. For the purpose of
this study, the peer debriefer was selected based off having ten or more years as a PhD level
counselor and supervisor, being an involved faculty in student retention and remediation
processes and o f having been published in the area o f remediation policies and disposition
rubrics.
Plan, Coding and Analysis
A major assumption o f content analysis is that words that are mentioned most often are
the words that reflect the greatest concern (Stemler, 2001). This relates with this study’s purpose
in identifying the professional dispositions that are most often cited as criteria in evaluating
master’s level students, as the greater the frequency implies the greater amount of importance or
concern to the value o f that criteria. This assumption does not hold for all forms o f content
analysis, but holds more validity for textual documents, if one accounts for the limitations of
synonyms and multiple meanings o f words (Krippendorf, 2013; Stemler, 2001; Weber, 1990).
Strategies for addressing these limitations include; being mindful of synonyms when
categorizing word frequencies in that words with similar meanings get grouped together
(Stemler, 2001) and taking into account the context of how the word is used, as some words
have multiple meanings and may not group equally in certain categories (Weber, 1990). The
plan o f analysis has two distinct phases: (a) establishing word frequency counts, and (b)
categorizing frequencies into shared themes, taking into account synonyms and the context of the
words used.
W ord Counts. The word frequency counts are the summation o f the words that get
coded in the analysis. The main researcher coded all units of analysis independently, with an
additional coder reviewing each coded disposition and retention policy to provide a reliability
check. The additional coder is a licensed professional counselor and supervisor, trained in both
quantitative and qualitative research methodologies and given specific training in content
analysis methodologies by the main researcher.
The analysis of this study followed an emergent process outlined by Stemler (2001) and
Hendersen and Dufrene (2012) and included reviewing each unit of analysis of a graduate
program and coding any word or phrase connected to professional dispositions or interpersonal
traits. The data software nVivo was used to help keep track o f words coded. All units of
analysis (counseling student handbooks, or student retention policies copied from program
websites and pasted onto Microsoft Word documents) were uploaded into the nVivo program
and used in the coding process. Each time a word or specific disposition was coded, the nVivo
software would save the code into a distinct group, referred to as a “node.” Each disposition
reviewed in student retention policies were either coded into a separate node, or into a pre
existing node if the same ordering o f words, or similar content were used. Through use of the
software, each node would report the word frequency count via number of sources coded from,
and the software allowed for easy reference, in going back to the specific policy to review
content. The primary investigator coded each policy and the additional coder would then review
each node and respective retention policy, for the words and dispositions coded and provide a
reliability check.
Each disposition listed as criteria for evaluation would be counted only once per policy,
evaluation and rubric, per program. Therefore if the same disposition was listed in a policy, then
listed again in an evaluation or rubric that was referenced in the policy, that specific disposition
was only counted once for that program.
The goal o f coding is to determine the frequency of overall professional dispositions
evaluated on in CACREP accredited programs. To ensure coding reliability, all policies were
reviewed by the main researcher and the additional coder. In addition, the peer debriefer was
consulted as needed, and offered oversight to the validity and process o f the dispositions coded.
Following the procedures o f Henderson and Dufrene (2012), meetings would be held to compare
results o f the researcher’s and colleagues’ codebooks and to make revisions to the codebook until
agreement was reached. In case a disagreement between primary investigator and additional
coder were to take place, the peer debriefer would take an active role in facilitating the dialogue,
until an agreement was reached.
C ategorization. Categorizing frequencies is the process that provides meaning and
richness to content analysis (Stemler, 2001). The basics o f categorizing include the grouping of
words into a category which is “a group of words with similar meaning or connotations” (Weber,
1990, p. 37), and ensuring that categories are mutually “exclusive” and “exhaustive” (General
Accounting Office, 1996, p. 12). This means that categories should be exhaustive in that all
relevant dispositions being studied can be placed within the same category and exclusive so that
no item can be coded into more than one category.
The beginning process o f categorization includes reviewing each disposition coded and
analyzing it for patterns and interrelationships with other dispositions. An inductive process,
each word and phrase is analyzed in how and what the authors specifically intended to measure.
Potential nuances between word phrases are evaluated, and those that share similar themes, such
as, attention to ethical practices vs. ethical sensitivity, are closely assessed on whether both
should be a separate disposition, or whether one could potentially subsume the other. The main
objective o f content analysis is to translate the coded data and organize it into a format that is
useful and understandable.
Because categorization is largely an inferential process and due to the wide range of
criteria o f words and word phrases that may account for the same dispositions; the peer debriefer
provided an active role in this process. This provided a reliability and validity check by ensuring
the inferences used in assigning items to categories were sound and that methods used were
congruent with best methodological practices in content analysis. Specifically, once categories
were as mutually exclusive and exhaustive as possible, and all coded dispositions accounted for,
the peer debriefer received the list o f categories and independently reviewed how each category
was formed. A series o f meetings were conducted to compare results from the peer debriefer, the
main researcher and the additional coder, and necessary revisions were made until a consensus
was reached between all three members. Analysis of the data was complete once agreement was
reached on each category.

Reliability and Validity Checks
According to Krippendorff (2013; p. 267), there are three types o f reliability that are
pertinent to content analysis; stability, replicability, and accuracy. Stability refers to the process
o f coding being unchanging over time and yielding the same results on repeated trials. This is
established through test-retest conditions in that the analysis o f a unit by a researcher, is then re
analyzed by that same researcher, usually after some time has elapsed. Stability is the weakest
form o f reliability and alone, is not sufficient for establishing data as reliable. Replicability is the
degree to which results can be reproduced by different analysts. Usually referred to as intercoder
reliability, this form o f reliability is established through test-test conditions where multiple
coders analyze the same unit, then compare results. Differences in results are usually due to
ambiguous coding instructions, differences in ability, or random recording errors. High
replicability is considered a minimum standard for content analysis, due to this type of reliability
demonstrating a shared understanding o f meaning, held by two different coders (Weber, 1990).
This study demonstrates replicability reliability by comparing the results of the analysis between
two independent coders that accounted for all codes within their respective units o f analysis.
Accuracy refers to the extent that results of analysis correspond to an established standard
or norm. To determine accuracy, a test-standard condition must be run and differences in results
are usually from inherent differences in analysts or in deviations from a given standard of
practice. The strongest form o f reliability, it is rarely tested by researchers due to standardization
o f practices infrequently established for texts. As no standards of coding exist around student
remediation policies, this study was unable to test for accuracy.
A contrast to reliability, validity is concerned with truth in that the claims that emerge
from the research, demonstrate fact (Krippendorf, 2013). The most common type o f validity
found in content analysis, is also the weakest; face validity consists of the understanding of the
researcher’s definitions of concepts corresponding with those of the categories that get coded
(Weber, 1990). A category has face validity to the extent that it holds “face value” in appearing
to measure the construct it intends to measure. The resulting categories reached through this
analysis will provide strong face validity, in that a majority of assessments and policies
reviewed, originally demonstrated strong face validity. However, face validity alone, is
insufficient to make strong claims o f findings (Krippendorf, 2013).
This study will also demonstrate semantic validity, a form o f content validity, where
those who are familiar with the language and subject, review the coded dispositions and agree on
the categories formed. Semantic validity is the degree to which categories established,
accurately describe the meanings and uses in a chosen context (Krippendorff, 2013). This form
o f validity was demonstrated by the use of a peer debriefer reviewing the coding list and
categories of the final analysis, meeting with the researchers, and coming to an agreement on the
categories established.
Limitations
There are limitations to the current study. The first limitation is in the use of existing
policies as being the main source of data, as each policy may have multiple meanings of
professional dispositions, and the definition o f each disposition can vary due to individual
interpretations. However, as developing a consensus o f the professional dispositions of
counselors is a new topic in the counseling field, the use of content analysis is appropriate, as it
could provide exploratory findings for further research.
Another limitation is the inclusion criteria of policies chosen for analysis and the
potential omission o f relevant data o f the study. This is a necessary risk as setting specific
inclusion criteria is crucial for selecting units of analysis (Krippendorff, 2013). To meet this
limitation is the census of policies chosen for analysis, specifically, all policies, rubrics, and
evaluations, o f CACREP accredited programs were included in the study, and that 82% of these
programs were included in the final sample.
A third limitation to the study is an over reliance on expert opinions and human coding in
establishing word frequencies and emergent themes. While a common reliability limitation
found in qualitative methodology, this limitation is addressed through the use of standardized
measures, reviewed and approved by the opinions of the peer debriefer, as well as the emergent
coding process to reach a consensus between coders and the peer debriefer. In addition, the
methodologies o f the current study, reflect established methods of other content analyses that
have been used within the counseling literature (Hendersen and Dufrene, 2012).
A final limitation in the study, is the timing in which the second, third and fourth steps
were enacted. The first email attempt was made during late May, near the end of the Spring
Semester for many graduate programs. Faculty in this time are often busy with end of semester
duties and thus subsequent attempts made after, may have been less successful due to the lack of
availability o f many faculty members during the Summer months. In addition, many of the
programs were in the process o f updating their counseling student handbooks for the next year,
and thus were unavailable for analysis. This limitation was addressed with a final telephone
attempt made early in the Fall semester (mid to late September) and explains the reason for the
increased response rate. Additionally, the number of programs included accounts for
approximately 82% o f the total number of CACREP accredited counseling programs,
demonstrating a fairly accurate portrayal of the dispositions that the counseling profession assess
on.
Summary
Establishing a consensus in the topic of counselor competence, with specific attention to
the professional dispositions needed for effective practice, is likely to be an evolving process due
the complexity o f the topic. The present study can help address a piece o f this issue by
demonstrating the professional dispositions that are currently used for evaluation. While a
consensus in this area will likely require an agreement of “what should be” in the area of
professional dispositions o f counselors, this study can offer a necessary foundation by providing
a snapshot o f “what is,” in offering a rigorous exploration of professional dispositions in the
many student retention policies found in the counseling profession.

Chapter 4
Results
The purpose o f this study was to investigate the professional dispositions that CACREP
accredited counseling programs use to evaluate their students. Using an emergent content-
analysis with a census o f CACREP counseling programs, the most occurring dispositions used
among programs would provide evidence to the dispositions that counselor educators felt most
relevant o f its counseling students. The research question that guided this investigation was:
What are the professional dispositions that are most prevalent in student retention
policies, dispositional rubrics, and evaluations of master’s level counseling students?
This chapter will review the results of the investigation, with specific detail given to the
categories formed, and the nodes that make up each category with emphasis given on the context
in which various programs used the specific dispositions.
Word Frequencies
O f the 224 programs that had policies that met the inclusive criteria, 47 o f those programs
failed to mention any specific dispositions or criteria. All 47 o f these programs had student
retention policies with many o f them detailing the importance o f student evaluation and the
remediation process, but either failed to mention the specific dispositions and competencies
expected o f students, or just reported adverse behaviors that would bring about remediation. As
the lack o f adverse behaviors does not provide evidence o f demonstrating the dispositions
expected o f students (e.g a student’s uncooperativeness in professional settings does not
demonstrate that the student is able to be cooperative with peers), these retention policies were
coded under a “nonspecific dispositions” node. These programs account for 20% of the sample
and if any indication of counseling programs at large, present an alarming finding that will be
explored in the next chapter.
In total, 177 programs had reported specific dispositions in the policies, or specific
rubrics o f evaluations referenced in their student retention policy. O f these programs, 1332
dispositions were coded, with a total of 116 nodes accounting for all codes. These 116 nodes
were inductively “chunked” into 10 categories or themes, seven of which are indicative of the
personality traits, values and attitudes of professional dispositions, with the other three
accounting for the skill sets and competencies expected of counseling students. The seven
dispositions were; (1) Openness to Growth, (2) Awareness of Self and Others, (3) Integrity, (4)
Emotional Stability, (5) Flexibility, (6) Compassion and (7) Personal Style, and the three
competency categories were; (8) Interpersonal Competency, (9) Professional Competency and
(10) Clinical Competency. Though the scope of this study was to explore the most occurring
professional dispositions, student retention policies still accounted for counseling competencies
and skill sets that were labeled as criteria for retention or included in dispositional rubrics and
evaluations, thus forming a sample o f the nodes coded. A summary of the categories and code
tallies can be found in Table 3, with words in bold denoting the names o f each category and
words in italics demonstrating nodes that were mentioned infrequently or only by one program
(Appendix A). In addition, sample phrases are included from retention policies to provide
evidence o f how dispositions were coded and chunked within specific categories.
Professional Dispositions
Openness to Growth. The largest o f the dispositional categories shared the theme o f
Openness to Growth and consisted o f 18 different nodes and a combined total of 237 codes (see
Table 4). This category contains dispositions that demonstrate students’ willingness to learn and
grow both professionally and personally, and being willing to let faculty and supervisors be a
part of that process.
Openness to Growth
Willingness to Accept & Use Feedback 67
Initiative & Motivation 34
Values Professional & Personal Growth 32
O p e n n e s s to New Ideas 27
Values Introspection 16
Willingness t o Grow Professionally 14
Willingness t o Learn/work w. Diverse 9
O pen n e ss 8
C o m m itm ent to Lifelong learning 7
O p e n n e s s to Supervision 8
Seeks Supervision 4
Cooperates w /rem ediation plans 3
Receptive to feedback 2
Responding to Supervision 2
Effective use o f supervision 1
Self-Directed 1
Openness to take interpersonal risks 1
Critical Thinker 1
Tally 237
Table 4
The more prominent nodes Willingness to Accept and Use Feedback, Initiative and
Motivation, and Openness to New Ideas were a common finding throughout student retention
policies across programs, due to them being a part o f the Professional Performance Review
Policy (PPRP) and the Professional Characteristics Evaluation Form (PCEF), both being
dispositional rubrics used by many programs throughout the country. The PPRP is the most
recent rubric o f the two and an influential addition to the discussion of student evaluation and
professional dispositions, because it provides definitions along a rubric detailing specific
behavioral indicators o f what the desired dispositions look like and behavioral indicators o f when
the dispositions are insufficient or lacking (McAdams, Foster, and Ward, 2007).
With regards to the specific node of Willingness to Accept and Use Feedback, the
behavioral indicators detailed in the PPRP share the theme of seeking supervisory input and
incorporating it into practice, without students reacting defensively. The total number of codes
under this specific node not only account for the categories mentioned among the PPRPs and
PCEFs o f different graduate programs, but also specific wordings that defined the appropriate
response to receiving feedback, either from supervisors or peers. Other common word choices
included openness to feedback, receptivity, and willingness to accept constructive criticism.
Most often, the context o f these codes within retention policies encouraged an openness in
learning about the self and others, while trusting faculty’s role in that process. Openness to New
Ideas, a separate node, is another criterion o f the PPRP and shares many language similarities
with Willingness to Accept and Use Feedback. The behaviors specified for this disposition
include soliciting others’ opinions and perspectives and inviting constructive feedback for one’s
own work.
Initiative and Motivation is the second largest node in the category. The language of the
PPRP details the behaviors and attitude a student demonstrates toward classroom activities and
the creativity displayed in assigned work. Most retention policies defined this disposition as
seeking advice and feedback and setting goals for one’s own self-improvement. While initiative
and motivation are two distinct dispositions, graduate programs often used these terms together
and interchangeably, as the motivation to learn and grow and the initiative to actively find and
attend opportunities to leam can be considered two sides of the same coin, and that one without
the other would mean little.
Valuing Professional and Personal Growth is the third largest node in this category and
graduate programs used this node to describe the student’s commitment to professional and
personal growth, as well as their ability to do so. The separate nodes, Values Introspection,
Commitment to Lifelong Learning, and Willingness to Grow Professionally, share a lot of
similar language and the prevalence of these nodes found among many graduate programs is that
these dispositions were not part of any specific rubric or evaluation. For many programs,
dispositions listed in student retention policies were ones that faculty created, and the prevalence
o f this node demonstrates a shared belief in the importance of students demonstrating this
disposition.
Willingness to Leam and Work with Diverse Populations is a node that deals specifically
with the openness to leam about privilege and systems of oppression, and demonstrating a
commitment to continually leam about diverse issues and work with diverse populations. This
node is only one of a larger, more complex set of dispositions that the counseling profession
expects of its students regarding multicultural competence and being sensitive to diversity,
specifically in the openness students would need to leam about it.
Openness and Openness to Supervision are nodes that both detail the student’s openness
to growth, both in regard to feedback from supervisors and a general attitude to learning and
change. The least occurring nodes that make up this category are in order; Seeks Supervision,
Cooperates with Remediation Plans, Receptive to Feedback, Responding to Supervision,
Effective Use o f Supervision, Openness to Take Interpersonal Risks, Critical Thinker and Self-
Directed. Because o f the specific nature of these nodes, little explanation is needed, though they
were considered the best fit for this category due to the shared theme of students’ fully utilizing
supervision and faculty input, and being open to learning new perspectives and relational
dynamics.
Awareness of Self and O thers. The second largest theme of the study centers around
dispositions that demonstrate an Awareness of Self and Others. This category had 19 different
nodes and a total of 186 codes (Table 5). This theme speaks to the dispositions that demonstrate
students’ ability to be introspective of their own needs, strengths and areas of improvement, but
also an awareness of others in regards to recognizing and being sensitive to their differences and
the importance o f working within those differences.
Awareness (Self and Others)

Self-Aw areness 40
Accept Personal Responsibility 39
A w areness of ow n impact on o th ers 30
Sensitivity to Diversity 15
Sensitivity (to others) 13
Personal A w areness of Strengths & Limits 12
Reflective 8
Reflections 9
A w areness of P ow er Differences in Therapy 4
Awareness o f cultural influences of self and others 3
Introspective to self-care needs 3
Wellness 3
Sensitive to MH needs o f clients 1
Mindfulness 1
Capacity fo r insight 1
Demonstrates realistic expectations o f self 1
Learns from Experience 1
Awareness o f how Environ. Factors influence client succ 1
Appropriately addresses limitations in work w / clients 1
Tally 186
Table 5
Self-Awareness is the largest node with this category and was defined by several
programs as the ability to recognize one’s own values, perspectives and attitudes, and how they
relate to one’s behavior. This node is not part of a specific category of commonly used rubrics,
though it was still a common reference among student retention policies throughout the country.
Though definitions o f self-awareness varied, the common themes included self-examination,

self-acceptance o f one’s own strengths and weaknesses, and recognizing how one’s own sense of
self can influence others.
Accept Personal Responsibility and Awareness of Own Impact on Others were the
second most occurring nodes o f this category, and share being two categories within the PPRP
and PCEF. Not all codes within these nodes reflect programs that use those rubrics, with both
nodes referenced in student retention policies independent of any form or evaluation. The
language that defines behavioral indicators of these two nodes includes students who recognize
and monitor the impact their actions and beliefs can have on others. The language within the
PPRP also details behaviors that demonstrate one’s willingness and ability to correct relational
problems, which are both indicators better suited for other categories. However, considering the
context o f the two nodes within student retention policies, and that the awareness to recognize
one’s own attitudes and the subsequent impact on others is foundational to correcting any
problems, this makes these two nodes best suited for the current theme.
Sensitivity to Diversity is a node that directly relates to a student being sensitive to others
in areas o f culture and differences, while Sensitivity to Others relates to a more broad sensitivity
o f others’ opinions and beliefs that differ from one’s own. Sensitivity speaks to both an
awareness of others’ differences and a respect o f it. Though respect is found in another category,
the awareness o f others’ differences is foundational in being able to be sensitive, thus a more
appropriate fit for the current theme.
Personal Awareness o f Strengths and Limits is a node that details the self-evaluation that
various programs feel appropriate and necessary for students. The context in which this node
occurs within retention policies includes accurately assessing one’s own strengths and
weaknesses while accepting them and being able to speak of them to others. Reflections and
Reflective both have overlaps with this node, in that they speak to programs encouraging
students to become reflective practitioners who are able to be honest in their self-evaluations and
continually assess themselves for areas of improvement.
Awareness of Power Differences in Therapy, Awareness of Cultural Influences o f Self
and Others, Introspective to Self-Care Needs, and Wellness are all nodes mentioned less
frequently, though were mentioned more than once in programs that were unique from one
another. These nodes all share the theme of awareness as indicated by the specific wording of
the node. The node Wellness may be considered a better fit for another category, but in looking
at the language provided within the policies of specific graduate programs, many include a
strong emphasis on assessing one’s own need to practice wellness and recognize when one is
approaching burnout or impairment.
Sensitive to Mental Health Needs of Clients, Mindfulness, Capacity for Insight,
Demonstrates Realistic Expectations of Self, Learns from Experience, Awareness of How
Environmental Factors Influence Client Success, and Appropriately Addresses Limitations in
Work with Clients were all nodes that were distinct from one another and mentioned in single
programs, yet still considered to fall within the current category. The node Mindfulness
specifically mentions the observing o f one’s own thoughts and feelings when interacting with
others and presenting a here-and-now awareness. Though this node was considered to be a better
fit for another category by some on the research team, the majority thought it to align best with
the current category based on the need around awareness of self.
Integrity. This category tied with another for the third most prominent themes of
dispositions and consisted o f the largest node within the data set, as well as including the least
amount of nodes. Total, this category accounts for seven nodes, with a combined total of 158
codes (Table 6).
Integrity 32
A ttention and A dherence to Ethical Practices 93
Judgm ent 12
R espects Privacy & Confidentiality of o th ers 11
Respect professional & personal boundaries 7
Trustworthiness 2
Exhibits personal courage & Strength 1
Tally 158
Table 6
Integrity is defined as the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles, and
though Integrity is only the second largest node within this category, it became the name o f the
category because of agreement that the shared theme among the nodes o f this category related to
the moral judgment and character that programs expect of their students. Integrity was a
common disposition listed among student retention policies because of it being a category within
the Professional Counseling Performance Evaluation (PCPE), a commonly used rubric found
among graduate programs throughout the country. The behavioral indicators that are used within
the PCPE indicate a student’s integrity include being honest, avoiding dual relationships, and
upholding to the fundamental rights and differences of others (Kerl, Garcia, McCullough, and
Maxwell, 2002).
Attention and Adherence to Ethical Practices is by far the largest node of the data set,
with the most programs referencing students’ demonstration of this disposition as being of
paramount importance. This is not surprising, given that this node covers a category of the PPRP
(known specifically as attention to ethical and legal practices) as well as being the most
influential behavior responsible for student remediation actions (Henderson and Duffrene, 2012).
The languages used to describe this node vary across programs, though there are fundamental
similarities, which include students’ awareness of the ACA Code of Ethics and making best
efforts to abide by the codes. Though some programs would sometimes outline specific
behaviors expected o f students to follow, often these behaviors were already present under a
central category with the theme o f ethics. For example, the language used to describe this node
within the PPRP includes specific ethical practices, such as being aware of boundaries and
respecting client well-being and confidentiality (McAdams et al., 2007). The distinct nodes of
Respects Privacy and Confidentiality and Respect Professional and Personal Boundaries would
likely fall under this node, but these were specifically mentioned in student retention policies not
chunked into a larger category o f ethics, and thus were coded separately.
Judgment is the third largest node of this category and student retention policies were
often very brief in defining the characteristics o f judgment, often listing it with other dispositions
and not providing further definitions of what constitutes judgment. This made the disposition
more difficult to categorize, though two programs that were distinct from one another, as
measured by being in separate regions of the country, described judgment with specific regards
to making moral judgments and demonstrating ethically sound reasoning. Because o f these
clarifiers, Judgment was chunked into this category, though it could be likely that programs may
have meant this disposition to demonstrate judgments in other areas, such as clinical
conceptualizations of clients.
Trustworthiness and Exhibits Personal Courage and Strength were the least occurring
nodes of this category, and was decided that they both shared the theme of Integrity, as both
relate to demonstrating a moral character, one through honesty and the other through taking
action in doing what one feels right, though it may be hard to do so.
Em otional Stability. This category tied with Integrity for the third most prominent
themes of dispositions and consisted of 10 nodes, with a combined 158 codes (Table 7). The
theme of Emotional Stability is intended to be thought of less as a state of mind or being, and
more regarded as a student’s ability to handle different sources of stress associated with graduate
study. Specifically, it relates to how well one can manage conflict with others, and what
thoughts and behaviors students demonstrate that give evidence to self-care and being able to
maintain a place indicative o f learning from the processes inherent in graduate training and being
able to serve clients. The name o f this category was thought of independently, and was later
discovered to share the name with the Counseling Competences Scale (CCS) of Swank, Lambie
and W itta’s study (2012).
Emotional Stability
Maturity 37
Deal with Conflict 33
Stability 30
Reliability 22
M anages Stress Appropriately 19
T olerate Ambiguity 7
Balance 5
Confidence balanced w/hum ility 3
Self-Acceptance & Confidence 1
Psychologically Healthy 1
Tally 158
Table 7
Maturity is the most prominent node of this category and was frequently found among
student retention policies due to it being a major category of the PCPE. The language used to
describe Maturity from the PCPE includes students demonstrating self-control in relationships
with others with specific regards to anger and impulsivity, and follows professionally recognized
conflict resolution processes if a conflict should arise (Kerl et al., 2002). The PCPE also
includes Maturity to be about awareness of one’s own belief systems and the ability to receive
feedback from others, traits that would be better suited in the categories o f Openness to Growth
and Awareness o f Self and Others. However, given that the PCPE has a total of six behavioral
traits with four o f them more centered on dealing with conflict and being emotionally stable, this
node was considered to be a better fit for the current category.
Deal with Conflict was the second most prominent node o f this category and its
frequency among student retention policies is due to it being a major category of the PPRP and
PCEF (ability to deal with conflict) as well as generally being a major theme that student
retention policies at large felt a need to address. The language in the PPRP describes a student’s
ability to deal with conflict, included the ability to consider others’ points of view, initiating and
being active in problem-solving efforts, and a willingness to examine one’s own role and receive
critique in problem resolution (McAdams, Foster, and Ward, 2007). While the language used to
describe one’s ability to deal with conflict include traits and dispositions from other categories
(i.e. Awareness o f Self and Others and Openness to Growth), the prevalence of student retention
policies including some criteria o f conflict resolution and its context within emotional regulation
made this node a better fit for the current category.
Stability is the third most prominent node and while not part of a pre-existing rubric, was
often referenced in policies as being a component o f “emotional maturity.” The language used to
describe stability in policies includes a tolerance of ambiguity and the ability to sustain
emotional security and resolve any personal issue that may interfere with the duties of a
professional counselor. In many ways, this node encapsulates other nodes in this category,
specifically Manages Stress Appropriately, Tolerate Ambiguity and Psychologically Healthy,
which all deal with the regulation o f emotions.

Reliability is the fourth most prominent node and is defined within retention policies as
the student’s ability to be dependable and punctual in meeting deadlines and responsibilities,
even when under conditions of stress and emotional challenges. Though a lot of the aspects
within reliability could be considered more aligned with professionalism and behaviors under the
Professional Competencies category, within several policies, Reliability was paired with Stability
and gave specific reference to managing emotions appropriately. Thus, it was decided that
Emotional Stability was foundational to being reliable, and appropriate for the current category.
The least frequent occurring nodes in order, were; Balance, Confidence Balanced with
Humility, Self-Acceptance and Confidence. These nodes share the theme of balance and when
outlined in retention policies gave the context o f being able to manage emotions and maintain a
balanced perspective, thus making the current node the best fit for these dispositions.
Flexibility. The Flexibility category is the fifth most prominent category and consists of
8 nodes and a combined total of 98 codes (Table 8). This category consists of nodes that carry
the theme o f students being able to adapt to new situations, both with the environment and with
others, by adjusting behaviors appropriately. O f the 10 nodes, only two were a common
recurrence through student retention policies.
Flexibility 39
C ooperativeness w / o th ers 42
Flexible (in m e e tin g client needs) 6
Collaborate w / O thers 5
Cognitive Flexibility 2
Flexible (professional relationships) 2
Creativity 1
Maintains objectivity 1
Tally 98
Table 8
The nodes o f Flexibility and Cooperativeness with Others were the most recurring nodes
within student retention policies and make up the majority of codes within this category. Both of
these nodes are main categories within the PPRP and are defined as demonstrating an ability to
adapt to both environmental and interpersonal demands (McAdams et al., 2007). Specifically,
Flexibility outlines behaviors more geared toward students responding to environmental
demands via independent monitoring to assess whether an adjustment in response is necessary,
and the efforts given o f students to adjust appropriately. Cooperativeness with Others is more
specific, with language around reaching consensus through students’ willingness to work
collaboratively and compromise to reach consensus. While these traits may seem to fit better
with other categories centered on professionalism and other competency categories, it was
decided that Flexibility is foundational for students to be able to compromise and be effective
collaborators.
The nodes o f Flexible in Meeting Client Needs and Collaborate with Others likely need
little explanation, as these were mentioned mainly word-for-word within policies and carry clear
themes for the current category. The remaining nodes were; Cognitive Flexibility, Flexible in
Professional Relationships, Creativity, and Maintains Objectivity and considered the most
appropriate fit for the current category, due to each requiring adjustment o f a response to
appropriately meet a goal.
Com passion. Compassion is the sixth most prominent category and consists of 12 nodes
and a total o f 75 codes (Table 9). This category shares the theme of accepting and respecting
others, regardless o f differences and the ability to hold a positive regard o f clients.
Compassion
Empathy 20
R espect Individual Differences 13
In te re s te d in W elfare of o thers 9
R espect and Appreciation of Diverse Populati 9
R espect (for others) 8
Acceptance 5
Fairness (in treating others) 3
Non-judgmental 2
Respect Client Welfare 2
Respect dignity & worth o f others 2
Unconditionally believes in client growth 1
Appreciates client strengths 1
Tally 75
Table 9
Empathy was the largest node of this category and a common disposition listed within
retention policies. This node is not part of a commonly used rubric, yet was a common reference
within policies as one o f several different dispositions for students to be mindful about. Most
programs offered little definition o f the indicators to what appropriate demonstrations of
empathy are and o f the several programs that did offer more behavioral definitions, the overlaps
included an ability to communicate with words and actions an understanding of what clients and
others are feeling and thinking. This requires a combination o f being sensitive to and aware of
the thoughts and feelings o f another, and being able to communicate it. This node was most
influential in shaping the name o f this category and it was decided that Compassion was a more
appropriate fit, as it includes the necessary foundation to demonstrate empathy to others.
Respect Individual Differences, Respect and Appreciation of Diverse Populations,
Respect Client Welfare, Respect the Dignity and Worth of others, and Respect for Others are
five nodes that share a lot o f overlap in what the different graduate programs expect o f their
students. Specifically, these nodes expect students to demonstrate openness to the rights and
feelings o f peers and clients and to avoid imposing personal values. Combined, these nodes
make up almost half of the codes within the current category. It was discussed that respect for
others can be present without a sense of compassion, such as a respect for authority, which
would be more from a place o f fear. However the language around the dispositions of Respect
was more often paired with holding an appreciation of others, and demonstrating fairness and
kindness, thus it was decided that nodes centering around Respect were a better fit for the current
category.
The node Interested in the Welfare of Others defined students demonstrating a sincere
interest in client and peer welfare and having a genuine concern and desire to be of help to
others. This node had a clear overlap with the theme of Compassion. In addition, the nodes of
Acceptance, Fairness in Treating Others, Non-Judgmental, Appreciates Client Strengths and
Unconditionally Believes in Client Growth define the mindsets and ability to hold an
unconditional positive regard for clients and fellow students, despite whatever bias or challenges
students may have with them.
Personal Style. The category of Personal Style was the least occurring theme within
retention policies, and included distinct personality characteristics that graduate programs felt
were required for students to demonstrate in their interactions with clients and others. This
category consists o f 11 nodes and total of 52 codes (Table 10).
The nodes o f Positive Attitude and the general listing of Attitude make up almost half of
the total codes o f this category. Positive Attitude was a category of dispositions from the
Personal Characteristics Evaluation Form (PCEF), one of the first dispositional rubrics to be
introduced to the counseling profession. Unlike the PPRP or PCPE, the PCEF doesn’t offer
language or behavioral indicators, but the context used in defining the traits of these nodes
included students’ demonstrating an openness to the process o f being a counselor, and having a
positive disposition towards clients and colleagues.
Personal Style
Positive Attitude 19
G enuiness 7
A ttitude 6
Patience 4
W arm th 5
Sense of Humor 4
Authenticity 2
Congruence 2
Optimism 1
Curiosity 1
Openness to be real w / cits and others 1
Tally 52
Table 10
While the word “positive” could be considered to mean a bubbly demeanor towards others, the
language was more indicative o f having an enthusiasm towards learning and committed to being
a positive influence to clients and colleagues. Though both of these nodes are indicative of other
categories, inasmuch that having an Openness Towards Growth and Compassion are usually
thought to be a part o f one having a good attitude, the commonality of these nodes being
referenced in retention policies deemed them necessary to be independently coded and
referenced for further discussion.
The nodes o f Genuineness, Authenticity, and Congruence all the share the theme of
demonstrating a sincerity in interacting with clients and others, and were thought to be an
appropriate fit for the current category. These nodes coincide with the influential and specific
theoretical branch o f the humanistic perspective and for graduate programs that mainly subscribe
to that approach, felt it necessary to include as evaluative criteria of students. Chunking these
nodes into the Personal Style category was decided to be the most appropriate, as a majority of
programs operate from different theories, and would likely place less emphasis on these specific
dispositions. In addition, the node of Openness to be Real With Clients and Others, speaks of
being congruent and transparent with clients, another trait most fitting with humanistic practices,
and also a better fit for a Personal Style of students’ personality.
Lastly, the nodes of Patience, Warmth, Sense of Humor, and Curiosity are all specific
traits o f personality and considered a more appropriate fit for the current category. Though these
nodes were all dispositions found in student retention policies, it is questionable how enforced
they are in terms of students being evaluated, as it would be unlikely that a student
demonstrating a lack o f curiosity would be put on a remediation plan. This category as a whole
was the least recurring, with nodes that demonstrate the personality and style that students may
demonstrate with one another and clients, and because there is a strong correlation with
humanistic values, has questionable validity for the counseling profession as a whole, due to the
wide array of therapeutic approaches and theory that encompasses it. This will be detailed in
greater depth in Chapter 5.
Professional Competencies
Interpersonal Competency. The category o f Interpersonal Competency is the largest
category o f competencies and was a common reference within retention policies, specifically
emphasizing the importance that students have in relating and communicating with others, both
as a counselor and as an emerging professional. The nodes that make up the current category
were considered to be distinct from professional dispositions, as each node centered around an
aspect o f communication, which is a skill that was decided to be something that is continually
refined and taught as students progress through their respective programs. In addition,
Interpersonal Competency was thought to be distinct from the other skill set categories, due to
the universality o f communication and it not being limited to Clinical or Professionalism
Competencies. This category consists of nine nodes and has the combined total of 156 codes
(Table 11).
Interpersonal Competency
Com m unication 34
Express feelings effectively & appropriately 34
Interpersonal Skills 27
Interpersonal Effectiveness 23
Listen & Hear Others 13
Com m unicates Feedback Appropriately 12
Com m unicate Ideas 6
Convey Empathy and Compassion 5
Personal Convictions (articulate) 2
Tally 156
Table 11
Communication is one o f the more prominent nodes in this category, being a disposition
commonly referenced in retention policies throughout the country. The PCPE uses
Communication as one of its categories of evaluation and the language used to describe this skill
set includes creating appropriate structure, via setting boundaries and maintaining time limits, the
ability to respond to feelings, and to communicate one’s own internal responses, if deemed
appropriate to do so (Kerl et al., 2002). Other definitions o f Communication from policies that
did not employ the PCPE have the shared definitions of Communication being the ability to
express thoughts and ideas in a consistently clear manner, and communicating views in a direct
and unambiguous way. The exact category within the PCPE is Communication Skills and
Abilities, and lists behaviors that specifically relate to a student’s ability to work with clients,
and were coded separately and chunked into the category that is specific to Clinical Competency.
The other nodes o f Communicates Feedback Appropriately, Communicates Ideas and Articulate
Personal Convictions all share from this theme, though were listed in a specific manner and were
thus coded appropriately.
Another prominent node within the category is Express Feelings Effectively and
Appropriately and was common through retention policies for it being a criteria mentioned in the
PPRP and PCEF rubrics. The language of the PPRP defines this behavior as an openness and
ability to express and articulate the range of one’s own feeling and expressing these feelings in
appropriate settings and initiating discussions around feelings in supervision. Other word
choices to describe this node included ability to articulate one’s feelings, effective emotional
self-expression, and communicating emotions in a way that facilitates interpersonal relationships.
This node was an appropriate fit for the current category due to it being utilized as both a
clinician with clients, as well as a student with peers, or supervisee with supervisors and that the
ability to effectively express feelings is a crucial part in being interpersonally effective.
The next most prominent nodes include Interpersonal Skills and Interpersonal
Effectiveness, and had a lot of variability in the language graduate programs used to define these
nodes. Specifically, retention policies would often just list the nodes or outline the behavioral
indicator as the ability to form effective interpersonal relationships without giving much clarity
into the specific behaviors. However, the shared theme among several programs that defined the
nodes shared the theme o f one’s ability to relate to others, regardless o f background or history,
while being consistent in demonstrating courtesy and respect. This ability included using both
verbal and nonverbal cues, with specific regards to expressing feelings and providing active
listening cues, both of which are distinct Competencies that graduate training focuses on. The
node Listens and Hear Others relates to these nodes, in that it specifically outlines the verbal and
nonverbal cues that demonstrate a listening and attentive attitude, such as eye contact and
minimal encouragers.
The remaining node o f Convey Empathy and Compassion is defined as the ability to
convey warmth, genuineness and establish rapport with clients and fellow students. While
carrying strong overlap with nodes in the category of Personal Style, this node specifically
relates to demonstrating the dispositions towards others, with some programs specifically
mentioning both clients and fellow students or faculty. Thus, with the active demonstration
towards others, it was decided that the current category was the best fit for this node.
Professional Competency. Professional Competency was the second largest category of
competencies and is made up o f nodes that demonstrate the professional behaviors graduate
programs expected of students, outside of the clinical Competencies for being an effective
counselor with clients. Specifically, this category has nodes that detail students’ professionalism
with colleagues, comportment and the ability to work alongside fellow counselors and
supervisors. The category is made up of 15 nodes and has a combined total of 139 codes (Table
12).
The largest node o f this category was Professional Relationships and was a common
reference in retention policies and program-specific rubrics and evaluations. The shared theme
of definitions included the student’s ability to work well with peers, faculty, and on-site staff and
supervisors. Some behavioral indicators included appropriately responding to social cues, being
sensitive to one’s own role in the professional setting, and demonstrating a general ability to
relate well with others, regardless o f background or professional level. Some policies included
dispositions better suited for other categories, such as Flexibility, Awareness of Self and Others,
and Openness to Growth, but were coded at the current node because o f specific references in
demonstrating these dispositions with other professionals.
Professional C om petency
Relationships (professional) 36
C o m portm ent 24
Professionalism (in relation to others) 22
Professional Responsibility 18
Professional Conduct 8
C o m m itm e n t to Profession 8
Leadership 6
Advocacy 5
Organization 4
Social A dvocacy 2
A d vo ca te f o r Profession 2
Readiness f o r professional role 1
Appreciation o f therapeutic process 1
Professional C om m itm ent 1
D em eanor 1
Tally 139
Table 12
Comportment was the second largest node of the category and defines behavior indicators
that relate to students professional dress and demeanor, as appropriate for working within a
professional setting. This node was commonly found to be a specific category within program-
specific rubrics, with some behavioral indicators including dispositions found in other formed
categories o f the current study. Specifically, Comportment was often defined by demonstrating
appropriate self-control in regards to anger and impulsivity (Emotional Stability) or the ability to
receive feedback from others (Openness to Growth). While these indicators are clearly more
suited for the professional dispositions categories of this study, clear indication was given in
using these dispositions with others within a professional capacity. Additionally, other
conceptual models o f competency have professional dispositions as being foundational to the
professional skills o f the profession, justifying how dispositions can be used for behavioral
indicators of the desired Competencies. Other language used to describe comportment includes
maintaining personal hygiene and the use of written and oral communication in presenting
oneself as a professional.
Professionalism in Relation to Others is the third largest node o f the category and was
defined by how students conduct themselves as professionals with others via demonstrating a
respectful attitude and sensitivity to real and ascribed power differences with others. A large
number o f graduate programs merely defined this node as students demonstrating “professional
behavior” without clear examples of what was considered professional behavior. The language
o f programs that did include specific indicators, gave reference to acting in accordance to the
ACA Code of Ethics, demonstrating appropriate comportment, and meeting responsibilities
accordingly. This node carries a lot of overlap with the node Professional Relationships, but was
coded separately due to the inclusion o f the word “professionalism” and had more specific
behavioral indicators.
Professional Responsibility describes behaviors that relate to a student acting in
accordance with the ACA Code o f Ethics, with specific mention to maintaining boundaries,
respecting client confidentiality, and acting with integrity in professional situations. Professional
Responsibility is a category within the PCPE and has behavioral indicators around relating well
with others, demonstration o f ethics and other legal requirements specific to counseling and
presenting oneself in a manner that promotes confidence in the counseling profession (Kerl et al.,
2002 ).
The node of Professional Conduct shares a lot of similar language and definitions with
the node o f Professionalism in Relation to Others and was coded separately because o f the
specific wording within retention policies. The nodes of Commitment to the Profession and
Professional Commitment were nodes defined by behavioral indicators demonstrating an
openness of students in continuing their professional development, identified by membership to
professional organizations and attending professional conferences. The Leadership node was a
skill set listed within retention policies, with minimum clarification or specific behavioral
indicators outside o f generic language such as demonstrating strong leadership qualities.
Nonetheless, Leadership was decided to be a distinct skill set and most appropriate for the
current category. The node o f Organization describes the Competencies that revolve around time
management and the ability to handle multiple responsibilities at a time.
The nodes of Advocacy, Social Advocacy and Advocate for the Profession share the
theme o f advocating for social justice or the profession and demonstrating an understanding of
the importance o f doing so.
Clinical Competencies. The last category of competencies is the Clinical Competencies
theme. The nodes within this category describe the specific skills taught in graduate training and
are ones that retention policies described as essential in being effective counselors. The category
consists o f 10 nodes with a combined total of 73 codes (Table 13).
Clinical Competency
C o m p eten ce 22
Relationships (therapeutic) 19
Multicultural C o m p e te n c e 10
Appropriately self-discloses 7
Ability to Work w Diverse Populations 6
C om petency (clinical) 3
Cognition (ability to work with clients) 2
M aintains appropriate boundaries 2
Self-control in profession al relationships 1
Establish rapport w /b o th m en an d w om en 1
Tally 73
Table 13
The generic word Competence is the largest node of the category and was a common
finding within retention policies from it being a category of the PCPE and other program specific
rubrics. The behavioral indicators used to determine Competence include recognizing one’s own
strengths and limits in clinical work and articulating these limits to clients or others, and
providing services only that the student is trained in (Kerl et al., 2002). Other language used
within this node includes being professional and competent, and effective demonstration of
knowledge and technical skills in work with clients. The other node Competency (Clinical) had
a lot of similarity with language and specific Competencies, though was coded as a distinct node,
due to some programs using the “clinical” distinction in retention policies, or as a category
within rubrics.
The node Relationships (Therapeutic) is the second largest node of the category and
describes specific behaviors and Competencies that center around a student’s ability to establish
rapport and trust with clients in a therapeutic setting. Specific behaviors include interviewing
skills conducive to building a working alliance, expressing appropriate empathy without over
identification, and other behaviors that demonstrate the student’s potential to build working
alliances with clients at different developmental levels with a varied range o f needs or problems.
The nodes o f Cognition (Ability to Work with Clients) and Establish Rapport with both Men and
Women share a lot o f language, specifically including behaviors and skills that demonstrate the
student’s ability to flex their approach to meet clients with varying needs.
The nodes o f Multicultural Competence and Ability to Work with Diverse Populations
share the theme of demonstrating the specific Competencies and behaviors necessary to be
effective with diverse populations. Some programs specifically mentioned that students be able
to demonstrate the knowledge about, awareness of, and skills necessary to work with diverse
populations. Most policies did not offer more specific language into the specific behavioral
indicators in that the words “multicultural competence” and “ability to work with diverse
populations” were just listed within retention policies. One program did offer clear dispositions
o f open-mindedness and appreciation of diversity within a program-specific rubric, though given
the recent controversial court cases around diversity, the lack o f language around this skill set
could be a potential liability for graduate programs.
The remaining nodes o f Appropriately Self-Discloses, Maintains Appropriate Boundaries
and Self-Control in Professional Relationships, share clear themes of holding professional
boundaries with clients, and need little explanation.
Conclusion
The 10 categories that consist of the seven dispositions of Openness to Growth,
Awareness o f Self and Others, Integrity, Emotional Stability, Flexibility, Compassion and
Personal Style and the three sets of professional competencies o f Interpersonal Competence,
Professional Competence and Clinical Competence were the most prevalent themes within
student retention policies. The language and names of the categories were the combined efforts
o f a modest research team and the exact wording of each category is open to change. The
themes presented are meant to start a discussion around building a consensus on the dispositions
that the counseling profession deems necessary for students to demonstrate.

Chapter 5
Discussion
Summary
The research question for the current study examined the professional dispositions
referenced in the student retention policies of CACRJEP accredited graduate programs. Within
the 177 programs that had workable units of analysis, 116 dispositions and competencies were
found to form 10 categories. O f the seven categories related to professional dispositions, the
most referenced category was Openness to Growth, followed by Awareness of Self and Others,
Integrity and Emotional Stability. These categories were the largest of the data set and had the
greatest number o f frequencies within student retention policies, with Openness to Growth and
Awareness of Self and Others also having the greatest number of dispositions. The remaining
categories o f Flexibility and Compassion were less frequent, though still a common finding
among policies. The category o f Personal Style was the least frequently referenced category
with dispositions that reflect a specific theory or style of practice. O f the three categories related
to professional competencies, the most referenced category was Interpersonal Competency,
followed by Professional Competency and Clinical Competency.
Implications
A main goal for the current study was to provide evidence of the professional dispositions
most commonly found within student retention policies to provide a foundation for building a
consensus within the counseling profession. The methods used in this content analysis followed
the steps outlined by Stemler (2001) and Henderson and Duffrene (2012), using an emergent
coding process that entailed two coders who were actively involved in coding (main researcher)
and reviewing each coded disposition within respective student retention policies (additional
coder) independently. Once both coders agreed on codes, an inductive process formed
categories based on shared themes, and a peer debriefer reviewed categories and offered
suggestions for improvement. These methodological processes provided a reliability check of
replicability through the use o f two coders reviewing each code and unit of analysis
independently, and semantic validity through the use of a peer debriefer who is familiar with the
language and well-versed in the area of student retention and counseling dispositions. The
results o f this study should not to be thought o f as providing consensus for the counseling
profession as a whole but intended to further the discussion and provide greater clarity for
counselor educators when upholding their evaluative responsibilities.
Counselor Educators can use these categories as a reference point in reviewing the
criteria used in the retention policies and supervisor evaluation forms within their respective
graduate programs. While not indicative of consensus, these themes are in use by a large number
of CACREP accredited counseling programs, thus providing justification in using the categories
as evaluative criteria. In addition, this may spark more discussions around which dispositions
counselor educators can hope to facilitate in graduate students during their training process and
whether the counseling profession should use certain dispositions to guide the admissions
process.
Some questions for consideration are whether it could be possible to measure dispositions
such as Openness to Growth and if so, whether there should be a cut-off o f potential applicants.
Regardless o f outcome, such discussions would further evaluative processes by challenging
professionals to critically look at how they wish to evaluate students. In addition, the results of
such discussions could aid the admissions process, an area needing more investigation within the
counseling profession (Swank and Smith-Adcock, 2014).

Diversity Issues. Students’ ability to work with diverse populations is arguably the most
contested area facing counselor educators in regards to remediation. The themes formed from
the respective nodes dealing with dispositions related to diversity could provide some guidance
when conceptualizing student deficiencies. Diversity is a complex area and graduate programs’
retention policies have supported this by detailing expectations that students demonstrate
behaviors that span several dispositions and competencies. One such example is that students
demonstrate an awareness of cultural differences in others and how their own social location
influences the work they do with clients, while remaining open to learning about systemic issues
o f privilege and oppression. Citing the ACA Code of Ethics as means for students to adhere to
this aspect of practice has only met varying degrees of success (Ward v. Wilbanks, 2010).
Should a student display deficient attitudes or practices around multicultural competence, then
counselor educators can address the issue as one not solely based on Integrity, but one that is a
combination of Openness, Awareness, Compassion and Clinical Competency. Counselor
educators can look at the context o f the student in question and focus on one or more of these
areas as needed.
The categories from this study that contain nodes that center on diversity, align with the
three competencies outlined as necessary for providing multicultural counseling/therapy (MCT).
The three competencies o f MCT include; 1) therapist awareness of one’s own assumptions,
values and biases; 2) understanding the worldview of culturally diverse clients; and 3)
developing appropriate intervention strategies and techniques (Sue, Arredondo, and McDavis,
1992). This study presented diversity encapsulating dispositions of Awareness of Self and
Others and the Clinical Competency to provide multicultural competence techniques. The other
dispositions that relate to diversity, Openness to Growth, Compassion, and Integrity, relate to
additional expectations that counselor educators feel are necessary for students to embody and
additional multicultural competency models, or revisions, may better capture these dispositions.
According to the 2013 National Health Care Disparities Report, Caucasian adults have
been the largest racial demographic to receive mental health services for depression, with 2010
and 2011 reporting approximately 20% more Caucasian adults receiving services than African
Americans and Hispanic Americans and twice the number of Caucasian adolescents receiving
services than African Americans (p. 82). Stigma, perceived racial discrimination, and cultural
values in dealing with mental health issues independent of professionals, is still a major form of
resistance for African Americans and Hispanic Americans seeking mental health services
(Alvidrez, Snowden, and Kaiser, 2008: Vogel, Wester, and Larson, 2007).
Reports of more African Americans seeking services due to an increase in African
Americans entering master’s and doctorate level training programs and greater efforts of African
American churches aligning with mental health service providers provides some optimism that
this area is improving (APA Center for Workforce Studies, 2010; Bahrampour, 2013). However
there are limited opportunities for African American clients to be matched with a counselor of
their own race/ethnicity due to hypersegregation of African Americans resulting in limited access
to services (Townes, Chavez-Korell, and Cunningham, 2009). Thus, counselor educators need to
look to their multicultural education efforts, including greater evaluative practices on student
dispositions that are foundational to working with diverse populations.
Connections to Cube M odel. The professional dispositions deemed necessary within
the psychology profession have general consensus through the Cube Model and Benchmarks
Document (Fouad et al., 2009; Rodolfa et al., 2005). Specifically, the domains of competency
within the foundational domain o f the Cube Model has distinct relevance to the categories
formed from the current study. Most noticeably, the reflective practice and self-assessment has
three subdomains including; reflective practice, self-assessment, and self-care. These three
domains share very similar contexts within the Awareness of Self and Others and Emotional
Stability themes, with nodes that account for being reflective, able to notice strengths and
weaknesses, and having wellness practices.
In addition, the domains of competency of professionalism and ethical and legal
standards have a strong overlap with the Integrity category. Though professionalism within the
Cube Model has subdomains that were chunked within the Professional Competency category of
the current study (i.e., deportment, professional identity), the subdomain of integrity captures
several nodes within the Integrity category of this study. The remaining competency domains of
scientific knowledge and methods, relationships, and individual and cultural diversity all have
overlaps within the competency categories formed from this study, and a small overlap with the
dispositional categories that relate to working with diversity (i.e., Compassion, Awareness, and
Openness). The last competency domain of the Cube Model, interdisciplinary systems had little
relevance to the categories o f this study and demonstrates a greater importance placed within the
field of psychology in consultation and working within multidisciplinary systems.
There should be little surprise in the overlap between the domains of competency within
the Cube Model, with the areas o f competency that counseling programs evaluate master’s
students. There are distinct differences however, insomuch that the Cube Model which considers
its foundational domains to be more related to the dispositions o f the psychology profession,
consist of areas that have been grouped in the competency categories of the current study. Also
interesting, is how the largest category of this study, Openness to Growth, is not an area covered
anywhere within the Cube Model. Though psychology and counseling are alike in being
grounded in working with others, there are distinct paradigm differences and evidence o f these
differences can be seen in the dispositions that each evaluate on.
Specifically, the paradigm of psychologists is the traditional, medical model, with more
attention given to problem-focused interventions, as opposed to more strengths based approaches
of counselors (Russo and Kemmerer, 2006). Having a problem-focused framework explains
why certain dispositions thought to be foundational within the psychology profession, are ones
that may align more with competencies and skill sets o f counselors.
With regards to the counseling profession, a more post-modern, constructivist approach
requires counselors to mutually deconstruct and reconstruct the meanings that clients developed
to adjust to challenging environments and potentially harmful contexts (Russo, 2005). This
interplay between accurately understanding clients’ meaning, and navigating the deconstruction
and reconstruction process is complex and requires advanced training and guidance from more
experienced professionals and supervisors. The most commonly referenced dispositions
throughout the counseling profession; Openness to Growth and Awareness of Self and Others
have obvious applications. Students’ resistance to receiving supervisory feedback and guidance
directly relates to an unwillingness to learn strategies to navigate that interplay of meaning
making and gives evidence to greater implications centered on learning new perspectives, and
working collegially with others. In addition, Awareness of Self and Others also contributes a
major role in this interplay, as foundation to the meaning making process requires students to
take an active role in trying to understand their clients’ reality in how they construct meaning and
to gauge how their own worldviews and biases may influence that understanding of others.
Given the approach within the counseling profession to operate from this paradigm the
importance o f cognitive complexity (sometimes referred to as metacognitions) is apparent.

Cognitive complexity is one’s ability to incorporate and differentiate multiple environmental
elements and with relation to counseling, relates to clinicians’ ability to perceive, organize, and
respond to multiple social behaviors (Bowler, Bowler, and Cope, 2012; Labouvie-Vief and
Diehl, 2000). Theoretically, the greater the complexity, the greater number of elements
counselors can distinguish within clients and themselves, thus providing more opportunity to
respond in ways that facilitate the meaning making process and build on therapeutic rapport.
It is worth discussion whether the dispositions identified within the current study provide
any evidence o f counseling programs evaluating students’ cognitive complexity. If cognitive
complexity is conceptualized as the ability to perceive, organize and respond to
environmental/social elements (Bowler et al., 2012), then the dispositions of Awareness of Self
and Others and Flexibility have some application. In addition the competency categories of
Interpersonal Competency and Clinical Competency could provide evidence to the skill sets
necessary to respond to clients effectively. While evaluation of students’ dispositions is not
overtly tied with cognitive complexity, having an understanding of the most prominent
dispositions found within counseling programs could further the discussion in how counselor
educators can help support the cognitive development o f students, should they deem it important
to do so.
Lack o f Specificity in Retention Policies. Another finding from the study was the
alarming number o f programs that failed to mention specific criteria within student retention
policies. O f the 227 programs that had retention policies that met inclusion criteria, 47 o f those
programs did not mention specific dispositions from which evaluations o f students were based
(roughly 20% o f the programs sampled). Though criteria and dispositions expected of students
could have been located in other areas of the student handbook or within the graduate program,
the fact that no references were mentioned in policies in which evaluation is a central topic is
concerning for two reasons.
First, the liability of those graduate programs is higher, given that students who may be
dismissed from the program could use the argument of not knowing what the expectations were
of the graduate program. Though the policies within these programs clearly state faculty
evaluating students, no mention is given on the specific dispositions or competencies expected of
students, thus little chance o f students having the ability to self-monitor themselves. Another
area for possible discussion is whether CACREP standards should reflect that policies within
student handbooks mention specific criteria, as the language currently states that such policies
only need to be referenced within programs (CACREP 2009, Standard I.L.2.d). Being sensitive
to CACREP not wanting to impose standards that would reduce the autonomy o f specific
graduate programs, a possible revision would be that programs have to detail specific criteria,
without CACREP detailing the specifics o f those evaluative criteria. In addition, without
graduate programs detailing specific evaluative criteria, students are unable to self-assess, an
area considered a key competency for effective counselors and mental health professionals
(Kaslow et al., 2007; Swank et al., 2012; Rodolfa et al., 2005).
Second, the ideal climate for which evaluation takes place is one that is transparent and
fosters a sense o f trust and understanding, in which students would engage in a bottom-up
discourse and voice their own areas for growth with faculty and supervisors (Foster and
McAdams, 2009; Kaslow et al., 2007). By not listing what is expected o f students, it is unlikely
that students would be able to understand, let alone trust the evaluative process. This lack of
understanding and trust, could lead to a climate where students would be guarded with faculty
and secretive about areas that could be of possible concern, a setting antithetical to effective
evaluation. Programs that used language more punitive in nature and listing behaviors of what
not to do are arguably insufficient in promoting a climate of trust and understanding. In addition,
students who graduate are likely to become supervisors themselves, with the responsibility of
adhering to the gatekeeping process of their future supervisees. Providing a climate in which
students are active in their own evaluative process, not only fosters greater potential for faculty
meeting student needs, but also entails that students would be better suited to their future
evaluative responsibilities.
Suggestions for Future Research
The goal o f the current study was to provide a framework to help facilitate a dialogue on
the specific dispositions expected of counseling students, with the hope of furthering consensus
to better guide evaluative practices for the counseling profession. The results of this study
provide a snapshot o f “what is” and for consensus to occur, an agreement of “what should be”
needs to take place among counseling professionals. A Delphi study using the disposition
categories found with the current investigation would be a considerable step in forming the
consensus process (Clayton, 1997). Experts can evaluate the fit of the categories and add or
remove the areas they feel to be a necessary part of evaluation. With the results o f such a study,
the final categories could form an assessment and be empirically validated through predictive
validity measures such as client satisfaction surveys or supervisor evaluations of competencies.
Another finding from the investigation was the wide range of variance in student
retention policies among graduate programs, with some using specific evaluations or rubrics,
while others not mentioning evaluative criteria at all. A repeat of Olkin and Gaughen’s study
(1991) which evaluated the evaluation and dismissal of master students within graduate
programs would be a beneficial area o f exploration to investigate policy effectiveness and the
commonality of student remediation processes. The results of that study may not have as much
relevance today, though the finding that most programs indicated one to three problem students a
year indicates a heavy reliance on student retention policies. If such a finding were to remain
true today, then the results would demonstrate a greater need for retention policies to be
transparent and specific, given that graduate programs have to operate in an increasingly litigious
society.
Another study could investigate students’ attitudes around faculty and supervisor
evaluation, specifically investigating perceived importance and comfort around it. The results of
such a study could be used to determine whether the ideal climate of evaluation exists today, and
could serve as a necessary foundation for a dialogue between students and counselor educators in
how such a climate could come to be created.
Limitations
Some limitations o f the study include the timing of securing units of analysis via
communication efforts to faculty members o f specific graduate programs. The majority of
efforts used to secure retention policies was near the end of the spring semester and during the
summer months, a time when faculty are usually less attentive to research requests or available
for correspondence. Because o f this, an additional step was added to correspond with faculty
members within the fall semester, which resulted in the second most effective yield of retention
policies. Should other studies hope to replicate the current study’s methodology, then it is
advised that attempts to correspond with faculty happen more within the academic school year.
Another limitation is whether analysis of retention policies from 177 out o f 274
demonstrates sufficient external validity or census. At least six programs sent policies that did
not meet inclusion criteria and could not be determined as fitting the needs o f the study, and of
the 224 programs originally collected, 47 did not list specific dispositions. Thus, a complete
census would not have been possible due to these findings. In addition, this outcome may be
indicative o f a more alarming trend of counseling programs remaining purposefully vague in the
area o f evaluation and student retention. Nonetheless, over 80% of CACREP accredited
counseling programs were originally included in the sample and an exhaustive effort was
employed to secure a census o f retention policies.
Lastly, shared word choices of dispositions may have different meanings and intentions
among different graduate programs, and may not be as appropriate a fit within categories of the
current study. Some graduate programs’ retention policies listed criteria that were vague and
offered little clarification or definition, and in using other programs’ definitions of dispositions,
may not be compatible with the intent of those programs. For example, the disposition of
“demonstrating sound judgment” was a common recurrence within graduate programs, though
offered little in what such a behavior entailed, or in what regard sound judgment was expected.
However, this demonstrates the need for further discussion in clarifying specific criteria in
student evaluation. In attempting to clump the many word combinations of dispositions into
themes, more discussion can take place among counseling professionals in what they wish to see
demonstrated in counseling students, which in turn would guide evaluation efforts.
Conclusion
Evaluation o f supervisees within counseling have evolved to focus less on adherence to
theory and specific skill sets, to more account for the factors that contribute to developing the
therapeutic alliance between counselor and clients. This study, which investigated the
dispositions on which graduate programs assess students, provides greater evidence that the
counseling profession is evolving in kind. Much like what was proposed by Rodolfa et al.,
(2005), professional dispositions are to be seen as foundational to the competencies and skill sets
that graduate programs focus training on. Specifically, a student’s professional competency,
such as upholding professional responsibilities and maintaining healthy boundaries with clients,
would be severely comprised if they were shown to demonstrate a lack of integrity, as integrity is
a disposition that is foundational to those competencies.
The area of professional dispositions has been a contested area within mental health, with
some positing that setting established criteria is a difficult enterprise, or even impossible due to
the inherent subjectivity of counseling (Robiner, Fuhrman, and Ristvedt, 1993; Dawes, 1994).
There is evidence that forming consensus of professional dispositions is difficult to establish,
with literature spanning three decades calling for a consensus and standardization in this area
(Weiss, 1981; Borders and Benshoff, 1992; Hensley, Smith and Thompso, 2003; Rust, Rasking,
and Hill 2013). It is the hope that the results o f the current study provide a step forward in
meeting this difficulty by providing a common language for counseling professionals to have a
dialogue that leads to consensus.
While such a consensus would allow counselor educators to have greater safety in
enforcing remediation policies, it also would provide greater transparency in evaluative
procedures, thus fostering a more ideal climate around evaluation. The implications of such a
climate are all positive, with students being able to better voice areas o f growth within
themselves, fostering a greater ability to self-assess and allowing faculty to better meet their
students’ needs. Students would also be better suited for supervisory responsibilities, haven
taken direct action into their own evaluative process. Lastly, counselor educators can have
greater clarity in evaluative practices, with the hope o f making student remediation less a
retroactive process and more a proactive one. Though there is still a great deal of research that
needs to be done before a consensus can be reached, providing a foundation to facilitate such a
dialogue is a significant starting point.

References
American Counseling Association. (2005) ACA code o f ethics. Retrieved April 17, 2013, from
www.counseling.org/Resources/aca-code-of-ethics.pdf
Ancis, J. R., and Marshall, D. S. (2010). Using a multicultural framework to assess supervisees’
perceptions of culturally competent supervision. Journal o f Counseling and
Development, 88, 277-284.
Baldo, T. D., Softas-Nall, B. C., and Shaw, S. F. (1997). Student review and retention in
counselor education: An alternative to Frame and Stevens-Smith. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 36, 245-253.
Bemak, F., Epp, L. R., and Keys, S. G. (1999). Impaired graduate students: A process model of
graduate program monitoring and intervention. International Journal fo r the
Advancement o f Counseling, 21, 19-30.
Berelson, B. (1971). Content analysis in communication research. New York, NY: Hafner.
Bernard, J. M., and Goodyear, R. K. (2009). Fundamentals o f clinical supervision. Boston: Alyn
and Bacon.
Borders, L. D., and Benshoff, J. M. (1992) The mini-conference: Teaching professionalism
through student involvement. Journal o f Counseling and Development, 71, 39-40.
Borrayo, E. A. (2006). Report on the National Conference on Training in Professional
Geropsychology. Focus, 18, 19-20.
Bowler, M. C., Bowler, J. L., and Cope, J. G. (2012). Further evidence of the impact of
cognitive complexity on the five-factor model. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(1),
1083-1098.
Brear, P., Dorrian, J., and Luscri, G. (2008). Preparing our future counseling professionals:
Gatekeeping and the implications for research. Counseling and Psychotherapy Research,
8, 93-101.
Byars-Winston, A. M., and Fouad, N. (2006). Metacognitions and multicultural competence:
Expanding the culturally appropriate career counseling model. The Career Development
Quarterly, 54, 187-201.
Carney, T. F. (1971). Content analysis: A review essay. HistoricalMethods Newsletter, 4(2), 52-
61.
Carney, T. F. (1972). Content analysis: A technique fo r systematic inferences from
communication. Winnipeg Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
Council for Accreditation o f Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). 2009
standards. Retrieved, April 18, 2013, from
www.cacrep.org/doc2009%/20Standards%20with%20cover.pdf
Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinions for critical decision
making tasks in education. Educational Psychology: An International Journal o f
Experimental Educational Psychology, 17, 373-386.
Custer, G. (1994, November). Can universities be liable for incompetent grads? APA Monitor,
25 (11), 7.
Davis, D. A., Mazmanian, P. E., Fordis, M., Harrison, R. V., Thorpe, K. E., and Perrier, L.
(2006). Accuracy o f physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of
competence: A systematic review. Journal o f the American Medical Association, 296,
1094-1102.
Dawes, R. (1994). House o f cards: psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York:
The Free Press.
DeMers, S. T. (2009). Real progress with significant challenges ahead: Advancing competency
assessment in psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3, 4,
S66-S69.
Enochs, W. K., and Etzbach, C. A., (2004). Impaired student counselors: Ethical and legal
considerations for the family. The Family Journal, 12, 396-400.
Eriksen, K., and McAuliffe, G. (2003) A measure of counselor competency. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 43, 120-133
Fauth, J., Gates, S., Vinca, M. A., Boles, S., and Hayes, J. A. (2007). Big ideas for
psychotherapy training. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 44, 384-
391.
Forrest, L., Elman, N., Gizara, S., and Vacha-Haase, T. (1999) Trainee impairment: A review of
identification, remediation, dismissal, and legal issues. The Counseling Psychologists, 27,
627-686.
Foster, V. A., and McAdams, C. R. (2009). A Framework for Creating a Climate of
Transparency for Professional Performance Assessment: Fostering Student Investment in
Gatekeeping. Counselor Education and Supervision,48, 271-284.
Fouad, N. A., Grus, C. L., Hatcher, R. L., Kaslow, N. J., Smith-Hutchings, P., Madson, M. B., et
al. (2009). Competency Benchmarks: A model for understanding and measuring
competence in professional psychology across training levels. Training and Education in
Professional Psychology, 3, 4, S5-S26.

Frame, M. W., and Stevens-Smith, P. (1995). Out of harm’s way: enhancing monitoring and
dismissal processes in counselor education programs. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 35, (2) pi 18-129.
France, C. R., Masters, K. S., Belar, C.D., Kerns, R. D., Klonoff, E. A., Lartkin, K. T., et al.
(2008). Application o f the competency model to clinical Health Psychology.
Professional Psychology: Research and Training, 39, 573-580.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1996). Content analysis: A methodology for structuring and
analyzing written material. GAO/PEMD-10.3.1 Washington, D.C.
Gaubatz, M. D., and Vera, E. M. (2006). Trainee competence in master’s level counseling
programs: A comparison o f counselor educators’ and students’ views. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 46, 32-43.
Hatcher, R. L. (2011). Notes on the path to competence: Comments to Ridley and colleagues’
major contribution. The Counseling Psychologist, 39,(6), 887-896.
Henderson, K. L., and Dufrene, R. L. (2012). Student behaviors associated with remediation: A
content analysis. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation 3(1), 48-60.
Hensley, L. G., Smith, S. L., and Waller Thompson, R. (2003). Assessing competencies of
counselors-in-training: Complexities in evaluating personal and professional
development. Counselor Education and Supervision, 42, 219-230.
Herman, K. C. (1993). Reassessing predictors of therapist competence. Journal o f Counseling
and Development, 72, 29-32.
Hess, A. K. (2011). Psychotherapy Supervision. In Norcross, J. C., VandenBos, G. R.,
Freedheim, D. K. (Eds.), History o f Psychotherapy: Continuity and Change (2nd ed.), (pp.
703-722). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis fo r the social sciences and humanities. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley- Pub. Co.
Ivey, A. E. (1971). Microcounseling: Innovations in interview training. Springfield, 1L:
Thomas.
Jennings, L., Goh, M., Skovholt, T. M., and Banerjee-Stevens, D. (2003). Multiple factors in the
development o f the expert counselor and therapist. Journal o f Career Development, 30,
1, 59-72
Kaslow, N. J. (2004). Competencies in professional psychology. American Psychologist, 59,
774-781.
Kaslow, N. J., Borden, K. A., Collins, F. L., Forrest, L., Illfelder-Kaye, J., Nelson, P. D., et al.,
(2004). Competencies Conference: Future directions in education and credentialing in
professional psychology. Journal o f Clinical Psychology. 80, 699-712.
Kaslow, N. J., Rubin, N. J., Leigh, 1. Portnoy, S., Lichtenberg, J., Smith, I. L., et al. (2006).
American Psychological Association Task Force on the Assessment o f Competence in
Professional Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kaslow, N. J., Rubin, N. J., Forrest, L., Elman, N. S., Van Home, B. A., Jacobs, S. C., et al.
(2007). Recognizing, assessing and intervening with problems o f professional
competence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, (5), 479-492.
Kaslow, N. J., Grus, C. L., Campbell, L. F., Fouad, N. A., Hatcher, R. L., and Rodolfa, E. R.
(2009). Competency Assessment Toolkit for Professional Psychology. Training and
Education in Professional Psychology, 3, (4), S27-S45.
Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 733 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (S.D. Ga. 2010) afP d , 664 F.3d 865 (11th Cir.
2011).
Kerl, S. B., Garcia, J. L., McCullough, C. S., and Maxwell, M. E. (2002). Systematic evaluation
of professional performance: Legally supported procedure and process. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 41, (4), 321-332.
Krippendorf, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. (3rd ed.) Beverely
Hills, CA: Sage.
Labouvie-Vief, G., and Diehl, M. (2000). Cognitive complexity and cognitive affective-
integration: related or separate domains of adult development. Psychology and Aging,
15, 490-504.
Lamb, D. H., Presser, N, R., Pfost, K. S., Baum, M. C., Jackson, V. R., and Jarvis, P. A. (1987).
Confronting professional impairment during the internship: Identification, due process,
and remediation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 597-603.
Lambert, M. J. (1989). The individual therapist’s contribution to psychotherapy process and
outcome. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 469-485.
Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data .Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
Lazarus, A. A., and Beutler, L. E. (1993). On technical eclecticism. Journal o f Counseling and
Development, 71, 381-385.
Leigh, I. W., Smith, I. L., Bebeau, M. J., Lichtenberg, J. W., Nelson, P. D., Portnoy, S., et al.
(2007). Competency Assessment Models. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 38(5), 463-473.
Lumadue, C. A., and Duffey, T. H. (1999). The role of graduate programs as gatekeepers: A
model for evaluating student counselor competence. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 39, 101-109.

Madan-Swain, A, Hankins, S. L., Gilliam, M. B., Ross, K., Reynolds, N., Milby, J., Schwebel,
D. C. (2012). Applying the cube model to pediatric psychology: Development of
research competency skills at the doctoral level. Journal o f Pediatric Psychology, 37 (2)
136-148.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2).
Retrieved November 5, 2013, from http://2.17.160.35.246/fqs-texte/2-00/2-00mayring-
e.pdf
McAdams, C. R., and Foster, V.A. (2007). A guide to just and fair remediation of counseling
students with professional performance deficiencies. Counselor Education and
McAdams, C. R., Foster, V. A., and Ward, T. J. (2007). Remediation and dismissal policies in
counselor education: Lessons learned from a challenge in federal court. Counselor
McCutcheon, S. R. (2009) Competency benchmarks: implications for internship training.
Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3, S50-S53.
Nash, J. M., and Larkin, K. T. (2012). Geometric models o f competency development in
specialty areas o f professional psychology. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, 6( 1), 37-46.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oklin, R., and Gaughen, S. (1991). Evaluation and dismissal of students in master’s level
clinical programs: Legal parameters and survey results. Counselor Education and

Peterson, R. L., McHolland, J., Bent, R. J., Davis-Russell, E., Edwall, G. E.,Magidson, E., et al.
(Eds.) (1992). The core curriculum in professional psychology. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Assocation and National Council of Schools of Professional
Psychology.
Ridley, C. R., Mollen, D., and Kelly, S. (2011). Beyond microskills: toward a model of
counseling competence. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 825-864.
Robiner, W. N., Fuhrman, M., and Risvedt, S. (1993). Evaluation difficulties in supervising
psychology interns. The Clinical Psychologist, 46, 3-13.
Rodolfa, E. R., Bent, R. J., Eismann, E., Nelson, P. D., Rehm, L., and Rictchie, P. (2005). A
cube model for competency development: Implications for psychology education and
regulators. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36, 347-354.
Rogers, C. (1957) The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change.
Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 21, 95-103.
Ronnestad, M. H., and Skovholt, T. M. (2003). The journey of the counselor and therapist:
Research findings and perspectives on professional development. Journal o f Career
Development, 30 (1) 5-44.
Rubin, N. J., Bebeau, M., Leigh, I. W., Lichtenberg, J. W., Nelson, P. D., Portnoy, S. et al.
(2007). The competency movement within psychology: An historical perspective.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 38, (5), 452-462
Russo, M. F. (2005). Play therapy and social constructivism: Seeing the world through a young
person’s eyes. The Journal o f Evolutionary Psychology, 27( 3&4), 24-30.

Russo, M. F., and Kemmerer, A. H. (2006). The paradigm shift to post-modem theory in
counseling and psychotherapy: are we throwing out the babies with the bathwater?
Journal o f Evolutionary Psychology, 29(1-2), 34-40.
Rust, J. P., Raskin, J. D., and Hill, M. S. (2013). Problems of professional competence among
counselor trainees: Programmatic issues and guidelines. Counselor Education and
Skovholt, T. M., and Ronnestad, M. H. (2003). Struggles of the novice counselor and therapist.
Journal o f Career Development, 30, 44-58.
Spurgeon, S. L., Gibbons, M. M., and Cochran, J. L. (2012). Creating personal dispositions for a
professional counseling program. Counseling and Values, 57, 96-108.
Stemler, S. (2001) An overview o f content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and
Evaluation, 7. Retrieved from http://socialscientist.us/nphs/psychIB/IBReview/
Content_analysis_overview.pdf
Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., and McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural Counseling Competencies
and Standards: A Call to the Profession. Journal o f Counseling and Development, 70,
478-486.
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Hoboken, NJL Wiley.
Swank, J. M., and Smith-Adcoek, S. (2014). Gatekeep During Admissions: A survey of
counselor education programs. Counselor Education and Supervision, 53, 47-61.
Swank, J. M., Lambie, G. W., and Witta, E. L. (2012). An exploratory investigation of the
counseling competencies scale: A measure o f counseling skills, dispositions, and
behaviors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 51, 189-206.

Townes, D. L., Chavez-Korell, S., and Cunningham, N. J. (2009). Reexamining the relationships
between racial identity, cultural mistruct, help-seeking attitudes, and preference for a
black counselor. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 56 (2), 330-336.
Truax, C. B., and Carkhuff, R. R. (1967). Toward effective counseling and psychotherapy.
Chicago: Aldine.
Urbani, S., Smith, M. R., Maddux, C. D., Smaby, M. H., Torres-Rivera, E., and Crews, J. (2002).
Counselor preparation: Skill-based training and counseling self-efficacy. Counselor
Ward v. Wilbanks, No. 09-CV-l 1237, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127038 (E.D. Mich. July 26,
2010), re v’d and remanded sub nom. To Ward V. Polite, Nos. 10-2100/2145 (6th Cir.
Mich. 2012).
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Weiss, C. (1981). The development of professional role commitment among graduate students.
Human Relations, 34. 13-31.13-31.
Wheeler, S. (2000). What makes a good counselor? An analysis of ways in which counselor
trainers construe good and bad counseling trainees. Counseling Psychology Quarterly,
Vol. 13, No. 1, 65-83.
Young, M. E. (1998). Skills-based training for counselors-Micro-skills or mega-skills?
Counseling and Human Development, 31, 1-12.
Zhang, Y., and Wildemuth, B. M. (2009) Qualitative analysis o f content. In: Wildemuth B
editors. Applications o f Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and
Library. Portland: Book News.

APPENDIX A
Dispositions Competencies
Frame and Stevens-Smith • being open
(1995) • flexible
PCEF • positive
• ability to cooperate
with others
• willingness to use and
accept feedback
• awareness of one's
own impact on others
• ability to deal with
conflict
• ability to accept
personal responsibility
• ability to effectively
express feelings
Baldo, Softas-Nall, and Shaw • Empathic capacity

(1997) • Maturity of judgment
• Ability to work closely
with others
• Capacity to handle
stress
• Tolerance for deviance
Lumadue and Duffey (1999) • Maturity • Counseling skills and
PPFE • Integrity abilities
• Professional
Responsibility
• Competence
Kerl, Garcia, McCullough, • Anger control • Basic Communication
and Maxwell (2002) • Empathy skills
PCPE • Maturity • Conflict resolution
• Professional Demeanor
Eriksen and McAuliffe (2003) • Develops therapeutic • Shows interest and

CSS relationship appreciation
• Encourages
exploration
• Deepens the session
• Encourages change
• Manages the session
McAdams, Foster, and Ward, • Openness to new ideas

(2007) • Flexibility
PPRP • Cooperativeness with
others
• Willingness to use and
accept feedback
• Awareness of impact
on others
• Ability to deal with
conflict
• Ability to accept
personal responsibility
• Ability to express
feelings effectively and
appropriately
• Attention to ethical
and legal
considerations
• Initiative and
motivation
Swank, Lambie, and Witta • Professional ethics • Counseling Skills
(2012) • Professionalism • Assessment and
CSS • Self-awareness and application
self-understanding • Professional behaviors
• Emotional stability and
self control
• Motivated to learn and
grow/initiative
• Multicultural
competence
• Openness to feedback
• Professional and
personal boundaries
• Flexibility and
adaptability
• Congruence and
genuineness
Table 1
Out o f 274 institutions listed on the CACREP website as of 5/2014
Attempts Browse 1st email 2nd email 1st phone call 2nd phone call
Website for attempt attempt attempt attempt
Documents
Program 274 websites Sent 75 emails Sent 60 Called 58 Called 53

Interaction browsed and to remaining emails programs. programs.
and Response navigated for programs. Spoke w/ 9 Spoke w/ 16
units of Heard back invidividuals, individuals. O f
analysis or Heard back from 5, left remaining those, got 1 verbal
student from 15 received voicemails. agreement.
handbooks institutions. 3 agreement Several faculty
responded not that they referenced
having policies would checking updated
available and check with website.
were excluded program
from list coordinator
and get
back to me.
Units of Received 12 Received 1 Received 3 Received 6 more
analysis student document documents. policies revisiting
received/total handbooks via That met Received 2 websites.
email criteria. other policies Received 3
attachment with Received 1 that did not fit policies from
units of policy that with inclusion direct contact, via
analysis. did not. criteria. email.
199 total units 211 total units 212 total 215 total units 224 total units o f
of analysis o f analysis. units of of analysis. analysis.
analysis
Table 2
CATEGORIES/NODE # EXAMPLES FROM RETENTION POLICIES

Openness to G row th
Willingness to Accept and Use 67 “Inclined or prepared to listen to supervisors and to
Feedback ungrudgingly carry out directions.”
“The student demonstrates the ability to receive, integrate,

and utilize feedback from peers, instructors, and
supervisors.”
Initiative and Motivation 34 “Initiative is demonstrated by offering ideas and
suggestions to others, setting goals for self- improvement,
seeking advice and feedback, and independently searching
for, creating, or modifying plans and materials.”
Values Professional and 32 “Demonstrated openness to self-examination and personal
Personal Growth and professional self- development.”
Openness to New Ideas 27 “Remain open to ideas, learning, feedback, and change.”
Values Introspection 16 “Value self-awareness and self-examination, and take
responsibility for seeking professional help for issues that
might impede one’s counseling practice.”
Willingness to Grow 14 “Willingness to risk self in new experiences and groups
Professionally (e.g., active participation in learning experiences that
challenge and develop skills and clarify values).”
Openness 8 Openness
Openness to Supervision 8 “Receptiveness to supervision.”
Commitment to Lifelong 7 “The competent professional is a lifelong learner.”
Learning
Seeks Supervision 4 Seeks Supervision
Cooperates with Remediation 3 “Cooperates with remediation plan.”
Plan
Receptive to Feedback 2
Responding to Supervision 2
Effective Use o f Supervision 1
Self-Directed 1
Openness to Take 1
Interpersonal Risks
Critical Thinker 1
A wareness of Self and
O thers
Self-Awareness 40 “Demonstrates ability to recognize and monitor personal
stress and emotional reactions to professional
responsibilities.”
“Candidate consistently displays accurate introspection,

awareness of own strengths and weaknesses and;
consistently displays an understanding of the impact of
personal issues within the therapeutic relationship.”
Accept Personal 39 “Exhibits ability to take responsibility for one’s actions.”
Responsibility
“Takes personal responsibility for one’s own behavior.”
Awareness of Own Impact on 30 “Recognizes her/his personal and professional impact
Others upon others.”
Sensitivity to Diversity 15 “sensitivity to issues o f diversity and respect for
individual differences.”
Sensitivity (to others) 13 “Demonstrates sensitivity toward others.”
Personal Awareness of 12 “Student respects self and possesses an awareness of
Strengths and Limitations strengths and limitations.”
Reflections 9 “Demonstrating willingness and ability to use self-
reflection to promote professional growth.”
Reflective 8 “The competent professional is a reflective practitioner.”
“Reflectiveness.”
Awareness of Power 4 “The student demonstrates sensitivity to real and ascribed
Differences in Therapy differences in power between themselves and others, and
does not exploit or mislead other people during or after
professional relationships.”
Awareness o f Cultural S elf 3 “Identifies challenges and opportunities afforded by their
and Others own culture as well as cultural identities other than their
own.”
Introspective to Self-Care 3 “Student appears to be alert to signs of stress.”
Needs
Wellness 3 “Understanding of, and decision to pursue, wellness as a
lifestyle over the life span. Willingness to asses issues of
wellness in one’s lifestyle and life-environment.”
Sensitive to Mental Health 1
Needs o f Clients
Mindfulness 1
Capacity fo r Insight 1
Demonstrates Realistic 1
Expectations o f the S elf
Learns from Experience 1
Awareness o f how 1
Environmental Factors
Influence Client Success
Appropriately Addresses 1
Limitations with Clients
Integrity
Integrity 32 “ 1. The student respects the fundamental rights, dignity,
and worth of all people.”
“The student respects the rights o f individuals to privacy,

confidentiality, and choices regarding self-determination.”
“The student behaves in accordance with the program’s

accepted code(s) of ethics/standards o f practice.”

Attention and Adherence to 93 “Understand, appreciate, and adhere to professional
Ethical Practices standards o f ethics and practice.”
“Ability to understand and demonstrate ethical and

professional behavior.”
Judgment 12 “Students must display sound moral and ethical
judgment.”
Respects Privacy and 11 “Student maintains client/colleague/peer confidentiality as
Confidentiality o f Others defined by the AC A Code of Ethics.”
Respects Professional and 7 “Demonstrates appropriate boundaries: sexual, ethical,
Personal Boundaries and professional.”
Trustworthiness 2
Exhibits Personal Courage 1
and Strength
Em otional Stability
Maturity 37 “The student demonstrates appropriate self-control (such
as anger control, impulse control) in interpersonal
relationships with faculty, peers, and others.”
“The student exhibits appropriate levels of self-assurance,

confidence, and trust in own ability.”
“The student follows professionally recognized conflict

resolution processes, seeking to informally address the
issue first with the individual(s) with whom the conflict
exists.”
Deal With Conflict 33 “ability and willingness to deal with conflict (Corey,
1986).”
“Demonstrates the ability to manage conflict resolution

appropriately.”
Stability 30 “Personal stability, as indicated by consistent affective,
cognitive, and behavioral management in the program,
including successful management of all personal issues
that may prevent performance of the duties of a
professional counselor.”
Reliability 22 “Reliable completion, even under conditions of stress and
emotional challenge, of expected clinical and academic
responsibilities including:
o Meeting all obligations to staff and clients at the clinical
site
o Completing all necessary documentation and
communication commitments at the internship or
practicum placement
o Completing class assignments and being an active
learner in the classroom.”

Manages Stress Appropriately 19 “Cope effectively with stressors precipitated by the
academic and clinical expectations/requirements of the
program and additional stressors such as jobs and family
situations.”
Tolerate Ambiguity 7 “Tolerates demanding workloads and stressful conditions.
Demonstrates the ability to function in ambiguous
situations. “
Balance 5 “Student appears to maintain a balance in his or her life.”
Confidence Balanced with 3 “Exhibits appropriate levels of self-confidence,
Humility competency, self-assurance and trust in own abilities in
classes, peer interactions and placement situations.”
Self-Acceptance and 1
Confidence
Psychologically Healthy 1
Com passion
Empathy 20 “Exhibit and understand the importance of respectful,
genuine, and empathic attitudes toward clients, thereby
promoting client dignity, self-determination, and welfare.”
Respect for Individual 13 “Student shows a respect for individual differences.”
Differences
Interested in Welfare of 9 “Student conveys an interest in the welfare of others.”
Others
Respect and Appreciation of 9 “Respect for and celebration of diverse people and
Diverse Populations cultures.”
Respect (for others) 8 “Effectively demonstrates respect.”
Acceptance 5 “Acceptance o f Diverse Ideas and Values.”
Fairness (in treating others) 3 “Includes all students in classroom activities.__Expresses
interest in the well-being of all students.__Provides
opportunities for respectful discussions on diverse
perspectives.”
Non-judgmental 2
Respect Client Welfare 2
Respect Dignity and Self- 2
worth o f Others
Unconditionally Believes in 1
Client Growth
Appreciates Client Strengths 1
Flexibility
Flexibility 39 “The ability to adapt to situations and experiences, and to
adjust one’s behavior appropriately.”
Cooperativeness with Others 42 “Student exhibits cooperative behavior as evidenced by a
willingness to give others time and space to articulate their
views.”
Flexible in Meeting Client 6 “Exhibit and understand the importance o f the ability to
Needs engage clients, acknowledging the unique nature and
needs of individuals at all developmental levels and across

cultures.”
Collaborate with Others 5 “Ability to consult/ collaborate with others.”
Cognitive Flexibility 2
Flexible in Professional 2
Relationships
Creativity 1
Maintains Objectivity 1
Personal Style
Positive Attitude 19 “positive attitude (Jackson and Thompson, 1971).”
“Demonstrates a positive attitude.”

Genuineness 7 “This quality is most evident when you are real, authentic
and congruent in interactions with others; what one sees in
you is consistently portrayed in a variety of situations and
circumstances.”
Attitude 6 “Attitude.”
Warmth 5 “Exhibits authenticity, warmth, and appropriate
interpersonal skills.”
Patience 4 “Shows appropriate level of patience.”
Sense of Humor 4 “capable of not taking self “too seriously”; imparts joy
and optimism into difficult situations.”
Authenticity 2
Congruence 2
Optimism 1
Curiosity 1
Openness to be Real with 1
Clients
Interpersonal Com petency
Communication 34 “Appropriate communication skills, including the ability
to engage in concrete and focused communications.”
“Communication skills— communicates verbally and non-

—verbally in a clear and effective manner.”
Express Feelings Effectively 34 “Aware of and manages emotions and behavior in a way
and Appropriately that facilitates interpersonal interactions.”
Interpersonal Skills 27 “Establishes and maintains professional, collaborative,
and collegial relationships with others (a) despite social
differences and level o f authority and (b) that are
consistent with the AACC and ACA Code o f Ethics.”
Interpersonal Effectiveness 23 “Demonstrated effectiveness in developing interpersonal
relationships in individual and group contacts.”
Listen and Hear Others 13 “Attentiveness - the ability to attend and listen to the
client.”
Communicates Feedback 12 “Student conveys feedback to others in an appropriate
Appropriately manner.”
Communicate Ideas 6 “The student clearly communicates ideas and concepts.”
Convey Empathy and 5 “one’s ability to convey warmth, genuineness, respect, and
Compassion empathy in interactions with clients, classmates, staff, and
faculty.”
Articulate Personal 2
Convictions
Professional Competency
Relationships (Professional) 36 “Demonstrates ability to maintain respectful and
professional collegial and supervisory relationships and
peer relationships.”
Comportment 24 “Exhibit professional dress and demeanor in accordance
with practice settings.”
Professionalism (in relation to 22 “The student demonstrates a respectful attitude toward
others) peers, professors, and others.”
Professional Responsibility 18 “Performs professional responsibilities in agency setting
in a consistent and dependable manner.”
Professional Conduct 8 “appropriate adjustment and professional conduct.”
Commitment to Profession 8 “Appropriate involvement in professional development
activities (e.g., professional associations, conference
attendance).”
Leadership 6 “Seizes opportunities to demonstrate leadership qualities
within the cohort. Take appropriate turns at stepping up to
leadership and being a follower.”
Advocacy 5 “Advocates for wellness and balance in others, contributes
to efforts to examine and enact productive solutions to
wellness.”
Organization 4 “Demonstrates organization through planning, selection
and preparation o f materials, time management.”
Social Advocacy 2
Advocate for Profession 2
Readiness Professional Role 1
Appreciation o f therapeutic 1
process
Professional Commitment 1
Demeanor 1
Clinical Competency
Competence 22 “ 1. The student recognizes the boundaries of his/her
particular competencies and the limitations of his/her
expertise.
2. The student takes responsibility for compensating for
his/her deficiencies.
3. The student takes responsibility for assuring client
welfare when encountering the boundaries of his/her
expertise.
4. The student demonstrates basic cognitive, affective,
sensory, and motor capacities to respond therapeutically to

the clients.
5. The student provides only those services and applies
only those techniques for which she/he is qualified by
education training and expertise.”
Relationships (therapeutic) 19 “The student demonstrates the ability to establish
relationships in such a manner that a therapeutic working
relationship can be created.”
Multicultural Competence 10 “Demonstrates multicultural competencies in relation to
diversity, equity, and opportunity in student learning and
development.”
Appropriately self-discloses 7 “This quality is most evident when you only share
information about yourself that fits the nature and purpose
o f the interaction. When personal information is revealed,
it is tasteful, relevant, and is not upsetting, distracting, or
confusing to others.”
Ability to Work with Diverse 6 “Demonstrates the ability to relate to diverse individuals.”
Populations
Competency (clinical) 3 1. The student understands and accepts the importance of
implementing the core conditions of counseling:
unconditional positive regard, genuineness, and empathy.
2. The student demonstrates the core conditions of
counseling: unconditional positive regard, genuineness,
and empathy.
3. The student demonstrates a capacity for understanding
the influence o f others on his/her own development (e.g.,
family of origin).
4. The student demonstrates a willingness and an ability to
explore her/his own emotions, behavior, and cognitions in
order to enhance self-awareness and self-knowledge.
5. The student consistently demonstrates excellent
interpersonal skills, exhibiting a genuine interest in and
appreciation of others, a respect for others, and an ability
to interact with others in an appropriate manner.
6. The student demonstrates a potential for working
effectively with distressful emotions (his/her own and the
emotions o f others).
Cognition (ability to work with 2
clients)
Maintains Appropriate 2
Boundaries
Self-control in Professional 1
Relationships
Establish Rapport with both 1
Men and Women
Table 3
APPENDIX B
Dear Dr. name o f coordinator,
My name is Jeff Christensen and I am a doctoral candidate in the Counselor Education
program at William and Mary. For my dissertation, I am conducting a content analysis on
student retention policies to investigate what are the most prevalent professional dispositions that
counseling programs expect o f their students and was hoping you could email me a pdf of your
program’s counseling student handbook, or any other documentation that would contain the
policy for your list o f specific counseling track(s).
This study has IRB approval and your specific program will remain anonymous in the
final results. If you would like to receive any more information about my study, please do not to
hesitate to ask. You can reach me best at this email address, or contact my dissertation chair,
Charles F. Gressard at [email protected].
Thank you again for your help.
Sincerely,
Jeff Christensen
PhD Candidate Counselor Education
The College of William and Mary
APPENDIX C
Dear Dr. name o f coordinator
My name is Jeff Christensen and 1 am sending a final email request for a pdf for your
program’s counseling student handbook any other documentation that would contain your
counseling student retention policy for your counseling track(s). This request is to conduct a
content analysis on all CACREP accredited counseling programs to determine what professional
dispositions we as a profession assess our students on. This study has IRB approval and your
specific program will remain anonymous in the final results. If you would like to receive more
information about this study, you can reach me at this email address, or contact my dissertation
chair, Charles F. Gressard at [email protected].
Thank you again for your time and I hope this email finds you well.
Sincerely,
Jeff Christensen
PhD Candidate Counselor Education
The college o f William and Mary

Building A Consensus On The Professional Dispositions of Counseling Students: A Content Analysis On Counseling Student Retention Policies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building A Consensus On The Professional Dispositions of Counseling Students: A Content Analysis On Counseling Student Retention Policies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building A Consensus On The Professional Dispositions of Counseling Students: A Content Analysis On Counseling Student Retention Policies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BUILDING A CONSENSUS ON THE PROFESSIONAL DISPOSITIONS OF

COUNSELING STUDENTS: A CONTENT ANALYSIS ON COUNSELING STUDENT

The Faculty of the School of Education

The College of William and Mary in Virginia

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Counselor Education

Jeffrey Kyle Christensen

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

Jeffrey Kyle C hristensen

Approved January 2015 by

C harles “Rick” G ressard, Ph.D.

C harles “Rip” McAdams, Ph.D.

T hom as J. rd, Ph.D.

effort I will attempt to do so.

that means a lot.

To Dr. James P. Barber, who served as a fantastic methodologist and a tremendous

kindness, patience and knowledge that you shown me.

seem to be a Southern accent to it.

manageable. I will always be grateful. Thank you for everything.

policies to students, as well as moving to a more standardized evaluation and remediation

Chapter One Introduction............................................................................................................ 6

Chapter Two Review o f Literature...........................................................................................16

Chapter Three M ethod...................................................................................................................34

Chapter Four R esults.................................................................................................................... 47

Openness to Growth (Table 4 ) .........................................................49

A wareness o f Self and Others (Table 5 ) ........................................52

Integrity (Table 6 ) ............................................................................... 55

Emotional Stability (Table 7 ) ..........................................................57

Flexibility (Table 8 ) ............................................................................59

Compassion (Table 9 ) .........................................................................61

Personal Style (Table 1 0 ) ...................................................................63

Interpersonal Com petency (Table 1 1 ) .......................................... 65

Professional Com petency (Table 1 2 ) ............................................ 68

Clinical Competency (Table 1 3 ) ..................................................... 70

Chapter Five D iscussion.............................................................................................................. 73

Appendices Appendix A ...........................................................................................................96

A ppendix B ....................................................................................................... 106

A ppendix C ....................................................................................................... 107

A chief responsibility o f counselor educators is evaluating the professional dispositions

their gatekeeping responsibility, while providing students with sufficient opportunities to

develop into competent professionals.

is a general understanding in the evaluation around professional competencies (counseling

techniques, application to theory, etc.), evaluation of professional dispositions is less understood,

in their evaluation efforts.

Description o f the Problem

Evaluation around trainees’ professional dispositions and subsequent remediation

the degree is bestowed” (Custer, 1994).

student’s academic performance, professional development, and personal development...if

o f study” (pg 5; Standard I.P).

Another complication o f student remediation is faculty reluctance to dismiss students

(McAdams and Foster, 2007).

both fields, and the purpose of the current study.

Many articles within the counseling literature on establishing professional competencies

competencies, including areas such as flexibility, personal responsibility, ability to receive

opportunities for self-assessment practices in students, as it is a key component in competency,

due to it requiring self-awareness, self-reflection, self-understanding and self-evaluation, all

2007; Rodolfa, Bent, Eismann, et al., 2005; Swank et al., 2012).

decade that attempted to empirically validate an assessment o f counseling students’ professional