University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Group Counseling For Counselors: Its Effect Upon The Growth Of Behavior Cognition And Its Relationship To Counselor Effectiveness

(USC Thesis Other)

Group Counseling For Counselors: Its Effect Upon The Growth Of Behavior Cognition And Its Relationship To Counselor Effectiveness

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 70-16,885 ROGAL, Richard Alan, 194-2- GROUP COUNSELING FOR COUNSELORS: ITS EFFECT UPON THE GROWTH OF BEHAVIOR COGNITION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COUNSELOR EFFECTIVENESS. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1970 Education, guidance and counseling j University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan © Copyright by RICHARD ALAN ROGAL 1970 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED GROUP COUNSELING FOR COUNSELORS: ITS EFFECT UPON THE GROWTH OF BEHAVIOR COGNITION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COUNSELOR EFFECTIVENESS by Richard Alan Rogal A Dissertation-Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) January 1970 UNIVERSITY O F S O U TH ER N CALIFORNIA TH E GRADUATE SCHO OL U N IV E R S IT Y PARK LOS ANGELES, C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 T his dissertation, w ritte n by ..RICHARD. ALAN..RQGAL. under the direction o f h il§.... D issertation Com m ittee, and approved by a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted by The G radu ate School, in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t o f require ments o f the degree of D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y if *777' Dean -Date...Decemher..a,...lQ6Q. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. J. P. Guilford and Dr. Ralph Hoepfner of the University of Southern California Psychological Laboratory for making available to me the tests of behavior cognition. I should also like to acknowledge Dr. Robert Benoit, Dr. Isaac Berman, Dr. Gerald Corey, Dr. Raymond Hillis, Dr. Dorothy Kearney, and Dr. Her bert Rigoni of California State College, Los Angeles and Dr. John Schmidt of San Diego State College for their cooperation in this study. Many thanks to my Dissertation Committee members, Dr. James Peterson and Dr. Leslie Wilbur, who provided me with astute professional gui dance in the foxmulation, implementation, and completion of this dis sertation and special regard for my Committee Chairman, Dr. Earl F. Carnes, who has served as a superb mentor, constructive critic, and honest friend throughout my graduate study. Finally, the successful completion of this study depended most heavily upon those closest to me. The encouragement and inspiration from my parents throughout my education were essential ingredients for success. The unselfish love, good counsel, and most of all the enduring patience of my wife, Ina, were the catalysts without which this dissertation would have been an impossibility. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................................... ii LIST OF TABLES.................. v CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION................................... 1 Statement of the Problem Hypotheses Definition of Variables Limitations Organization of Dissertation II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................... 11 Criteria of Counselor Effectiveness Characteristics of Effective Counselors Outcomes of Group Counseling III. PROCEDURES..................................... 29 Experimental Design Correlational Design IV. FINDINGS: EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN.................... 40 Experimental Findings Discussion V. FINDINGS: CORRELATION DESIGN...................... 53 Peer Rating Correlation Coefficients Supervisor Rating Correlation Coefficients Supervisor Ranking Correlation Coefficients Supervisor Rating--Supervisor Ranking Correlation Coefficients Supervisor Rating Correlation Coefficients (San Diego State College) Discussion iii CHAPTER Page VI. CONCLUSION..................................... 72 Summary of Procedures Summary of Findings Conclusions and Implications Recommendations for Further Study BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................ 84 APPENDICES..............................................94 APPENDIX A. Counselor Effectiveness Rating Form............95 APPENDIX B. Analysis of Variance Tables, Behavior Cognition Pretest Scores, Experi mental Subgroups......................... 99 APPENDIX C. Analysis of Variance Tables, Behavior Cognition Pretest Scores, Control Subgroups............................... 106 APPENDIX D. Means and Standard Deviations, Behavior Cognition, Subgroups, Posttest Scores, Peer Ratings, Supervisor Ratings, Su pervisor Rankings, Supervisor Ratings- Supervisor Rankings, Supervisor Rating (San Diego State College) .......... 113 APPENDIX E. Summaiy Tables, Behavior Cognition Pre and Posttest Scores, Means, Standard Error of Measurement..................... 130 APPENDIX F. Summary Tables of Means.....................159 S iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Analysis of Variance, Expression Grouping Pretest Scores, Experimental Versus Control Group.................... 42 II. Analysis of Variance, Cartoon Predictions Pretest Scores, Experimental Versus Control Group ....... 42 III. Analysis of Variance, Social Relations Pretest Scores, Experimental Versus Control Group......... 43 TV. Analysis of Variance, Picture Exchange Pretest Scores, Experimental Versus Control Group ....... 43 V. Analysis of Variance, Missing Pictures Pretest Scores, Experimental Versus Control Group.........44 VI. Analysis of Variance, Faces Pretest Scores, Experimental Versus Control Group . ........ . 44 VII. Significant Differences Between Means, Scores on Expression Grouping Test.................... 46 VIII. Significant Differences Between Means, Scores on Cartoon Predictions Test.................... 46 IX. Significant Differences Between Means, Scores on Social Relations Test........................46 X. Analysis of Variance, Expression Grouping Posttest Scores, Experimental Versus Control Group................................ 47 XI. Analysis of Variance, Cartoon Predictions Posttest Scores, Experimental Versus Control Group .............................. 47 XII. Analysis of Variance, Social Relations Posttest Scores, Experimental Versus Control Group ..... 48 XIII. Analysis of Covariance, Behavior Cognition of Transformations, Picture Exchange ............. 49 v Table Page XIV. Analysis of Covariance, Behavior Cognition of Systems, Missing Pictures ..................... 49 XV. Analysis of Covariance, Behavior Cognition of Uhits, Faces................ . 50 XVI. Analysis of Covariance, Behavior Cognition of Classes, Expression Grouping. .................51 XVII. Analysis of Covariance, Behavior Cognition of Relations, Social Relations ................... 51 XVIII. Correlation Matrix, Behavior Cognition Posttest Scores, Peer Ratings (Subgroup I)............... 55 XIX. Correlation Matrix, Behavior Cognition Posttest Scores, Peer Ratings (Subgroup II).............. 56 XX. Correlation Matrix, Behavior Cognition Posttest Scores, Peer Ratings (Subgroup III) ............. 57 XXI. Correlation Matrix, Behavior Cognition Posttest Scores,Supervisor Ratings (Subgroup I)........... 59 XXII. Correlation Matrix, Behavior Cognition Posttest Scores, Supervisor Ratings (Subgroup II)......... 60 XXIII. Correlation Matrix, Behavior Cognition Posttest Scores , Supervisor Ratings (Subgroup III) .... . 61 XXIV. Correlation Matrix, Behavior Cognition Posttest Scores, Supervisor Rankings (Subgroup I)..........63 XXV. Correlation Matrix, Behavior Cognition Posttest Scores, Supervisor Rankings (Subgroup II) ....... 64 XXVI. Correlation Matrix, Behavior Cognition Posttest Scores, Supervisor Rankings (Subgroup III)........65 XXVII. Correlations (Reliability), Supervisor Rating-- Supervisor Ranking (Subgroup I).................67 XXVIII. Correlations (Reliability), Supervisor Rating-- Supervisor Ranking (Subgroup II). . . ..........68 XXIX. Correlations (Reliability), Supervisor Rating-- Supervisor Ranking (Subgroup III) .............. 69 XXX. Correlation Matrix, Behavior Cognition Test Scores, Supervisor Rating (San Diego State College) .... 70 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION For many years, a major concern of counselors and psychothera pists has been the determination of the extent to which procedures and techniques of psychological counseling have been effective in helping clients. Regarding this question there has been considerable diver gence of opinion ranging from total disbelief in the value of counsel ing to absolute faith in its "healing" powers. Fiedler (1950) brought this controversy into sharp focus when he concluded from his study of therapists and nontherapists that the abil ity to create the "ideal therapeutic relationship" was probably more a function of the ability to form good inteipersonal relationships than any particular theoretical orientation. Nontherapists can describe the ideal therapeutic relation ship in the same manner and about as well as therapists. The therapeutic relationship may therefore be but a varia tion of good interpersonal relationships in general. Subsequent research by Eysenck (1952) , Levitt (1957) and Powers and IVitmer (1961) concluded even further that the helping professions were not effective in producing positive improvement in clients at all developmental levels and that there was not existing research to prove that the various traditional psychotherapeutic approaches yielded sig nificant results. Critics of these studies responded that these findings were 2 inconclusive as a result of faulty experimentation. For example, Pat terson (1964) responded to Eysenck in the following manner: . . . the failure to disprove the null hypothesis is not, as Eysenck recognizes, to prove the null hypothesis. All I wish to do is to insist the issue is not closed but must be left open at least until some studies which are recognized as adequate tests of the null hypotheses have been accumulated. Truax and Carkhuff (1967) attacked the controversy head-on, con cluding as a result of their research that it can be shown that coun selors and psychotherapists, possessing certain necessary personality characteristics (i.e. empathy, nonpossessive warmth and genuineness), are effective in their counseling relationships. Studies of many different types of help-seekers, in cluding college underachievers, delinquent girls, and hospitalized schizophrenics, show that all respond fa vorably to therapeutic encounters in which the qualities mentioned above are strongly present. Truax and Carkhuff (1967) then add to the above paragraph the very important statement: . . . and, more significantly, that they react unfavor ably to the absence of these qualities. Up to this point we have only .been considering whether counsel ing has positive or no effect. We now see we must concern ourselves with the possibility of negative effect. The possibility of harmful outcomes of counseling and psychother apy was suspected earlier by Barron and Leary (1955), Bergen (1963a), Cartwright and Vogel (1960), and by Carl Rogers (1962). Rogers stated: An unexpected finding with schizophrenic clients is that low conditions in the relationship are associa ted with negative change in several aspects. 3 Truax and Carkhuff (1967) determined: ... it logically follows that if psychotherapy has no overall average effect, but that there are valid speci fic instances where it is indeed effective, then there must also be specific instances in which it is harmful. That is, to achieve this average, if some clients have been helped, then the other clients must have been harmed. With the knowledge of the possible deleterious effects of coun seling practice before us, we find ourselves, more than ever, compel led to reevaluate our existing theories and procedures, and to evaluate those concepts that are new and hypothetical, in order to get a valid, more meaningful, understanding of the determinants of counselor effec tiveness . As Truax and Carkhuff (1966) pointed out so succinctly: The task of further discerning, understanding, operation alizing and implementing facilitative conditions in human encounters looms large before us. The knowledge that all interpersonal processes have the potential for construc tive or destructive consequences impels us onward to this task. Statement of the Problem One result of the realization of the impact of counselor charac teristics and personality on counseling effectiveness has been the de velopment of the use of group counseling for counselors in graduate programs of counselor education. Apparently, this is a quite recent and overdue development. Graduate programs previously have tended to stress a didactic rather than an experiential approach to group coun seling. This is reflected in the "Recommendations for Minimum Stan dards in Professional Training," issued by the American Personnel and 4 Guidance Association (1958) where there is an emphasis on the academic understanding of the "dynamics" of group processes with no specific recommendation for actual group counseling experience as a participa ting member. A large portion of the counselor's time is spent working directly with groups or consulting with others (e.g. tea chers) who in turn work with groups. Thus, he should un derstand the dynamics of group behavior and should be ac quainted with the most effective ways of working with groups. Nevertheless, the desirability of having group counseling for counselors has been pointed out by several authors (Bergen 1963b, Ber man 1953, Geller 1951, Gazda 1965, Kugelmass and Schossberger 1958, Wolfe and Locke 1952). Truax and Carkhuff (1967) in describing their counselor education program reported: Learnings from a large number of training programs de veloped by others . . . have suggested the importance of some kind of therapeutic experience for effective training in psychotherapy and counseling and so the quasi-group therapy experience is perhaps basic to the present training approach. The need for group counseling for counselors was emphasized by Benjamin Cohen (1964) in his report of a symposium on group counseling held in Bedford Hills, New York. At the present time, supervised group counseling exper- - ience is not generally part of a counselor's educational preparation. Because of this lack, group counselors may tend to be inflexible and lack creativity in their prac tice . . . Gazda (1965) points out that despite this interest in group coun seling for counselors, little research has been done to evaluate our 5 present methods of training. He notes that "Little has been done to investigate the operation of a group counseling experience in the training of group counselors." He then concludes: "However, with the increasing need for group counselors, methods of training them warrant investigation. ' ’ Gazda (1968) did a comprehensive review of the literature on group counseling for the last 30 years and found that only five per cent of the studies were devoted to group counseling for counselors. This is a serious matter. Since we have knowledge of the possible harmful outcome of counseling as practiced by an ineffective counselor, it becomes incumbent upon us to comprehensively evaluate the validity of this training procedure. This concern over evaluating group process is pointed out by Greening (1964) in his discussion of sensitivity training for profes sionals . Sensitivity training is too powerful, too potentially dangerous as well as beneficial in its effects, to be attacked or defended with the technique of propa ganda or caught up in the provocation of controversy for its own sake. Group counseling for counselors faces the same problems of eval uation as the overall generic field of group processes. Central to the problem has been inadequately controlled experi-t mental procedures and poorly defined, difficult to measure, criterion variables. Cohn (1964) reported: Outcomes of previous research are wanting for various reasons. Inadequate sampling procedures, poor defini tions of criteria, inadequately conceptualized control 6 groups, and lack of effective scaling of measures used to evaluate specific criteria are seen as but a few of the critical problems. Of key importance is the development of valid, reliable criteria. Cohen (1964) points out: The development of reliable criteria measures in the field of group counseling is far from an advanced stage. This may, indeed, be one of the reasons that the research to date has not been able to supply the field with much significant data related to change as a result of group counseling. One of the main causes of this criterion problem has been our in ability to measure specific rather than general variables in group pro cess. Most of our studies have tried to measure general characteris tics using such terms as "sensitivity," and "awareness," which are dif ficult to define operationally, rather than specific, factor-analyzed, variables. This point of view receives its support from the Cohen Report (1964) which presents the following consensual opinion of authorities on group counseling. Perhaps the major problem in group counseling research is achieving an adequate translation of theoretical constructs pertaining to input process problems and outcomes, into fea sible, reliable variables. This measurement problem can per haps best be attacked by strategies which assign factor analysis a prominent role. Because of the contribution which factor analysis can make to the resolution of basic measure ment problems, factor analysis looms as the most promising of the presently known multivariate procedures. Thus, in keeping with this viewpoint, this dissertation will con cern itself with the measurement of specific, identified, factor-anal yzed outcome variables of group counseling for counselors. More spe cifically, the study will concern itself with the effects of group 7 counseling upon the growth of the ability of the counselor trainee to be "aware of others" and see the relationship of this ability to coun selor effectiveness. This "awareness of others" is what J. P. Guilford (1965) terms 'behavior cognition." Using the "Structure of Intellect Model" (to be explained in Chapter III) Guilford (1965) has hypothesized six possible, distinct, behavior cognition abilities and has developed a corresponding, factor- valid, battery of tests. (It should be noted that these tests do not measure "awareness of self.") The six tests are behavior cognition of units, classes, relations, systems, transformations, and implications. This study has attempted, through use of these tests as well as measures of counselor effectiveness, to answer the following questions: 1. What effect does group counseling for counselors have upon growth of factors of behavior cognition? For example, as a result of group counseling, is there in creased awareness in the counselor-trainee of nonverbal gestures of individuals? Is the counselor more aware of personal interrelationships, individual thoughts, impressions, feelings? 2. What is the relationship of specific factors of beha vior cognition to counselor effectiveness? Is 'being aware of others" related to being a good counselor? 3. Can specific abilities of behavior cognition be used to predict counselor effectiveness? Can these tests be used as a screening device for graduate students? 4. What are the implications of this study for graduate work? Should group counseling of counselors be em phasized in counselor education? Hypotheses The following hypotheses stated in research form will be tested: 8 1. Group counseling does increase behavior cognition abilities of graduate trainees in counseling and these graduate trainees will have greater growth of behavior cognition abilities than a similar sample of graduate students who have had no group experience. 2. There is a direct relationship between specific fac tors of behavior cognition and counselor effectiveness. Definition of Variables 1. Group Counseling for Counselors. Participation of graduate students at California State College, Los Angeles in the course Ed. 527A, a group counseling experience designed (as a result of counselor- trainee membership in a counseling group) to im prove skills, to develop the student's sensitivity to himself and others, and to allow the student ul timately to be able to use this ability in the counseling process. 2. Counselor Effectiveness. Ratings of the effect of the counselor upon thecounselee as determined by peers. Ratings and/or rankings of the effect of the counselor upon the counselee as determined by supervisors. 3. Behavior Cognition. As defined by Guilford (1965), "The ability to understand the thoughts, feelings and intentions (psychological disposition) of others." Specific operational definitions for the variables above will be indicated in Chapter III. Limitations The findings of this study should be generalized only to a simi lar sample population. All subjects were beginning graduate students (age range 21-45) in a Masters degree level program in counseling. All attended California State Colleges. The experimental treatment or 9 group experience was an integral part of the academic program and was an introductory experiential course with no didactic counterpart. Sub jects of the control group were at the same stage of graduate study but were not participating in group process. Therefore the results and conclusions of this dissertation should be applied only to subjects as above who are involved in a similar graduate program with equivalent course content and sequence. Organization of Dissertation The remaining chapters of the dissertation will be organized as follows: Chapter II will concern itself with a review of the literature pertinent to this study. It will be divided into three main sections: 1. Criteria of Counselor Effectiveness. 2. Characteristics of Effective Counselors. 3. Outcomes of Group Processes. Chapter III will indicate the experimental procedures followed in this study. Topics included will be: 1. Description of Experimental Designs. 2. Description of Experimentation Locations. 3. Description of Sample. 4. Description of Instruments with Operational Definitions. Chapter IV will present the statistical findings of the experi mental design of the study. Chapter V will present the statistical findings of the correlational design. Procedures will be discussed and all findings will be analyzed for statistical significance. 10 Chapter VI will conclude the study with a brief summary of the dissertation. Conclusions will be drawn from the findings in regard to acceptance or rejection of hypotheses, and in regard to answers to the questions posed in the statement of the problem. Finally, the im plications of this study will be discussed and recommendations for fur ther study presented. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter will be divided into three sections. Section I will address itself to criteria of counselor effectiveness. Section II will concern itself with analyzing the personal characteristics which are essential for effective counseling. Finally, Section III will devote its attention to studying outcomes of group processes. Criteria of Counselor Effectiveness This section will present the research related to variables which seem to be predictive and essential for counselor effectiveness. As pointed out by Walton and Sweeny (1969) most studies use supervisors or peers as raters of criteria. Supervisors are generally chosen be cause of their presumed expertise and reliability of rating (Russo, Kelz and Hudson 1964; Combs and Soper 1963; Steffire, King and Leaf- gren 1962). Peers have been used on the theory that they are being counseled and in a position where they have experienced the counselor. Several studies have used time factors as criteria of counselor effectiveness. Ivey et_ al. (1968) found that students counseled three or more times had more positive attitudes (£<.05) than those students who had fewer counseling sessions. Johnson (1965) found a "failure- zone" critical period where students tended to leave counseling. He determined that for one group of college students with emotional prob 11 12 lems at the University of Missouri the critical period was between the fifth and seventh session. For a second group the critical period was between the sixth and eighth week. Thus, he concluded that there is a significant relationship between the number of interviews and success for emotional problems (p_<.01). However, his only criteria for success with emotional problems is that the student breached the "failure zone." In contrast to these findings, Searles (1962) in his study of college freshmen at Harper College found that the number of counseling sessions did not correlate with counseling success. A similar finding was reported by Katz et al. (1958). It is therefore questionable whe ther or not duration or timing of counseling is truly related to coun selor effectiveness. A more commonly studied criterion of counselor effectiveness has been the degree of personality similarity between therapist and client. Mendelsohn (1963) studied the effects of counselor-client similarity on the outcomes of counseling. He administered the "Myers-Briggs Type In dicator" to counselor and clients at the Counseling Center of the Uni versity of California at Berkeley. (The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is based on [1] Judgment-Perception; [2] Thinking-Feeling; [3] Sensation- Intuition; [4] Extroversion-Introversion.) Counseling outcome was measured by duration of counseling. This of course might be a ques tionable criterion. Mendelsohn found that greater overall similarity of personality as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was re lated to greater length of stay. Similar findings were suggested by 13 Turner (1957) and Parloff (1961). On the other hand Cundick (1963) found in studying 59 client- counselor pairs from the Ohio State University Counseling Center that client-counselor similarity based on matched ratings on an "expectation questionnaire" filled out by therapist and client, did not correlate with counseling success as measured by client satisfaction. Similar results were found by Geller (1966) in his study of the counselor- client dyad in terms of client expectations matched with counselor role-perception. One of the most interesting findings in this area was by Carson and Heine (1962). They studied 60 patients who were matched with 60 psychiatric medical students at the University of Chicago Medical School. Similarity was determined by pairing MMPI profiles. Success was measured by supervisor ratings of observed therapy. They found the following ( jd<.05) : Success was found to vaiy significantly with similarity, the form of the relationship being curvilinear, in ac cord with the investigators hypothesis that either ex treme similarity or extreme dissimilarity would impede the therapeutic process. Thus, in this case, extreme similarity or dissimilarity between counselor and client produced negative results, serving as an obstacle to counseling process. Patterson (1958), in reviewing the literature felt that studies involved in using client attributes or satisfaction as criteria of counselor effectiveness had not proved their cases. For example, Katz et al. (1958) studied 116 patients at 13 Veterans Administration 14 Mental Hygiene Clinics. While they found certain personality attri butes for patients who remain in counseling for an extended period of time (26 weeks or more), these characteristics did not correlate with psychological improvement as measured by the Behavior Disturbance Scale, Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale and Authoritarian Scale. They concluded: The results suggest that patient attributes associated with subsequent improvement may be very different from those that determine whether a patient will continue in treatment. In contradiction Goodstein and Grigg (1959) replied to Patter son’s contention: The present writers have attempted to review some of the recent work in this area, covering much the same ground as Patterson and have come to quite a different conclu sion. Client-satisfaction in our judgment is an impor tant factor in an overall evaluation of the counseling process. Stoler (1963) found client "likeability" to be directly correla ted with counselor success (p< .05). Also Rose (1968) found that "non- conforming" clients tended to reject counseling more than those who "conform." As can be seen, there is considerable diverse opinion con cerning the use of client satisfaction or personality as criteria of psychotherapeutic progress. The most recent interest in the search for suitable criteria of counselor effectiveness has centered on the therapist himself. Research such as that performed by Fiedler (1950) has related counseling competence to the experience of the counselor. Bradley and Stein (1965) in following 135 cases assigned to 11 counselors found 15 that experienced vocational counselors made the best prediction of job status (Xz=23.27, df=6 £<.001). Ivey (1968) found that more experien ced, doctoral level counselors obtained higher positive attitudes from clients than counselor trainees or practicum students (£<.01). Rotter (1967) feels very strongly that there is no clear case to prove that experience improves competency. Fretz (1965) studied three groups of counselors with different levels of experience. He did not find significant differences between groups in terms of counseling success. Anthony (1967) studied 38 therapists (17 Freudian, 11 Roger- ian, 10 Sullivanian) for four years and could not find improvement con comitant with experience. Other non-personality characteristics of the therapists studied have been knowledge (Joslin 1965), race and social class (Carkhuff and Pierce 1967), predictive skill (Watley 1967), prejudice (Milliken 1965), and sex (McClain 1968 and Herbert 1968). All of these studies have presented mixed results concerning the relationship of these fac tors to success in counseling. In light of these inconsistent findings, some authorities (Rogers 1958, O'Hem and Arbuckle 1964) now believe that it is the personality and interpersonal attitudes of the counselor that are the primary fac tors in the determination of counselor effectiveness. This is pointed out by Arbuckle (1967): The critical question, then, may not be the somewhat meaningless "What kind of counseling do you 'practice?’" but rather, "What sort of person are you?" 16 Or, as Strang (I960) so aptly stated: There is no substitute for the impact of life upon life and personality upon personality. Characteristics of Effective Counselors This section of the literature will address itself to the deter mination of those characteristics of the counselor which are essential for the counseling process. The search for knowledge of the characteristics of effective counselors has been a perennial concern of counseling psychologists. In the 1940’s efforts were made by men such as Bailey (1940), Cox (1945), and Graves (1948) to define preferable counselor characteris tics. For example, Cox (1945) described the ideal counselor has having the following characteristics: (1) Fairness, (2) sincerity, (3) per sonality, (4) good character and wholesome philosophy, (5) common sense, (6) health, (7) emotional stability, (8) approachability, (9) ability to get along with people, (10) sympathetic understanding of youth, (11) interest in people, (12) understanding peoples different from self, (13) flexibility and adaptability, (14) intelligence and mental alertness, (15) social culture, (16) broad knowledge and inter ests, (17) leadership, (18) awareness of one’ s own limitations, (19) professional attitude, (20) sense of mission, (21) interest in guidance and personnel work, (22) understanding of classroom condi tions, and (24) understanding of social and economic conditions. Statements such as the above were opinionative, poorly defined, and seemed to lack discriminative power. Jones (1951) found character- 17 istic lists such as this unsatisfactory for the following reasons: 1. The lists represent merely the opinions of the people who make them ... 2. They do not distin guish between the counselor and other members of the school personnel ... 3. The traits of success ful counselors vary so much that it is difficult to select one list that is satisfactory ... 4. It is the interrelationships or pattern of characteristics that is important. Recent studies have attempted to be more specific and experimen tally derived. Some give great promise of predicatability, others do not. Several studies have attempted to analyze batteries of tests to determine essential characteristics. Wicas (1966) studied 25 coun selors (17 male, 8 female) attending a NDEA Summer Institute at the University of Connecticut. He administered to the enrollees: A. "The Ways of Life"--An instrument containing 13 paragraphs describing different philosophies of living. Each enrollee was asked to rate on a seven point scale the degree to which he would wish to live according to the tenets of the passage. B. Self-Description Form--This is a forced-adjective check list yielding a profile measuring dominance, inducement, submission, compliance. C. Structured Objective Rorschach Test (SORT)--Forced choice adaptation of the Rorschach Inkblot Test. Enrollees were also rated by supervisors and peers on warmth, understanding client behavior dynamics, knowledge of counseling and personality theory, and skill of counseling techniques. Wicas conclu ded from his study that effective counselors (those highly rated by supervisors and peers) were more anxious, sensitive to expectation of others, patient and nonaggressive in interpersonal relationships, con- 18 cemed about social progress but with appropriate self-control and able to make nonthreatening, good relationships. Johnson (1967) studied 99 counselor candidates in practicum who had seen 592 high school students at Purdue University from September 1961 to June 1963. Counselor can didates took the California Personality Inventory, Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Guilford Zimmerman Temperament Survey, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. Counselor effectiveness was measured by counselee rating of his counselor on a "Counselor Rating Form" two weeks before the end of counseling and by counselor candidate Q-sorts rating himself and his peers. Johnson found (level of significance was not indicated) effec tive male counselors to be affable, friendly, likable, accepting, ca pable and satisfied. Effective female counselors were found to be out going, confident, efficient and assertive. Other studies evaluating batteries of tests were not so success ful. Heckel (1967) studied 159 counselors in practicum. Subjects were rated as high or low functioning by supervisors and were given a "Counselor Questionnaire," the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality In ventory, Ohio State Psychological Examination, "Counselor Situational . Analysis Inventory," and the NDEA Comprehensive Examination. Heckel could not find common characteristics among those counselors rated high or low. In a similar fashion Rosen (1967a, 1967b) using multiple- regression technics, studied counselor candidates, and could not find significant relationships between counselor effectiveness and personal characteristics as measured by the Allport-Vemon-Lindzey Study of 19 Values, Strong Vocational Interest Blank (using scores in the social service section) Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Rokeach Dogma tism Scale and the NDEA Comprehensive Examination in Counseling and Guidance. Other studies have emphasized the evaluation of the predictabil ity of counselor effectiveness of a single test (though in some cases other tests were included). Blocher (1963) found a correlation be tween NDEA Institute peer ratings and scores on the high school coun selor scale of the Kuder Preference Record. In contrast, Sattler (1964) found nonsignificant, negative correlations with the high school scale and counselor competence. (It should be mentioned that in this case counselor competence was measured by a global evaluation by super visors rather than by peers as in the previously mentioned study.) Steffire, King, and Leafgren (1962) evaluated scores on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and found that counselors "most chosen" for their potential, scored higher on deference and order, and lower on abasement and aggression than the "least chosen" counselors. As was indicated previously, opposite findings were found by Rosen (1967a,b). Demos and Zuwaylif (1963) found that they were unable to establish a counselor’s value system as a basis of prediction of effective coun seling. Brams (1957) and Abeles (1958) both found Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Test scores to be uncorrelated with counselor effective ness. Abeles (1958), in the same study, also rejected the Differential Aptitude Test, GATB, and various reading tests as predictors. 20 Several studies have attempted to analyze the values of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank as a discriminator between effective and noneffective counselors. The findings have been mixed. While Stefflre (1962) found differences between "chosen" and "rejected" coun selors in the social service group, Brains (1957) could not find signi ficant differences. Whitehom and Betz (1960) were able to distinguish between effective ("A"- therapists) and noneffective ("B"-therapists) counselors on 23 items in the Strong. "A"-therapists were found to be more successful than "B"-therapists in working with schizophrenics. In a contrasting study, McNair (1962) found "B"-therapists to be more successful with neurotic patients. This finding was corroborated by Kemp (1964). Carson (1967) feels that this approach of classifying counselors, though somewhat promising, must be subjected to further research. Another approach taken by psychologists such as Rogers (1949, 1957), and Appel (1963) is that the counselor is effective to the ex tent to which he has "self-awareness." This point of view has been disputed by Ellis (1966), who feels that clinicians should not stress their own self-awareness but rather spend time with the client's self-awareness, pointing out irrational and inappropriate behavior. Studies by Streitfeld (1959) and Bear (1966) tend to support (though not conclusively) the point of view held by Ellis. Thus, the value of this personal characteristic needs to be explored further. Recent interest has centered around the degree of "openness" or "dogmatism" of the counselor. Allen (1967) found significant correla- 21 tions ( jk.05) between psychological openness as measured by the Ror schach Index of Repression Style and counselor effectiveness as mea sured by supervisor global rating of competence. Similar findings were found by Russo, Kelz and Hudson (1964) and Kemp (1962), both of whom used items from the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale as criterion measures. Factors which seem closely related to dogmatism which were found cor related with counseling effectiveness were tolerance for ambiguity (Brams 1957, McDaniel 1967) and degree of psychological closeness (Wasson 1965, Steph 1963). In contrast, Stefflre (1962) felt for var iolas reasons that the results were inconclusive. The basic method of identifying chosen and rejected counselors should seem to be a good one but the na ture of the difference between them is still largely hidden. A similar conclusion was reached by Milliken and Patterson (1967) in their study of the relationship of dogmatism and prejudice to counseling effectiveness. The most highly regarded point of view held today is that of Truax and Carkhuff (1967), who maintain that the effective counselor must have three essential "facilitative" characteristics. They are genuineness, empathy, and nonpossessive warmth. These characteristics are very similar to the necessary and sufficient conditions for thera peutic change espoused by Rogers (1951, 1957) of congruence, empathy, unconditional positive regard. Truax and Carkhuff (1967) in their book, Toward Effective Counseling and Psychotherapy, have done an ex tensive review of the literature which seems to point toward the va lidity of these three concepts as being necessary conditions for 22 effective counseling. In addition, they present in their book their own research, which very strongly reinforces their contentions. While there has been some negating research (Katz 1962, Mathews 1967), the most recent literature seems to confirm their findings (Pierce 1967, Pagell 1967). Finally, Walton and Sweeny (1969), after doing a tho rough review of the literature on the characteristics of effective counselors, singled out the Truax and Carkhuff point of view as one of the more significant and promising findings. There has been limited research evaluating the relationship of counseling effectiveness to the ability of the counselor to perceive or be aware of his clients. While it is a logically accepted trait of ef fective counselors, little research has been done to validate this be lief. Combs and Soper (1963) studied 29 "counselors-in-training" who were rated by their supervisors from high to low. These subjects were also evaluated as to their perceptual abilities according to the way they worded and responded to four "human relations incidents" which had occurred to them. After relating each incident, the subject was re quested to indicate: (a) What he thought of the incident now? (b) What seemed to be the crux of the problem? and (c) What he might better have done about it? Degree of perception was rated by supervisors. Combs and Soper found significant correlations from .40 to .65 indicating that there was a direct relationship between perceptual ability and counselor effectiveness. Of course, in this case, sample size was small and the mode of determining perceptual ability of questionable reliability and validity. 23 Rank (1966) studied 90 counselor-trainees in three consecutive NDEA Institutes at the University of Minnesota. Subjects were ranked by their supervisors in order of their relationship to the other 30 trainees. All subjects took the "Film Test of Counselor Perception," which tested the trainees' perception of filmed counseling interviews. Rank found only moderately significant results. Studies attacking the same basic problem by Gittleman (1966) and Axelson (1967) could not find any significant correlations. The main problem in all these studies was the lack of appropriate criterion instruments. Outcomes of Group Counseling To date, the most extensive and comprehensive review of the literature on group counseling has been done by Gazda (1968). He re viewed 100 research studies written from 1938 through 1967. Sixty-five per cent of these studies were related to evaluation of outcome of group process. One-third of these studies used college and university undergraduate and graduate students as sample populations. According to Gazda (1968), five-sixths of the college and university group were freshmen who were, for the most part, underachievers, dropouts, student teachers, or in orientation. Only five per cent of the college and- university group included graduate students (mainly in counselor educa tion) . Thus, the percentage of studies most related to the disserta tion problem is very small. Of these studies, few authors operation ally defined their treatment methods. Questionable criterion measures were used and, quite often, varying and inadequate sampling procedures and research designs were applied. Therefore, meaningful comparison 24 of research is a difficult process. Nevertheless, the most closely re lated studies (many of these studies are not included in the Gazda re search) will be presented to provide, at least, a parallel view of knowledge related to outcomes of group counseling. The most frequently studied group process outcome variable is academic achievement as measured by grade point average, institutional attendance, and scores on achievement tests. Gazda (1968) reported 30 studies in this category alone. Results were evenly divided. Approxi mately fifty per cent of the studies reported significant differences favoring experimental subjects, who had some form of group experience. For example, Spielberger (1962) in his study of college freshmen under achievers found very significant differences (p<.001) favoring experi mental (group experience) versus control groups (no group experience) on increase of grade point average from mid-term to end-of-semester. Using a more longitudinal approach Ofman (1964) found that UCLA stu dents who had group experience showed greater improvement in grade point average after three semesters of college work than a similar group who had not received treatment. In 1966 Truax and Dickenson stu died two groups of college underachievers. The experimental subjects participated in one hour group counseling sessions twice a week for twelve weeks. This experimental group had significantly higher grade point averages than the control subjects who did not experience group counseling. Similar significant findings were found by Bloyer (1966) and Abel (1967) using grade point average as the criterion measure, and by DeWeese (1960) and Gilliland (1967) using scores on academic 25 achievement tests. In contrast Wiribom (1960) in his study of underachieving fresh man students at Indiana University (i.e. students who scored in the 80th percentile on the American Council on Education Psychological Ex amination and who had earned a first semester grade point average of 1.50 or less) did not find improvement of grade point averages of un derachieving students who undertook short-term group counseling to be significantly greater than the grade point average of underachieving subjects who did not receive experimental treatment. Similarly, Dun can (1962) in his study of college probationsstudents, and Yarosy (1966) in his study of college students could not conclusively estab lish a relationship between group process and academic achievement. Studies involving college attendance obtained mixed results. Smith (1963), in his study of male Arts and Science freshmen, found that a significantly greater per cent (24%) of the control group (those who did not participate in group counseling) withdrew at the end of the first semester than the experimental group (8%). On the other hand Speilberger (1964) in his study of "anxious" male college freshmen could not find significantly different withdrawal records. In summary, there may be some evidence to support the hypothesis that group counseling is related to or improves academic success. The evidence is not conclusive. Noncognitive, personality characteristics have been studied as hypothesized outcomes of group processes. Bonney (1966) studied the effects of group counseling for counselors in an eighteen month follow- 26 up questionnaire to subjects who had attended two one and one-half hour sessionseach week for seven weeks. He found that all indicated great satisfaction with group process and that 59% of the subjects felt that the group had helped in the solution of stated problems. Gilliland (1967) found a significant ( j o < .01) rise in occupational aspiration as measured by the Haller and Miller Occupational Aspiration Scale and a concomitant increase ( jk.01) in vocational maturity as measured by the Crites Vocational Development Inventory. Gazda (1961). studied person ality outcomes of short-term group counseling using a sample population of 56 male and female teachers. Using a Picture Story Test (utilizing selected picture cards from Thematic Apperception Test), a Modified Brownfain Self-Rating Inventory, Ohlsen-Broedel Behavior Rating Scale and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, he found significant in creases in autonomy, heterosexuality, and exhibition and significant decreases in abasement, succorance, and nurturance. He found in a fourteen-month follow-up that the majority of experimental subjects were happier. In opposition to these findings Wiribom (1965) studied 52 transfer students admitted to North Texas State University on scho lastic probation. Twenty-six of the subjects attended thirteen, one- hour group sessions over a seven week period. He did not find signifi cant differences between experimental and control groups on personal characteristics as measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule Amette (1967) in his study of hostility and anxiety, using the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale and Siegel's Judged Manifest Hostility Scale could not find differences between counseled and noncounseled groups. 27 Of specific interest to this dissertation is the study of the perceptual effects of group process. Little research has been done in this area despite its assumption as a logical, ejected outcome. Sev eral studies have devoted themselves to perception of self. Broedel (1959) studied 29 eighth-graders who were divided into two experimental groups, both of which participated in sixteen counseling sessions over an eight week period, and two control groups which followed the normal program without group work. Broedel concluded that the experimental groups achieved significantly greater acceptance of self than the con trols. Caton (1966) studied 26 counselors in an NDEA Counseling Insti tute and their 110 counselees from the Nashville Metropolitan School System. He found (£<.05) that group counseling improved the counsel- ee's self concept as measured by Q-sorts. Contrasting outcomes were reported by Bloyer (1966) and Culbert (1968) who did not find significantly improved self-concept and greater self-actualization. Of greater interest to this study is the growth of perception of others as a result of group experience. Dickoff (1963) studied 53 for mer patients at Duke University retrospectively and though no specific conclusions were possible, he felt there was indication of a relation ship between patient perception of help gained from group experience and perception of others. Delaney (1966) studied counselors in group practicum as opposed to counselors merely having didactic experience. Subjects were asked to identify emotional communication as depicted in filmed counseling interviews. Though he did not establish statistical 28 validity, he still maintained his study gave an indication that a coun selor can be sensitized through group counseling to a greater awareness in the perception of nonverbal communication. In both cases cited above, significance of findings can be ques tioned. More typical results have been the studies such as Bednar (1965) and McKinner (1968) who could not conclude greater awareness of others as an outcome of group process. In summary, as pointed out by Gazda (1968), the research on out comes of group process is quite limited and inconclusive. This is due, as Gazda states, to: . . . variation in group size, length and duration or intensity of treatment, type and quality of treatment, sophistication of research designs, instruments of evaluation, and test statistics. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES For the purpose of this study, it was necessary to use two dis tinct research designs in order to test the experimental hypotheses. An experimental design, using experimental and control groups, was deemed appropriate for the determination of the effect of group coun seling for counselors upon the growth of behavior cognition. A corre lational design was used for the subsequent analysis of the relation ship between measures of behavior cognition and measures of counselor effectiveness as determined by supervisors and peers. Each design, sample populations, criterion measures, and experi mental procedures are described below. Experimental Design Sample Populations All subjects in this segment of the experiment were graduate stu dents studying under the auspices of the Department of Guidance and Pupil Personnel Services at California State College, Los Angeles. A grand total of 109 students were pre- and posttested on six tests of behavior cognition. Twenty-eight of the subjects represented the experimental group who were registered in three sections of Ed. 527A, a group counseling for counselors experience. There were 14 males and 14 females. Class enrollment produced three subgroups of 29 30 sample sizes 8, 9, and 11. Ed. 527A is designed to be one of the first courses taken by stu dents upon admittance to the graduate program. The course is experi ential in nature and prerequisite to a didactic counterpart. It is seen by the department group leaders as a course whose purpose is to improve counselor effectiveness through the involvement of students in a group experience as participating members. The remaining 81 subjects represented the control group who were registered in two sections of Ed. 404A, a course devoted to studying developmental aspects of psychology. This course, also, is one of the first subjects taken by students upon admittance to the graduate program. Subjects selected for study from these class groups were those who indicated they had not and did not intend to participate in any form of group process experience during the experimental period, in cluding not being currently registered in Ed. 527A. Fifty subjects were eliminated who did not meet these criteria. Subject selection produced from the two Ed. 404A class sections two subgroups of sample sizes of 14 and 17. Age ranges for these sub groups were 21-45 years and 21-44 years of age respectively. Thus a grand total of 59 subjects were actually studied in this experimental design. Criterion Measures The six Guilford tests of behavior, cognition (1965) were the re sult of a research project sponsored by the Cooperative Research 31 program of the Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Educa tion and Welfare. They grew out of recognition of the need to develop standardized, factor-valid tests of "awareness of others." The six tests of behavior cognition were based on the Structure of Intellect Model hypothesized by Dr. J. P. Guilford (1959). The SI model is a three-way classification system for all known and possible intellectual factors. The three dimensions of the model represent as Guilford stated: "(1) the content, (2) the operation and (3) the pro duct of a given intellectual act." Guilford postulated four kinds of intellectual content: semantic symbolic, figural and behavioral. Semantic content refers to word meanings. Symbolic content refers to information such as number and letters which have no particular meaning in themselves. Figural con tent refers to information that is concrete or perceivable as having space or contour. Finally, behavior content, which is of primary in terest in this study, refers to information which includes: . . . feelings, motives, thoughts, intentions, attitudes, and other psychological dispositions which might affect an individual's social behavior (Guilford 1965). The operational dimension refers to the treatment of the parti cular kind of content. There are five hypothesized operations: cogni tion (awareness) , memory, divergent production (generation of variety of output), convergent production (generation of the one correct solu tion) , and evaluation (judging). The product dimension includes the possible outcomes of intellec tual operations. The six product categories are: units (elements 32 having "thing" character), classes (aggregates, the members of which have common properties), relations (connections between units), sys tems (organized or structured information), transformations (changes or redefinitions in known information), and implications (extrapola tions in the form of predictions or antecedents). Thus, each intellec tual factor is uniquely defined by one of four content areas, one of five operations, and one of six products. The behavioral-content area or "social intelligence" was of keen interest to Guilford. There are 30 possible factors that can be hypo thesized. Since the establishment of so many factors at one time was unfeasible, Guilford concentrated his first phase of the exploration of social intelligence on the determination of the six factors of be havior cognition: (1) cognition of behavioral units, (2) classes, (3) relations, (4) systems, (5) transformations, and (6) implications. (It should be noted that Guilford points out behavior cognition of the "ability to judge people" is what many psychologists operationally de fine a "social intelligence.") In order to test for the six hypothesized behavior cognition fac tors, 23 experimental tests were constructed. There was minimal use of words in the tests. Stimuli for most tests were photographs, realistic drawings, cartoons, silhouettes, stick figures, and tape-recorded sen tences, sounds and reflections. Guilford (1965) administered these 23 experimental tests, as well as 24 marker tests of 12 previously established factors of semantic and figural ability to 240 eleventh-grade students who were middle class 33 Caucasian, of "at least average intelligence." The results of experimentation indicated the existence of all hy pothesized factors. Guilford stated: After interacted--communality estimates were determined, 33 principle factors were extracted. The first 19 of these were analytically rotated to orthogonal simple structure, positive manifold, and factor interpretability. Eighteen factors, identified as those hypothesized, and a residual factor, were obtained. The 12 reference fac tors included six semantic or verbal ones: verbal com prehension, verbal classification, verbal relations, general reasoning, concept naming, and semantic order ing. The "creativity" factors, sensitivity to problems, ideational fluency, and originality^, were also isolated. Speed of closure, figural inductive reasoning, and flex ibility of closure, three spatial factors, were identi fied as well. In addition, the six hypothesized beha vioral -cognition factors emerged. The construct validity was established for the six tests. How ever, predictive validity was not established, which, in a sense is one of the purposes of this study. Guilford (1965) noted: Construct validity such as the present study has provided for the behavioral intelligence tests does not guarantee predictive validity. Obviously, .practical usefulness de pends on the latter. Follow-up studies by Tenopyr (1967) have verified these findings and support the conclusions of O'Sullivan (1965) who stated: Since as many semantic and figural reference factors as were thought germane to the area were included in the study, the newly-found behavioral factors may clearly be said to be factors of ability independent of known intellectual factors. On the basis of reliability and factor saturation Guilford recom mended 11 of the experimental tests for use in the measurement of be havior cognition. The six tests chosen for this study were based on these criteria as well as closeness to simulating real human situations. 34 Therefore, tests using photography were often preferred to those which used drawings and cartoons. However, in certain cases (e.g. Cartoon Predictions, Expression Grouping) tests utilizing photographs were not available. Some criticism (Taft 1955) has occurred concerning the use of photography and drawings because they are "stereotypic and not idiosyn cratic." O'Sullivan (1965) replied to this concern: It is doubtful whether the breach between the communica tive, idiosyncratic expression and its stereotypic coun terpart is as great as Taft suggests. She then adds perceptively: ‘ Certainly the one is the basis for the other. An under standing of the usual way of expressing a feeling would seem requisite for more refined comprehension. In any case the reader should consider this controversy in his evaluation of the usefulness of these tests. The tests chosen were: 1. Faces. Subject is asked to choose one of four pho tographed men's faces that expresses the same feel ing as that of a woman's face. This test measures behavior cognition of units. This factor is inter preted to be the ability to understand units of ex- pression--in this case facial expression. Guilford (1965) warns that this test should be interpreted only in terms of the ability to be cognizant of faces and not other units of expression (i.e. body- image, hand gestures, etc.). Guilford states: "More explicitly, each behavioral-unit test should be limi ted to one expressional modality." 2. Expression Grouping. Subject chooses the one of four drawn expressions that goes with a given group of three expressions. This test measures behavior cognition of classes. This factor is interpreted as the ability to be aware that different expressional modes (i.e. gestures, body posture, facial expression) 35 have the same psychological meaning. 3. Social Relations. Subject chooses one of three verbal statements that fits the expressions of a face, taking into account the feelings expressed by a second face. This test measures behavior cognition of relations. This factor is inter preted as the ability to understand dyadic rela tionships . 4. Missing Pictures. Subject chooses the one of three photographed situations that completes a given pic torial story. This test measures behavior cognition of systems. This factor is interpreted to be the ability to comprehend a social situation of sequence of events involving more than two individuals. 5. Picture Exchange. Subject chooses the one of three alternative photographs which, when substituted for one picture of a four-picture story, will change its meaning. This test measures behavior cognition of transformations. This factor is interpreted to be the ability to redefine behavioral information, (i.e. to be aware that similar expressions can have differ ent, unique meanings). 6. Cartoon Predictions. Subject makes predictions based on behavioral information included in a cartoon, (i.e. subject views initial cartoon, then picks one of three cartoons which represents what will happen next. This test measures behavior cognition of implications). This factor is interpreted to be the ability to make predic tions about what will happen following a given social situation. Factors loadings for each test are given below. Guilford (1965) chose .30 as a "significant" factor-loading on the basis of convention. Psychological Test Factor Loading Faces .40 Expression Grouping .59 Social Relations .50 Missing Pictures .58 Picture Exchange .51 Cartoon Prediction .55 36 Reliability coefficients were as follows: Psychological Test Kuder-Richardson Spearman-Brown Faces .37 .39 Expression Grouping .62 .58 Social Relations .29 .20 Missing Pictures .53 .48 Picture Exchange .43 .38 Cartoon Predictions .79 .70 As can be seen the reliability coefficients vary from test to test. However, the factor loadings are consistently significant^ which is the primary concern in using these tests. Experimental Procedure The experimental and control groups were tested at the beginning and end of the Fall, 1968, quarter semester (12 weeks). Both groups met three hours per week for the 12 week session. All students were asked to provide name, date, age, class designation and major. Stu dents in the control group were also asked whether they had ever had any kind of group experience or were intending to do so during the se mester. Students who had any form of group process experience for any amount of time were eliminated from the control group. Tests were scored manually, using scoring stencils. Correlational Design Sample Population For this segment of the experiment, the California State College, Los Angeles, experimental group (N=28), previously described was uti lized. In addition, 15 students (age range 23-44 years of age) attend ing the NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institute at San Diego State 37 College were tested and rated on measures of counselor effectiveness. There were seven males and eight females. The purpose of using the San Diego State College NDEA Institute was to provide additional test ing of correlational hypotheses and to coirpare similarity of findings. Criterion Measures As was seen from the review of the literature, the personality characteristics of empathy, nonpossessive warmth and genuineness are highly correlated with counseling competence. Because of these find ings, it was decided to rate and rank these personal attributes of the subjects, as well as an overall, general measure of their counselor effectiveness. Operational definitions for the variables were as follows: 1. Counselor Effectiveness. The effect of the counselor (group member) upon the counselee (peer group member or supervisor). 2. Empathy. Counselor’s sensitivity to the counselee's feelings. The counselor's ability to accurately per ceive and communicate the client’ s feelings and mo tivations . 3. Nonpossessive Warmth. The level of unconditional positive regard that the counselor has for the client. 4. Genuineness. The degree to which the counselor was "being himself" and "real" with the client. Using these operational definitions, a rating form was developed so that the peer group members could rate each other. (See Appendix A.) Subjects responded to two questions for each variable. In the first question, the peer group member rated the subject in terms of how the subject affected him personally. In the second question, the 38 peer group member rated the subject in terms of how he felt the subject affected others. A five point rating scale was developed. Truax and Carkhuff (1967) had previously devised scales requiring more than a five point rating continuum. It was felt, for the subjects involved, that these scales required too great a discriminating power. Group supervisors at California State College, Los Angeles, rated each group participant on this rating form and, in addition, force- ranked the entire group from high to low based on the same questions. Additional correlation coefficients were obtained from San Diego State College between supervisor ratings on Question II on the six tests of behavior cognition. Experimental Procedure At the last session of the Fall, 1968 quarter semester, the sub jects of the California State College, Los Angeles experimental group were each given a rating form for each of the other members of the group. They were told to rate each peer group member (but not them selves) according to the criteria. This rating procedure has been found effective by Hall (1962) , Stefflre and King (1962), and Dole (1964). Each group member’ s counselor effectiveness, empathy, nonposses sive warmth, genuineness score was the sum total of the ratings given him by the other group members. These counselor effectiveness scores were then ranked and correlated with the matched ranking on each of the six tests of behavior cognition. 39 Also, as indicated previously, the supervisor at the last session ranked and rated the students. The purpose of having a double measure ment of counselor effectiveness was to obtain a measure of supervisor- rating reliability. Secondly, it provides a test of the relationship between the six tests of behavior cognition and counselor effectiveness as measured by supervisor ranking. The San Diego State College NDEA Institute administered the six tests and rated their students in April 1969. This provided an addi tional test of the relationship between factors of behavior cognition and counselor effectiveness as measured by supervisor rating of Ques tion II. Because of sample size, all scores were converted to rankings and the Spearman Rho correlation coefficient was utilized. The procedures, previously described, were established and inple- mented in order to determine the effect of group counseling for coun selors upon the growth of behavior cognition and its relationship to counselor effectiveness. Chapters IV and V will statistically analyze the outcomes of these procedural processes. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS: EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN As was indicated in the chapter on procedures, this experiment involved two distinct research designs. Therefore, the findings of the study will be presented in two parts. Chapter IV will deal with the determination of differences between experimental and control groups on the six measures of behavior cognition. Chapter V will devote itself to analysis of the correlation coefficients found between the measures of counselor effectiveness as determined by peers and supervisors, and scores on the six behavior cognition tests. In order to consider the three treatment groups (8, 9 and 11 sub jects respectively) as one total experimental group of 28 and in order to consider the two nontreatment groups (17 and 14 subjects respect ively) as one total control group of 31, analysis of variance on all six Guilford tests was performed on each set of subgroups. It was found that no significant differences existed between the experimental subgroups on the six pretest measures (Appendix B). Computed F-Ratios were the following: Experimental Findings Picture Exchange Expression Grouping Missing Pictures 1.590 .025 .644 40 41 Faces = 2.310 Cartoon Predictions = 3.255 Social Relations ~ = .418 It can thus be concluded that the three experimental subgroups came from the same population on these measures. It was also found that no significant differences existed between the control subgroups on the six pretest measures (Appendix C). Computed F-Ratios were the following: Picture Exchange = .194 Expression Grouping .088 Missing Pictures = .014 Faces .256 Cartoon Predictions = 2.182 Social Relations .000 It can thus be concluded that the control subgroups came from the same population on these measures. Having established an experimental group of 28 and a control group of 31, it is now necessary to establish whether these two groups started out at the same point on each of the six measures of behavior cognition. The results of this analysis will determine the statistical procedures to be utilized in the testing of significant differences. It was found that no significant differences existed between the experimental and control group on the scores obtained from the Expres sion Grouping (Table I), Cartoon Prediction (Table II), and Social Re lations (Table III) tests. Significant differences were found between 42 the experimental and control groups on the scores obtained from the Picture Exchange (Table IV), Missing Pictures (Table V), and Faces (Table VI) tests TABLE I ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE EXPRESSION GROUPING PRETEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS CONTROL GROUP Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means 17.911 1.000 17.911 1.048 Within Groups 973.852 57.000 17.085 Total 991.763 58.000 *£<•05 = 4.02 **£<•01 = 7.12 TABLE II ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE CARTOON PREDICTIONS PRETEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS CONTROL GROUP Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means 8.851 1.000 8.851 .590 Within Groups 854.594 57.000 14.993 Total 863.445 58.000 *£<.05 = 253 **£<.01 = 6,323 43 TABLE III ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOCIAL RELATIONS PRETEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS CONTROL GROUP Sum of Degrees of Mean Source Squares Freedom Square F-Ratio Between Means 6.989 1.000 6.989 .964 Within Groups 413.303 57.000 7.251 Total 420.292 58.000 *£<.05 = 253 **£<.01 = 6,323 TABLE IV ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PICTURE EXCHANGE PRETEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS CONTROL GROUP Sum of Degrees of Mean Squares Freedom Square F-Ratio Between Means 29.275 1.000 29.275 4.271* Within Groups 390.727 57.000 6.855 Total 420.003 58.000 *£<.05 = 4.02 **£<.01 = 7.12 44 TABLE V ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE MISSING PICTURES PRETEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS CONTROL GROUP Source Degrees Sum of of Squares Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means 31.855 1.000 31.855 5.012* Within Groups 362.295 57.000 6.356 Total 394.150 58.000 *£<.05 = 4.02 **£<.01 = 7.12 TABLE VI ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FACES PRETEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS CONTROL GROUP Source Degrees Sum of of Squares Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means 27.143 1.000 27.143 4.065* Within Groups 380.613 57.000 6.677 Total 407.756 58.000 *£<.05 = 4.02 **£<.01 = 7.12 45 In the cases where significant differences exist between experi mental and control groups (i.e. Picture Exchange, Missing Pictures, Faces) analysis of covariance will be utilized to test for significant differences. For the other three tests (i.e. Expression Grouping, Car toon Predictions, Social Relations), where significant differences didn't exist between experimental and control groups, both the "t" and "F" tests will be performed. This dual statistical procedure of using both significant differences of means and analysis of variance was highly recommended for group counseling effect evaluation by the Cohen Report (1964). The reason: It has been noted that in many studies, comparison between means of the scores of experimental and control groups have been used in the analysis. Quite frequently no changes are found in the means. Additional analysis of the data of some of these studies has indicated, however, that there has been a change in the variance. This can be accounted for by the notion that some members of the group may be changing in a positive direction and others in a negative direction. In some instances, this may be a preceding step to a positive change. Care should be given to analyze measures of variance as well as those of central tendency. It was found that there were no significant differences between posttest means of the experimental and control groups of scores ob tained from the Expression Grouping (Table VII) , Cartoon Predictions (Table VIII), and Social Relations (Table IX) tests at the end of the research period. Also, no significant differences were found as a re sult of analysis of variance (Tables X, XI, and XII). As a result of these findings, the following null hypotheses were accepted. 1. Significant differences do not exist between experi mental and control groups on a measure of behavior cognition of classes (Expression Grouping). 46 TABLE VII SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEANS SCORES ON EXPRESSION GROUPING TEST Cases Mean Standard Deviation T-Value Experimental Group 28 20.179 3.036 1.1 Control Group 31 19.048 4.504 *£<.05 = 1.701 **£<.01 = 2.467 TABLE VIII SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEANS SCORES ON CARTOON PREDICTION TEST Cases Mean Standard Deviation T-Value Experimental Group 28 24.023 3.013 .1 Control Group 31 24.075 4.262 *£<.05 = 1.701 **£<.01 = 2.467 TABLE IX SIGNIFICANT SCORES ON DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEANS SOCIAL RELATIONS TEST Cases Mean Standard Deviation T-Value Experimental Group 28 13.785 2.833 1.7 Control Group 31 12.451 3.211 *£<.05 = 1.701 **£<.01 = 2.467 47 i i TABLE X ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE EXPRESSION GROUPING POSTTEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS CONTROL GROUP Sources Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means 18.792 1.000 18.792 1.249 Within Groups 857.410 57.000 15.042 Total 876.201 58.000 i *£<.05 = 4.02 ;**£<.01 = 7.12 TABLE XI . ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE CARTOON PREDICTIONS POSTTEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS CONTROL GROUP Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio ; Between Means iWithin Groups i Total .039 790.105 790.144 1.000 57.000 58.000 .039 13.861 .003 *£<.05 = 253 **£<.01 = 6,323 48 TABLE XII ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOCIAL RELATIONS POSTTEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS CONTROL GROUP Source Degrees Sum of of Squares Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means 26.183 1.000 26.183 2.837 Within Groups Total 526.008 57.000 552.191 58.000 9.228 *p <.05 = 4.02 **p <.01 = 7.12 2. Significant differences do not exist between ex perimental and control groups on a measure of be havior cognition of relations (Social Relations). 3. Significant differences do not exist between ex perimental and control groups on a measure of be havior cognition of implications (Social Relations). As stated previously, analysis of covariance was used to deter mine the presence or absence of significant differences between experi mental and control groups on the measured posttest scores of the Picture Exchange, Missing Pictures, and Faces tests. Significant differences were not found between experimental and control groups on posttest scores of the Picture Exchange (Table XIII) and Missing Pictures (Table XIV) tests. Therefore, the following null lypotheses were accepted. 1. There are no significant differences between ex perimental and control groups on a measure of be havior cognition of systems (Missing Pictures). TABLE XI-II ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE BEHAVIOR COGNITION OF TRANSFORMATIONS PICTURE EXCHANGE Sum of Degrees of Mean Source Squares Freedom Square F-Ratio Within Groups 252.0 56.000 4.50 1.8 Adjusted Means 8.2 1.000 8.23 Total 260.2 57.000 *£<.05 = 4.05 **£<.01 = 7.12 TABLE XIV ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE BEHAVIOR COGNITION OF SYSTEMS MISSING PICTURES Sum of Degrees of Mean Source Squares Freedom Square F-Ratio Within Groups 333.8 56.000 5.96 .0 Adjusted Means .0 1.000 .00 Total 333.8 57.000 I *£<.05 = 253 ;**£<.01 = 6,323 2. There are no significant differences between ex perimental and control groups on a measure of be havior cognition of transformations (Picture Exchange). However, significant differences were found between experimental 50 i i and control groups (£<.01) on posttest scores of the Faces Test j (Table XV). TABLE XV ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE BEHAVIOR COGNITION OF UNITS FACES Sources Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Within Groups 362.1 56.000 6.47 9.3** Adj tisted Means 60.3 1.000 60.30 Total 422.4 57.000 *p<.05 = 4.05 **£<.01 = 7.12 As a result of this finding the following null hypothesis was rejected: There are no significant differences between ex perimental and control groups on a measure of be havior cognition of units. j There were two additional findings worthy of note. Computer pro-' gramming necessitated that analysis of covariance be applied to all six; |tests rather than just the three identified tests with initial pretest ! differences. A result of these extra analyses of covariance was that significant differences were found between experimental and control i I groups on the scores of the Expression Grouping Test (Table XVI) and ; significant differences were also found between experimental and con trol groups on the Social Relations Test (Table XVII). 51 i TABLE XVI i ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE BEHAVIOR COGNITION OF CLASSES EXPRESSION GROUPING Sum of Degrees of Mean Source Squares Freedom Square F-Ratio Within Groups 435.4 56.000 7.78 6.4* Adjusted Means 49.8 1.000 49.79 Total 485.2 57.000 *£<.05 = 4.05 **£<.01 = 7.12 i TABLE ANALYSIS OF XVII COVARIANCE BEHAVIOR COGNITION OF RELATIONS SOCIAL RELATIONS Sum of Degrees of Mean Source Squares Freedom Square F-Ratio Within Groups 412.4 56.000 7.36 5.6* Adjusted Means 41.6 1.000 41.59 Total 454.0 57.000 i *£<.05 = 4.05 ;**£<.01 = 7.12 I Discussion Two explanations are offered in explanation of the significant | differences found between experimental and control groups on the Ex pression Grouping test and the Social Relations test as a result of 52 analysis of covariance. 1. That the two computed F-Ratios represent Type II i errors, (i.e. that these two ratios represent the five per cent error implicit in the statement of significance or level of confidence). 2. That unknown covariants which have been confounding ! the study have been screened out by the analysis of covariance. It is possible that the covariants involved are the three beha vior cognition abilities (i.e. behavior cognition of units, systems, 'transformations) which previously differentiated experimental from con trol groups. They could be confounding the findings through their own :interactions (c.f. despite Guilford's "factor" validity, they are not itotally uncorrelated) and their interactions with the particular test ;involved. If this explanation is acceptable, then the following null hypo theses would be rejected. 1. There are no significant differences between ex perimental and control groups on a measure of be havior cognition of classes (Expression Grouping). | 2. There are no significant differences between ex- | perimental and control groups on a measure of be- ; havior cognition of relations (Social Relations). CHAPTER V FINDINGS: CORRELATION DESIGN Since sample sizes were small for all experimental subgroups and for the San Diego State experimental group, Spearman rho (rank-differ- ence) correlation coefficients were computed to determine the relation ship between the measures of counselor effectiveness and the six tests of behavior cognition. In this study the rank-difference coefficient will be considered an approximate equivalent of the Pearson r (pro duct -moment) coefficient. This statistical equivalence is considered quite appropriate by Guilford (1965). The rank-difference coefficient is rather closely equi valent to the Pearson r, numerically. There is a con version formula by which the corresponding Pearson r can be estimated from rho. But this formula assumes large samples, which is precisely what we do not have when we compute rho. Results, from the formula, show, however, that on the average, r is slightly greater than £ and that the maximum difference, by the formula, is approximately .02, when both are near .50. We may ' therefore treat an obtained rho as an approximation to r. Statistical analysis of rho coefficients will be presented in the; following order: 1. Analysis of rho coefficients derived from the rela tionships found between the six tests of behavior cognition and measures of counselor effectiveness as determined from peer ratings. 2. Analysis of rho coefficients derived from the rela tionships found between the six tests of behavior cognition and measures of counselor effectiveness as determined from supervisor rating. ...53_______ . _____________ 54 3. Analysis of rho coefficients derived from the rela tionships found between the six tests of behavior cognition and measures of counselor effectiveness as determined from supervisor ranking. 4. Analysis of rho coefficients derived from the rela tionships found between the measures of counselor effectiveness as determined from supervisor rating and the measures of counselor effectiveness as de termined from supervisor ranking. 5. Analysis of rho coefficients derived from the rela tionships found between the six tests of behavior cognition which were administered at San Diego State College and measures of counselor effective ness as determined from San Diego State College supervisor rating. Peer Rating Correlation Coefficients I Analysis of rho coefficients will proceed in the order of those 'experimental subgroups which have the smallest sample size (N) first. Spearman rho correlation coefficients for Subgroup I (N=8) were all found to be not significant (Table XVIII). Correlation coeffici ents ranged from .36 to -.67 (negative correlations can be expected from a sample size this small, where even one reversal of rank can se verely affect the correlation coefficient ratio). Spearman rho correlation coefficients for Subgroup II (N=9) were | also found to be not significant (Table XIX). Correlation coefficients (ranged from .44 to -.58. However, significant rho coefficients were found in Subgroup III (N=ll) which had the largest sample size (Table XX). ‘ Significant correlations were found between: 1. Behavior cognition of transformations (Picture Exchange) TABLE XVIII CORRELATION MATRIX BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST PEER RATINGS (SUBGROUP I N=8) SCORES Picture Exchange Expression Grouping Missing Pictures Faces Cartoon Predictions Social Relations Counselor Effectiveness, Question 1 -.54260 -.19797 -.27779 -.28439 -.30168 -.46690 Counselor Effectiveness, Question 2 -.39873 -.05968 .03478 -.34203 .11590 -.34084 Empathy, Question 1 -.56302 .01830 -.11198 -.11401 -.16193 -.25304 Empathy, Question 2 -.57279 .32939 -.28382 .19165 -.06578 -.06227 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 1 -.46271 -.05597 -.26335 -.24299 -.12874 -.30988 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 2 -.67406 -.02029 -.47349 -.01259 -.09834 -.33778 Genuineness, Question 1 -.65103 -.05009 -.65136 .36728 -.23268 -.27793 Genuineness, Question 2 -.61061 .23173 -.51635 .34347 -.14693 -.06921 ^ *p .05=707 **p .01=.834 cn TABLE XIX CORRELATION MATRIX BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES PEER RATINGS (SUBGROUP II N=9) Picture Exchange Expression Grouping Missing Pictures Faces Cartoon Predictions Social Relations Counselor Effectiveness, Question 1 Counselor Effectiveness, Question 2 -.25301 .06864 .03091 .13909 -.40398 .37845 -.48317 .17598 -.33945 -.25991 -.21628 .04309 Empathy, Question 1 Empathy, Question 2 -.11610 -.11260 .13035 .02472 -.46863 -.43162 -.33939 -.27437 -.07687 .17033 -.21096 -.34783 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 1 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 2 -.13411 -.36620 .44430 -.10075 -.46842 -.58317 -.48099 -.47800 -.37146 -.28446 .19542 -.43310 Genuineness, Question 1 Genuineness, Question 2 -.07533 -.10805 -.20818 -.16514 -.48329 -.48120 -.45767 -.43470 .06597 .01626 -.41888 -.44740 *P .05=.666 **p .01=.798 t r i C T \ TABLE XX CORRELATION MATRIX BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES PEER RATINGS (SUBGROUP III N=ll) Picture Exchange Expression Grouping Missing Pictures Faces Cartoon Predictions Social Relations Counselor Effectiveness, Question 1 Counselor Effectiveness, Question 2 .60393* .79513** .62679* .57799 .65661* .70689* .47672 .46841 .66062* .59881 .25881 .40119 Empathy, Question 1 Empathy, Question 2 .78190** .77254** .49814 .43205 .65227* .77560** .62380* .52003 .52959 .45024 .35783 .24980 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 1 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 2 .55566 .58171 .51462 .63176* .53488 .57670 .49803 .37447 .56044 .66412* .24598 .30312 Genuineness, Question 1 Genuineness, Question 2 .75401** .71243* .41218 .41591 .63224* .64059* .67853* .68615* .50171 .46600 .12499 .14760 *p<.05 =.602 **p<.01=.735 or 58 and global counselor effectiveness Questions I and II, empathy Questions I and genuineness Questions I and II. 2. Behavior cognition of classes (Expression Grouping) and global counselor effectiveness Question I and nonpossessive warmth Question II. 3. Behavior cognition of systems (Missing Pictures) and global counselor effectiveness Questions I and II, empathy Questions I and II, and genuineness Questions I and II. 4. Behavior cognition of units (Faces) and empathy Question I and genuineness Questions I and II. 5. Behavior cognition of predictions (Cartoon Predic tions) and global counselor effectiveness Question I and nonpossessive warmth Question II. The only test which did not provide significant correlations was behavior cognition of relations (Social Relations). Supervisor Rating Correlation Coefficients Spearman rho correlation coefficients for Subgroup I (N=8) were all found to be not significant (Table XXI). Correlation coefficients ranged from .566 to -.702. Spearman rho correlation coefficients for Subgroup II (N=9) were all found to be not significant (Table XXII). Correlation coefficients ranged from .50 to -.60. Significant rho coefficients were found in Subgroup III (N=ll), (Table XXIII). Significant correlations were found between: 1. Behavior cognition of transformations (Picture Exchange) and general counselor effectiveness Questions I and II, empathy Question II, and genuineness Question I. TABLE XXI CORRELATION MATRIX BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES SUPERVISOR RATINGS (SUBGROU^ I N=8) Picture Exchange Expression Grouping Missing Pictures Faces Cartoon Predictions Social Relations Counselor Effectiveness, Question 1 Counselor Effectiveness, Question 2 .36798 .26122 .32986 .07762 -.02030 -.05902 -.03263 -.28013 .44945 .17671 .15627 -.06118 Empathy, Question 1 Empathy, Question 2 -.61712 -.48758 -.41900 -.38521 -.67199 -.70258 .04230 .07488 .11018 .08356 -.62623 -.61001 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 1 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 2 .53524 .48247 .28422 .36053 .16273 .08219 -.26233 -.12691 .09757 .20471 .18281 .27660 Genuineness, Question 1 Genuineness, Question 2 -.41706 -.43917 *p<.05=.707 .22845 -.05567 -.53050 -.58203 .35253 .24168 **p<.01=.834 .34638 .56684 -.11664 -.41973 tn <0 TABLE XXII CORRELATION MATRIX BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES SUPERVISOR RATINGS (SUBGROUP II N=9) Picture Expression Missing Cartoon Social Exchange -•Grouping Pictures Faces Predictions Relations Counselor Effectiveness, Question 1 .12286 -.10758 -.38757 -.60412 -.38313 .02454 Counselor Effectiveness, Question 2 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 Empathy, Question 1 -.17733 -.48448 -.44752 -.59294 -.02765 -.43929 Empathy, Question 2 .26108 -.16137 -.06269 -.42289 .22748 -.15954 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 1 .49919 -.28057 .09909 .18267 .50683 .13451 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 2 .31593 .13472 -.19372 -.37824 -.53544 .21953 Genuineness, Question 1 -.02322 -.47575 -.24989 -.07421 .18101 -.36643 Genuineness, Question 2 .12770 -.34157 -.09909 .17696 .14481 -.17628 *p <• 05=.666 **p<.01=.798 o\ o TABLE XXIII CORRELATION MATRIX BHEAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES SUPERVISOR RATINGS (SUBGROUP III N=ll) Picture Exchange Expression Grouping Missing Pictures Faces Cartoon Predictions Social Relations Counselor Effectiveness, Question 1 .92563** .35116 .51811 .54571 .48663 .34368 Counselor Effectiveness, Question 2 .60604* .49011 .57357 .35355 . 56668 .14999 Empathy, Question 1 .59560 .36628 .61642* .15811 .30625 .27673 Empathy, Question 2 .80657** .36706 .65554* .43082 .41416 .35377 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 1 .58874 .35037 .40984 .06155 .47583 .10608 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 2 .48729 .43740 .55494 .21213 .49213 -.00753 Genuineness, Question 1 .71674* .59637 .44642 .69338* .74953** .14846 Genuineness, Question 2 .54379 .47694 .45747 .73030* .56057 .04055 *p<.05=.602 **p<.01=.735 ON M: 62 2. Behavior cognition of systems (Missing Pictures) and empathy Questions I and II. 3. Behavior cognition of units (Faces) and genuineness Questions I and II. 4. Behavior cognition of predictions (Cartoon Predic tions) and genuineness Question I. No significant correlations were found between the measures of counselor effectiveness and the two tests, behavior cognition of classes (Expression Grouping) and behavior cognition of relations (So cial Relations). Supervisor Ranking Correlation Coefficients Spearman rho correlation coefficients for Subgroup I (N=8) were all found to be not significant (Table XXIV). Correlation coefficients ranged from .66 to -.46. Spearman rho correlation coefficients for Subgroup II (N=9) were all found to be not significant (Table XXV). Correlation coefficients ranged from .28 to -.661 (carried to third digit to show that it is less than critical r-Ratio). Significant rho coefficients were found in Subgroup III (N=ll), (Table XXVI). Significant correlations were found between: 1. Behavior cognition of transformations (Picture Exchange) and empathy Questions I and II. 2. Behavior cognition of classes (Expression Grouping) and global counselor effectiveness Questions I and II. 3. Behavior cognition of systems (Missing Pictures)j'and global counselor effectiveness Questions I and II and Empathy Questions I and II. TABLE XXIV CORRELATION MATRIX BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SUPERVISOR RANKINGS (SUBGROUP I N=8) SCORES Picture Expression Missing Cartoon Social Exchange Grouping Pictures Faces Predictions Relations Counselor Effectiveness, Question 1 .35484 .21542 .04455 -.12658 .57140 .04717 Counselor Effectiveness, Question 2 .46884 -.24458 .05508 -.46411 .26506 -.22563 Empathy, Question 1 -.38762 .01134 -.41132 -.12658 -.21221 -.31076 Empathy, Question 2 -.38762 .02430 -.37989 -.12658 -.24756 -.25963 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 1 -.14274 -.08908 -.21725 -.12658 .66562 -.31076 Nonpossessive . Warmth, Question 2 -.00404 .33528 ! -.21741 .12658 .50653 .07274 Genuineness, Question 1 -.17528 .51669 -.28560 .33753 .31208 .15787 Genuineness, Question 2 -.28952 .29965 -.41650 .25315 .36511 -.09779 *p <.05=.707 **p<.01=.834 TABLE XXV CORRELATION MATRIX BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES SUPERVISOR RANKINGS (SUBGROUP II N=9) Picture Exchange Expression Grouping Missing Pictures Faces Cartoon Predictions Social Relations Counselor Effectiveness, Question 1 .21870 -.33391 -.08741 -.26471 -.02623 -.06722 Counselor Effectiveness, Question 2 .21870 -.33391 -.08741 -.26471 -.02623 -.06722 Empathy, Question 1 .11776 -.13356 -.47451 -.66178 -.05246 .06722 Empathy, Question 2 .11776 -.13356 -.47451 -.66178 -.05246 .06722 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 1 .08412 -.06285 -.16233 -.28126 -.63447 .18821 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question 2 .08412 -.06285 -.16233 -.28126 -.63447 .18821 Genuineness, Question 1 .06729 -.23177 -.32466 -.09927 .28854 -.41674 Genuineness, Question 2 .06729 -.23177 -.32466 -.09927 .28854 -.41674 *p<. 05=.666 **p<.01=.798 ov TABLE XXVI CORRELATION MATRIX BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES SUPERVISOR RANKING (SUBGROUP III N=ll) Picture Exchange Expression Grouping Missing Pictures Faces Cartoon Predictions Social Relations Counselor Effectiveness I .47346 .64294* .68517* .38810 .58402 .16933 Counselor Effectiveness II .53961 .66243* .70812* .45997 .61981* .19411 Empathy I .84532** .56111 .76160** .40247 .44807 .58232 Empathy II .67207* .50267 .68884* .63246* .45505 .27673 Nonpossessive Warmth, I .40226 .40135 .34844 .12937 .41572 .18184 Nonpossessive Warmth II .35631 .66924* .55073 .10468 .51646 .26716 Genuineness I .55993 .70139* .55502 .27311 .68064* .21056 Genuineness II .43771 .68191* .52059 .35935 .65915* .03704 *£<.05 = .602 **£<.01 = .735 o\ vt 66 4. Behavior cognition of units (Faces) and empathy Question II. 5. Behavior cognition of predictions (Cartoon Predic tions) and global counselor effectiveness Question II. Supervisor Rating--Supervisor Ranking Correlation Coefficients Significant rho correlations were found in all three subgroups. For Subgroup I (N=8), (Table XXVII) significant correlations were found between supervisor rating and supervisor ranking on global coun selor effectiveness Questions I and II, empathy Question I, nonposses sive warmth Question II, and genuineness Questions I and II. For Subgroup II (N=9), (Table XXVIII) significant correlations were found between supervisor rating and supervisor ranking on global counselor effectiveness Question I, empathy Questions I and II, nonpos sessive warmth Question II, and genuineness Questions I and II. For Subgroup III (N=ll), (Table XXIX) significant correlations were found between supervisor rating and supervisor ranking on global counselor effectiveness Question II, empathy Questions I and II, non possessive warmth Questions I and II, and genuineness Questions I and II. Supervisor Rating Correlation Coefficients (San Diego State College) Significant rho coefficient correlations were found in the sta tistical findings from the San Diego State College experimental group (Table XXX). 67 TABLE XXVII CORRELATIONS (RELIABILITY) SUPERVISOR RATING--SUPERVISOR RANKING (SUBGROUP I N=8) Question Item Rho Correlation Coefficient Counselor Effectiveness, Question I .95751** Counselor Effectiveness Question II .74231* Empathy, Question I .73210* Empathy, Question II .67612 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I .46057 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II .79576* Genuineness, Question I .92308** Genuineness, Question II .87287** *£<.05 = .707 **£<.01 = .831 68 TABLE XXVIII CORRELATIONS (RELIABILITY) SUPERVISOR RATING--SUPERVISOR RANKING (SUBGROUP II N=9) Question Item Rho Correlation Coefficient Counselor Effectiveness, Question I .82158** Counselor Effectiveness, Question II .00000 Empathy, Question I .73786* Empathy, Question II .68465* Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I -.15526 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II .69402* Genuineness, Question I .72457* Genuineness, Question II .77632* *£<•05 = .666 **£<.01 = .798 69 TABLE XXIX CORRELATIONS (RELIABILITY) SUPERVISOR RATING--SUPERVISOR RANKING (SUBGROUP III N=ll) Question Item Rho Correlation Coefficient Counselor Effectiveness, Question I .57522 Counselor Effectiveness, Question II .72672* Empathy, Question I .65000* Empathy, Question II .77850** Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I .85635** Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II .73171* Genuineness, Question I .70165* Genuineness, Question II .63509* *^<.05 = .602 **£<.01 = .735 TABLE XXX CORRELATION MATRIX BEHAVIOR COGNITION TEST SCORES SUPERVISOR RATING (SAN DIEGO STATE NDEA INSTITUTE N=15) Picture Exchange Expression Grouping Missing Pictures Faces Cartoon Predictions Social Relations Coxons elor Effectiveness .44616 .44203 .57588* .32400 .26688 -.30607 Empathy .61972* .56839* .29971 .36812 .46493 -.12396 Nonpossessive Warmth .12519 .22542 .10355 .11873 .41638 -.25128 Genuineness .22429 .40643 .34468 .23080 .26441 -.20982 *£<.05 = .514 **£<.01 = .641 o 71 Significant correlations were found between: 1. Behavior cognition of transformations (Picture Exchange) and empathy Question II. 2. Behavior cognition of classes (Expression Grouping) and empathy Question II. 3. Behavior cognition of systems (Missing Pictures) and global counselor effectiveness Question II. Significant correlations were not found for the remaining tests of behavior cognition. Chapter VI will devote itself to discussing the meaning and im pact of these findings on our present understanding of outcomes of group processes and counselor effectiveness. Discussion It was noted that zero correlations were found when coefficients were derived from the relationship between supervisor ratings and the six tests of behavior cognition. This result is explained by the fact that the supervisor rated all the subjects in his group at the same position on the five-point scale. It was also noted that differences existed on the supervisor and peer ratings between the correlation coefficients derived from Question I and Question II of counselor effectiveness criteria categories. These findings, perhaps, suggest that the judges felt that while they may not have been personally affected by the counselor they felt he was effec tive with others or that the judge felt he was personally affected but that the counselor had been ineffectual with the other group members. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION This study has addressed itself to the generic problem of the de terminants of counseling competence. More specifically, it has attemp ted to evaluate the effects of group counseling for counselors upon the growth of behavior cognition and its relationship to counselor effec tiveness. This chapter will serve as a final evaluation of the degree to which these goals have been met. It will take a summative as well as an evaluative approach since a refined review of what has been pre sented previously will help to bring all conclusions and implications into enhanced perspective. The chapter will proceed with a summary of procedures and a capsulated review of the findings. Conclusions will be drawn from these findings and appropriate implications offered. Finally, recommendations for further study and concluding statements will be presented for consideration. Summary of Procedures The study incorporated two distinct research designs. An experi- mental design was utilized to test the hypothesis: Group counseling does increase behavior cognition abilities of graduate trainees in counseling and that these graduate trainees will have greater growth of behavior cognition abilities than a simi lar sample of graduate students who have had no group experience. 72 73 A correlational design was utilized to test the hypotheses: There is a direct relationship between specific factors of behavior cognition and counselor effectiveness. A grand total of 124 graduate students in counseling (59 males, 65 females) at California State College, Los Angeles and at San Diego State College were administered Guilford's six tests of behavior cogni tion and were evaluated by supervisors and peers on criteria of coun selor effectiveness. Fifty of the control subjects at California State College, Los Angeles were eliminated from statistical analysis since they indicated they had participated, or were presently engaged in some form of group experience. Thus, the test scores, ratings, and rankings of a total of 74 subjects were ultimately used in the statistical test ing of experimental hypotheses. Implementation of the experimental design took place solely at California State College, Los Angeles, The experimental group was com prised of 28 subjects (14 males, 14 females) who were divided into three subgroups of sample sizes 8, 9, and 11. These subjects were reg istered in Ed. 527A, a group counseling for counselors experience. The control group was comprised of 31 subjects (14 males, 17 females) who were registered in two sections of Ed. 404A, a course in developmental psychology. The two Ed. 404A sections produced control subgroups of sample sizes 14 and 17. Both courses are generally taken in the begin ning of graduate study subsequent to admittance to the program. The experimental and control groups were both pre and posttested at the be ginning and end of the Fall, 1968 semester (12 weeks). The experimen tal group met once a week for a three hour group counseling session. 74 The control group also met three hours a week for didactic instruction. Tests administered were Guilford's six tests of behavior cognition. Each test represented a distinct cognitive factor which measured one aspect of the ability to be "aware of others." The Faces test measured behavior cognition of units or the ability to understand units of ex pression (in this case facial expression) . The Expression Grouping test measured behavior cognition of classes or the ability to be aware that different expressional modes (i.e. gestures, body posture) have the same psychological meaning. The Social Relations test measured be havior cognition of relations or the ability to understand dyadic re lationships. The Missing Pictures test measured behavior cognition of systems or the ability to comprehend a social situation or sequence of events involving more than two individuals. The Picture Exchange test measured behavior cognition of transformations or the ability to rede fine behavioral information, or become aware that similar expressions can have different meanings. The Cartoon Predictions test measured be havior cognition of implications or the ability to make predictions about what will happen subsequent to a given social situation. After posttesting, growth of behavior cognition abilities in the experimental and control groups were compared for significant differences. The correlation design involved the experimental group (N=28) at California State College, Los Angeles and 15 students (7 males, 8 fe males) attending the academic year NDEA Counseling and Guidance Insti tute at San Diego State College. All subjects, including the NDEA en- rollees at San Diego State College, had taken the six tests of behavior i 7 5 cognition. In addition, degree of counselor effectiveness for each subject was evaluated. At California State College, Los Angeles, each subject was rated and ranked on counselor effectiveness by his (or her) group supervisor. Peer ratings of counselor effectiveness were ob tained by group members evaluating each other according to criteria of counseling competence. At San Diego State College, the subjects were rated on Question II by their supervisor who was the leader for all groups at the institution. In addition to a global measure of counselor effectiveness (i.e. the effect of the counselor on the counselee), the personality charac teristics of empathy (counselor sensitivity to the counselee's feelings or the counselor's ability to accurately perceive and communicate the client's feelings and motivations), nonpossessive warmth (the level of unconditional positive regard that the counselor has for the client), and genuineness (the degree to which the counselor was "being himself" and "real" with the client) were used as criteria of counselor success. Subjects responded on a five point rating scale on two questions for each variable above. The first question had the group member (peer or supervisor) rate the subject in terms of how he felt the subject af fected him personally. The second question had the group member (peer or supervisor) rate the subject in terms of how he felt the subject af fected others. In addition, supervisors ranked the subjects according to the same questions. The supervisor at San Diego State College only rated his subjects according to the second question. Correlation com putations were performed to determine the relationship between levels 76 of behavior cognition and counselor effectiveness. Summary of Findings In order to evaluate meaningfully the outcome of the experimental design it was necessary to establish statistically that the three treat ment subgroups (N=8, 9 and 11 respectively) could be considered one to tal experimental group of 28 and that the two nontreatment subgroups could be considered one total control group of 31. Therefore, analysis of variance was performed on each set of subgroups. No significant dif ferences were found between the experimental subgroups on the six pre test measures of behavior cognition. It was thus concluded that the subgroups came from the same population on these measures. Neither were significant differences found between control subgroups on the six pretest measures of behavior cognition which resulted in a similar con clusion that these subgroups came from the same population on these measures. A second analysis of variance was performed to establish pre test score equivalency between the total experimental group and the to tal control group. No significant differences were found between the groups on the pretest scores of the Expression Grouping, Cartoon Pre dictions, and Social Relations tests. Significant differences (£<.05) were found between experimental and control groups on the pretest scores of the Picture Exchange, Missing Pictures, and Faces tests. In the testing of the experimental hypothesis, analysis of variance, and the t-test for significant differences of means were utilized in the cases where significant differences did not exist between the pretest scores. 77 It was found that there were not significant differences between posttest scores of the experimental and control groups obtained from the Expression Grouping, Cartoon Predictions, and Social Relations tests. Therefore, the associated null hypotheses were accepted. Analysis of covariance indicated that there were not significant differences between experimental and control groups on posttest scores of the Picture Exchange and Missing Pictures tests. Again, associated null hypotheses were accepted. However, significant differences were found (p<.01) between ex perimental and control groups on posttest scores of the Faces test. The null hypothesis was rejected. As a result of extra analysis of covariance, necessitated by com puter programming, two additional findings occurred. Significant dif ferences (jo<.05) were found between experimental and control groups on the scores of the Expression Grouping and Social Relations tests. Two explanations are offered. The first is that the computed critical values represent Type II errors. The second suggests that either un known or known covariants (in this case the interaction effect of the behavior cognition abilities) have been confounding the study and have been screened out by the analysis of covariance. In this case, the as sociated null hypotheses would be rejected. In the correlational design, it was found that significant corre lations could not be obtained between measures of counselor effective ness and scores on the behavior cognition tests for the subgroups of smaller sample size (N=8, N=9, respectively). However, significant 78 correlations were found when the groups of larger sample sizes were star tistically analyzed. (N=ll at California State College, Los Angeles, and N=15 at San Diego State College). Using peer ratings as criteria, significant correlations were found between: 1. Picture Exchange test and global counselor effec tiveness Questions I and II. 2. Expression Grouping test and global counselor effectiveness Question I and nonpossessive warmth Question II. 3. Missing Pictures test and global counselor effec tiveness Questions I and II, empathy Questions I and II, and genuineness Questions I and II. 4. Faces test and empathy Question I and genuineness Questions I and II. 5. Cartoon Predictions test and global counselor ef fectiveness Question I and nonpossessive warmth Question II. Significant correlations were not found between measures of counselor effectiveness and the Social Relations test (r=.669, £<.05). Using supervisor ratings as criteria, significant correlations were found between: 1. Picture Exchange test and global counselor effec tiveness Questions I and II, empathy Question II, and genuineness Question I. 2. Missing Pictures test and empathy Questions I and II. 3. Faces test and genuineness Question I. 4. Cartoon Predictions test and genuineness Question I. Significant correlations were not found between measures of counselor effectiveness and the Expression Grouping and Social 79 Relations tests. Using supervisor rankings as criteria, significant correlations were found between: 1. Picture Exchange test and empathy Questions I and II. 2. Expression Grouping test and global counselor effec tiveness Questions I and II. 3. Missing Pictures test and global counselor effective ness Questions I and II and empathy Questions I and II. 4. Faces test and empathy Question II. 5. Cartoon Predictions test and global counselor effec tiveness Question II. Significant correlations were not found between measures of counselor effectiveness on the Social Relations test. (Significant rho correlations were found between supervisor rating and ranking on all subgroups indicating a high degree of reliability.) Finally, losing the San Diego State College supervisor ratings as criteria, significant correlations were found between: 1. Picture Exchange test and empathy Question II. 2. Expression Grouping test and empathy Question II. 3. Missing Pictures test and Global Counselor Effec tiveness Question II. Significant correlations were not found between measures of coun selor effectiveness and the Faces, Social Relations and Cartoon Predic tions tests. Conclusions and Implications The findings of the experimental design indicate that group coun seling for counselors did significantly improve behavior cognition 80 abilities of our sample population, and that this improvement can be ascribed to the experimental treatment, since growth was in the pre dicted direction (as indicated by pretest, posttest score gain) and was significantly greater for the experimental group than for the control group. Score gain in the Faces test suggests that as a result of group counseling, our counselor-trainees improved in the ability to recognize that different facial expressions can have the same meaning. This would seem to be an essential skill for the counselor when he is working with two or more clients in a group setting. This awareness would al low him to understand the feelings of the group and enable him to con vey these perceptions to all the members for consideration. If one accepts the explanation that confounding covariants were screened out in statistical analysis and that there is, in actuality, significant growth in behavior cognition of classes and relations fa voring our experimental group over the control group as a result of group experience then one can conclude: 1. Group counseling for counselors promoted growth in behavior cognition abilities as measured by the Ex pression Grouping test for our sample population. This suggests from the operational definitions of the test, that group counseling not only improved the counselor trainee's awareness of the similarity of the same units of expression (i.e. Faces) but also enhanced his awareness that different units of expressions (i.e. comparing one individual's face with another individual's hand gestures, etc.) can have the same psychological meaning. This aware ness would help the counselor to comprehend more fully his counselees and allow him to utilize this knowledge in the group counseling process. 81 2. Group counseling for counselors promotes growth in behavior cognition abilities as measured by the Social Relations test for our sample population. This suggests that group interaction improved the counselor trainee's awareness of dyadic relation ships which would seem to be a sine qua non for the counselor who intends to do individualcounseling or psychotherapy. It is interesting to note that the simpler cognitive abilities, behavior cognition of units, classes, and relations, attained signifi cant growth first. One could hypothesize that with an increase and improvement in group experience the more complex cognitive factors would have continued this trend and developed further. The correlation design produced interesting results. The Faces test correlated significantly in two cases with empathy and in two cases with genuineness. Therefore, it can be concluded that not only does group counseling for counselors improve behavior cognition of units for our sample population, but that this is a primary gain since there are indications that this skill is related to characteristics of counselor effectiveness as measured by degrees of empathy and gen uineness . The Expression Grouping test correlated significantly in two cases on a global measure of counselor effectiveness (peer rating and supervisor ranking) and in one case with empathy (San Diego State Col lege) . This, also, implies that gain in the ability to perceive that different units of expression can have the same meaning is, in fact, a primary gain, since there are indications that this cognitive skill is related to counselor effectiveness as measured by a global evalua tion of counselor effectiveness and empathy. 82 It was found that the Social Relations test did not correlate with counselor effectiveness. Thus, while this skill seems to be an outcome of group process, its relationship to counselor effectiveness could not be established. It was also found that the three behavior cognition tests which did not have significant growth as a result of group counseling were all, nevertheless, correlated with counselor effectiveness. Thus, that they may be useful as predictors of counselor effectiveness has been established. The implications of these findings relate to the original ques tions posed in the introduction to this dissertation. In response, it would seem that group counseling for counselors does increase the coun selor- trainee's awareness, in our sample population, of nonverbal ges tures. Specifically, he seems to become aware of similarity of psycho logical and emotional meaning of facial expressions, aware of similarity of differing units of expression, and aware of dyadic relationships. There is evidence that "awareness of other" abilities as measured by specific Guilford tests of behavior cognition are directly related to counselor effectiveness. (All tests except Social Relations estab lished significant correlations with one of the four criteria of com petence.) Therefore, "being aware of others" may be related to being a good counselor and that these tests may exhibit promise as screening devices for graduate students in counseling. Finally, this study helps establish the efficacy of group coun seling for counselors and its meaningfulness as an essential part of a graduate counselor-education program. 83 Recommendations for Further Study A primary' goal of a study such as this is that it will serve as a motivator of further research. In light of this intention, the follow ing recommendations for further study are offered. 1. That replication studies be performed on a similar population to verify findings. 2. That groups with larger sample sizes be used with stratified random sampling of subjects into experi mental and control groups. 3. That judges be selected who have seen all subjects in the total group. 4. That the procedures followed in this study be applied to different population samples so as to ascertain the generality of results. 5. That different kinds of groups be tested, for varying lengths of time, in order to see the effects of group process change upon the growth of behavior cognition. 6. That the Guilford tests of behavior cognition be sub jected to experimental study by departments of coun selor education to determine their usefulness as pre dictors of counselor success. 7. That longitudinal studies (through follow-up of coun selor trainees) be implemented to evaluate the sta bility of outcomes of group processes. In conclusion, it is hoped that this dissertation has presented additional considerations which can affect our understanding of the out comes of group processes and their relationships to counselor effective ness. Continual search for new knowledge is essential if we wish to make any progress toward helping our clients, and ourselves, lead a more meaningful, self-fulfilling life. b i b l i o g r a p h y 84 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abel, W. H. "Group Counseling and Academic Rehabilitation of Probation ary Transfer Students," Journal of College Student Personnel, 1967, 8, 185-88. Abeles, N. A Study of the Characteristics of Counselor Trainees. Un- published Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas, 1958. Allen, T. W. "Effectiveness of Counselor Trainees as a Function of Openness," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 14 (1), 35-40. Anthony, W. "A Longitudinal Analysis of the Effect of Experiences on the Therapeutic Approach," Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1967, 23 (4), 512-16. APGA Minimum Standards and Professional Training, Licensing and Certifi cation Committee. "Counselor Preparation Recommendations for Minimum Standards and Professional Training," Personnel and Gui dance Journal. 1958, 37, 162-66. Appel, M. L. VSe If - Unde rs t anding for the Guidance Counselor," Person nel and Guidance Journal, October 1963, 42, 143-48. Arbuckle, D. S. "Kinds of Counseling--Meaningful and Meaningless," Journal of Counseling Psychology, May 1967, 14 (3), 219-225. Amette, J. "The Effect of Short Term Group Counseling on Anxiety and Hostility of Newly Incarcerated Prison Inmantes," Dissertation Abstracts, 1967, 27, (10-A) , 3299. Axelson, J. A. "The Relationship of Counselor Candidates Empathetic Perception and Rapport in Small Group Interaction," Counselor Ed ucation and Supervision, 1967, 6 (4), 287-292. Bailey, R. J. The Preparation, Certification and Selection of Person nel Workers for the Secondary Schools of the United States. Un- published Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, 1940. Barron, F., and Leary, T. "Changes in Psychoneurotic Patients with and without Psychotherapy," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1955, 19, 239-43. Bear, R. "The Relationships of Counselor Self-Concept and Counseling Effectiveness," Dissertation Abstracts, 1966, 27 (2-A), 383. 85 86 Bednar, M. "Changes in Social Perception in Adolescents During Group Psychotherapy," Dissertation Abstracts, 1965, 26 (2), 1166-67. Bergen, A. E. "Personality and Performance Correlates of Empathetic Understanding in Psychotherapy,':' Paper read at A.P.A. in Phila delphia, September 1963a. Bergen, M. "Problems of Anxiety in Group Psychotherapy Trainees," in M. Rosenbaum and M. Bergen (eds. ) Group Psychotherapy and Group Function. New York: Basic Books, 1963b, 555-57. Berman, L. A. "A Group Psychotherapeutic Technique for Training in Clinical Psychology," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1953, 23, 322-27. ----------------------------- Blocker, D. H. "A Multiple Regression Approach to Predicting Success in a Counselor Education Program," Counselor Education and. Super vision, 1963, 3, 19-22. Bloyer, R. "The Effects of Group Counseling with a College Disciplinary Group," Dissertation Abstracts, 1966, 27 (4-A), 944-45. Bonney, W. C., and Gazda, G. M. ' 'Group Counseling Experiences, Reaction by Counselor Candidates," Counselor Education and Supervision, 1966, 5, 5-11. Bradley, N., and Stein, C. "Counselor Experience and Accuracy of Pre diction of Client Behavior: Rehabilitation," Personnel and Gui dance Journal, June 1965, 43, 10, 1015-17. Brams, J. M. The Relationship Between Personal Characteristics of Coun seling Trainees and Effective Communication in Counseling^ Un1 published Doctoral Dissertation, University of Missouri,1957. Broedel, J. "A Study of the Effects of Group Counseling on the Academic Performance and Mental Health of Underachieving Gifted Adoles cents," Dissertation Abstracts, 1959, 19, 3019. Carkhuff, R., and Pierce, R. "Differential Effects of Therapist Race and Social Class Upon Patient Depth of Self Exploration in the In itial Clinical Interview," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31 (6), 632-34. Carson, R. "A and B Therapist 'Types,' A Possible Critical Variable in Psychotherapy," Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1967, 144 (1), 47-54. _____, and Heine, R. "Similarity and Success in Therapeutic Dyads," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1962, 26 (1), 38-43. 87 Cartwright, R., and Vogel, J. "A Conparison of Change in Psychoneurotic Patients During Matched Periods of Therapy and No Therapy," Jour nal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 121-27. Caton, D. W. "Educational-Vocational Group Counseling--The Effects of Perception of Self and Others," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 13 (2), 202-07. Cohen, B. Guidelines for Future Research on Group Counseling in the Public School Setting. New York: Bedford Hall, Board of Coopera- tive Educational Services, 1964, 54. Combs, A. W., and Soper, D. W. "Perceptual Organization of Effective Counselors," Journal of Counseling Psychology, Fall 1963, 10 (3) 222-26. Cox, R. D. Counselors and Their Work. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Harrisburg Archives Press, 1945. Culbert, S. A. "Measures of Change Towards Self-Actualization in Two Sensitivity Training Groups," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 15, 53-57. Delaney, D. J. "A Study of the Effectiveness of Sensitivity Training on the Perception of Nonverbal Communication in Counselor Educa tion," Dissertation Abstracts, 1966, 27 (4-A), 948. Demos, G. D., and Zuwaylif, F. H. "Characteristics of Effective Coun selors," Counselor Education and Supervision, 1963, 10, 222-26. DeWeese, H. L. "The Extent to Which Group Counseling Influences the Academic Achievement, Academic Potential, and Personnel Adjust ment of Predicted Low-Achieving First Semester College Freshmen," Dissertation Abstracts, 1960, 20, 3192-93. Dickoff, A., and Martin,L. "Patients' Views of Group Therapy: Retro spective and Interpretations," International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1963, 13 (1), 61-73. Dole, A. 'The Prediction of Effectiveness in School Counseling," Jour nal of Counseling Psychology, Summer 1964, 11 (2), 112-21. Duncan, P. R. "Effects of Required Group Counseling with College Stu dents in Academic Difficulty," Dissertation Abstracts, 1962, 22, 4265. Ellis, A. "Continuing Personal Growth of the Psychotherapist--A Ra tional Emotive View," Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1966, 6 (2), 156-69. 88 Eysenck, H. J. "The Effects of Psychotherapy: An Evaluation," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1952, 16, 319-24. Fiedler, Fred. "The Concept of an Ideal Therapeutic Relationship," Journal of Consulting Psychology^: 1950, 14, 239-45. Fretz, B. "Counselor Experience and Accuracy of Prediction of Client Behavior," Personnel and Guidance Journal, June 1965, 43, 10, 1011-14. ~ Gazda, G. (Ed.) "Proceedings of Group Counseling and Therapy Sympo sium," Journal of Research and Development in Education, Winter 1968, 1 (2), 135. Gazda, George, and Bonney, Warren. "Effects of Group Counseling on Role Behavior of Counselors in Training," Counselor Education and Supervision, Summer 1965, 4 (4), 191-97). Gazda, G., and Ohlsen, M. "The Effects of Short-Term Counseling on Prospective Counselors," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1961 39, 634-38. Geller, J. "An Experience in Group Psychotherapy as a Teaching Device," Group Psychotherapy, 1951, 7, 130-38. Geller, M. "Client Expectations, Counselor Role-Perceptions and Out comes of Counseling," Dissertation Abstracts, 1966, 26 (7) 4073. Gilliland, B. "An Evaluation of the Effects of Small Group Counseling with Negro Adolescents," Dissertation Abstracts, 1967, 27 (9-A) 2878-79. Greening, T. C. "Sensitivity Training: Cult or Continuation," Per sonnel ; . 1964, 41 (3), 18-25. Gittleman, M. "Rated Competence in Psychotherapy and Some Measures of Emotional Communication," Dissertation Abstracts, 1966, 27 (6-B), 2134. Goodstein, Leonard, and Grigg, Austin. "Reply to Patterson," Personnel and Guidance Journal, September 1959, 38 (1), 19-26. Graves, P. A Study of Counselors in Selected Industrial, Educational and Social Service Organizations,Unpublished Doctoral Disserta- tion, Northwestern University, . . 1948. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1956. 89 . "Three Faces of Intellect," . A merican Psychologist, 1959, 14, '469-79. , O'Sullivan, M., and DeMille, R. The Measurement of Social In telligence. Los Angeles: Cooperative Research Project No. 1976, 34, June 1965. Hall, W. E. "Analysis of Peer Ratings," Personnel and Guidance Journal, March 1962, 40 (7), 606-609. Herbert, 0. "The Counseling Relationship as a Function of Client- Counselor Personality, Need and Sex Similarity," Dissertation Abstracts, 1968, 28 (11-A), 4479-80. Heckel, R. L. "An Exploratory Search for Characteristics Patterns of High Performance Rated Counselor-Candidates in a Counseling Prac- ticum," Dissertation Abstracts, 1967, 28 (1-A), 104. Ivey, A. E., et al. "Counselor Assignment and Client Attitude--A Sys tematic Replication: Counselor Evaluation Inventory," Journal of Counseling Psychology, March 1968, 15 (2), 194-95. Johnson, D. "The Relationship of Counselor Candidate Characteristics and Counseling Effectiveness," Counselor Education and Supervision, 1967, 6 (4), 297-301 Johnson, R. W. "Number of Interviews, Diagnosis and Success," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1965, 12, 248-51. Jones, A. J. Principles of Guidance and Pupil Personnel Work. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1951. Joslin, L. "Knowledge and Counseling Competence," Personnel and Gui dance Journal, April 1965, 43, 790-95. Katz, B. "Predictive and Behavioral Empathy and Client Change in Short Term Counseling," Dissertation Abstracts, 1962, 23 (6), 2206. Katz, M., et al. "Remainder Patient Attributes and Their Relation to Subsequent Improvement in Psychotherapy," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1958, 22, 411-13. Kenp, C. G. "Influence of Dogmatism on the Training of Counselors," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9, 155-57. Kemp, D. "Personality and Behavior in Psychotherapeutic Relationships: Correlates of a Scale of Therapeutic Effectiveness," Dissertation Abstracts, 1964, 25 (2), 1337. 90 Kugelmass, S., and Schossberger, J. "Problems of Initial Training for Group Psychotherapy in Israel," International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1958, 8, 179-84. Levitt, A. 'The Results of Psychotherapy with Children," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 181-96. Matthews, W. A. "The Relationship between Conditions in Counseling and Selected Outcome Variables," Dissertation Abstracts, 1967, 28 (6-A), 2073-74. McClain, E. W. "Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire Scores and Success in Counseling," Journal of Counseling Psychology, Novem ber 1968, 15, 492-96. McDaniel, W. "Counselor Selection: An Evaluation of Instruments," Counselor Education and Supervision, 1967, 6, 142-44. McKinnen, B. "Some Effects of Concomitant Group Counseling Experience on Students in the Counseling Practicum," Dissertation Abstracts, 1968, 28 (7-A), 2561. McNair, D., et al. "Therapist 'Type' and Patient Response to Psycho therapy," JoumaI_of_Consulti^ 1962, 26 (5), 425-29. Mendelsohn, G. A. "Effects of Counselor-Client Similarity on the Out come of Counseling," Journal of Counseling Psychology, Spring 1963, 10, 71-77. Milliken, R. L. "Prejudice and Counseling Effectiveness," Personnel and Guidance Journal, March 1965, 43, 710-12. _____, and Patterson, J. "Relationship of Dogmatism and Prejudice to Counseling Effectiveness," Counselor Education and Supervision, 1967, 6 (2), 125-29. Ofman, W., and Kinzer, J. "Evaluation of a Group Counseling Procedure," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1964, 11, 152-59. O'Hem, J., and Arbuckle, D. "Sensitivity: A Measurable Concept?" Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1964, 42 (6), 572-76. O'Sullivan, M. Behavioral (Social) Intelligence: A Factor Analysis. Dissertation, University of Southern California, 1965, 91. Pagell, W. A. "The Predicted Differential Effects of the Level of Coun selor Functioning Upon the Level of Functioning of Out-Patients," Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 1967, 23 (4) 510-12. 91 Parloff, M. "Therapist-Patient Relationships and Outcomes of Psycho therapy," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1961, 25, 25-38. Patterson, C. H. "Client Expectation and Social Conditioning," Person nel and Guidance Journal, 1958, 37, 136-38. ____. "The Irrevelancy of Wishful Thinking," Counselor Education and Supervision, Fall 1964, 4, 21-23. Pierce, R. "The Differential Effects of High and Low Functioning Coun selors Upon Counselors in Training," Journal of Clinical Psycho logy, 1967, 23 (2), 212-15. Powers, E., and Witmeo, H. An Experiment in the Prevelance of Delin quency . New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. Rank, R. "Counseling Competence and Perceptions," Personnel and Guidance Journal, December 1966, 45, 359-65. Rogers, C. R. "Characteristics of a Helping Relationship," Personnel and Guidance Journal, September 1958, 37 (1), 6-16. . Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1951. . "Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Therapeutic Personality Change," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 95-103. . "The Interpersonal Relationship: The Care of Guidance," Harvard Educational Review, Fall, 1962, 32 (4), 416-29. Rose, H., and Elton, C. "Acceptors and Rejectors of Counseling," Journal of Counseling Psychology, November 1968, 15, 578-80. Rosen, J. "Multiple-Regression Analysis of Counselor Characteristics and Competencies," Psychological Reports, 1967a, 20 (3, Part I), 103-108. . "The Predictive Value of Personal Characteristics Associated with Counselor Competence," Dissertation Abstracts, 1967b, 27 (8-A), 2408-09. Rotter, J. "Can the Clinician Learn from Experience?" Journal of Con sulting Psychology, 1967, 31 (1) > 12-15. Russo, J. R., Kelz, J., and Hudson, G. "Are Good Counselors Open- minded?" Counselor Education and Supervision, 1964, 3, 74-77. Searles, A. "Effectiveness of Limited Counseling in Improving the Aca demic Achievement of Superior College Freshmen," Personnel and Guidance Journal, March 1962, 40, 630-33. 92 Smith, B. "Small Group Meetings of College Freshmen and Frequency of Withdrawals," Journal of College Student Personnel, 1963, 4, 165-70. Speilberger, C., et al. "Group Counseling and the Academic Performance of Anxious College Freshmen," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9 (3), 195-204. Speilberger, C., and Weitz, H. "Improving the Academic Performance of Anxious College Freshmen: A Group Counseling Approach to the Pre vention of Underachievement," Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 1964, 78 (13), No. 590. Steffire, B., King, P., and Leafgren, F. "Characteristics of Counselors Judged Effective by Their Peers," Journal of Counseling Psycho logy, 1962, 9, 335-40. Steph, J. "Responses to Hypothetical Counseling Situations as a Predic tor of Relationship Orientation in School Counselors." Unpub lished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1963. Stoler, N. "Client Likeability: A Variable in the Study of Psycho therapy," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, 27 (2), 175-78. Strang, R. "Newer Emphasis in Counseling and Group Techniques," National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, June 1960, 23 (4), 152-57. Streitfield, J. "Expressed Acceptance of Self and Others by Psycho therapists," Journal of Consulting Psychology, October 1959, 23, 435-41. Taft, R. "The Ability to Judge People," Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 1-23. Tenopyr, C. "Soci;;; vtelligence and Academic Success," Education and Psychological ;-ieasurement, Winter 1967, 27 (Part 2) 961-65. Truax, Charles,and Carkhuff, Robert. 'Toward Explaining Success and Failure in Interpersonal Learning Experience," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 44 (4), 723-28. Truax, Charles, and Carkhuff, Robert. Toward Effective Counseling and Psychotherapy: Training and Practice. Chicago: Aldine Publish- ing Co., 1967. Truax, Charles, and Dickenson, W. "Group Counseling with College Under achievers," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 45, 243-47. 93 Turner, C. 'The Effects of Client Personality Characteristics on Client Learning in Counseling," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1957, 4, 111-36. Wasson, R. "The Wisconsin Relationship Orientation Scale as a Unique Variable in the Assessment of Applicants for Counselor Education," Counselor Education and Supervision, 1965, 5, 89-92. Walton, F., and Sweeney, T. "Useful Predictions of Counseling Effective ness," Personnel and Guidance Journal, September 1969, 48 (1). 32-38. Watley, D. "Counselor Predictive Skill and Rated Counselor Effective ness," Personnol^jmctyj^^ 1967, 45 (6), 579-89. Whitehom? J., and Betz, B. "Further Study of the Doctor as a Crucial Variable in the Outcome of Treatment with Schizophrenic Patients," American Journal of Psychiatry, 1960, 17, 215-23. Wicas, E. "Characteristics of Counselors Rated Effective by Supervisors and Peers," Counselor Education and Supervision, 1966, 6 Cl). 50-56. ------- Wiribom, B. "The Effectiveness of Short-term Group Counseling Upon the Academic Achievement of Potentially Superior but Underachieving College Freshmen," Journal of Educational Research, 1960, 55 (4), 169-73. _____, et al. "Effectiveness of Short-term Group Guidance with a Group of Transfer Students Admitted on Academic Probation," Journal of Educational Research, 1965, 58 (1). 463-65. Wolfe, A., et al. "The Psychoanalysis of Groups," International Journal of Group Psychotherapy,,1952, 2, 221-31. Woodrow, H. "The Common Factors in Fifty-two Mental Tests," Psycho- metrika, 1939, 4, 99-107. Yarosy, E. "Group Counseling with Engineering Freshmen--Academic Achievement and Student Reaction," Dissertation Abstracts, 1966, 27 (2-A), 402-03. APPENDICES 94 APPENDIX A COUNSELOR EFFECTIVENESS RATING FORM 95 Group Member Date Based on your group experience involving the above-named group member, rate him Cher) according to the following categories: A. Counselor Effectiveness: What is your overall reaction to the total effect that this group member has had upon your personal growth and development as a result of your group experience with him in the group? Check the appropriate box: very negative negative no positive very positive effect effect effect effect effect □ □ □ □ □ How effective a counselor do you believe this group member will be? (i.e. How great an effect do you believe this group member will have upon future client behavior and personal growth?) Check the appropriate box: very negative negative no positive very positive effect effect effect effect effect □ □ □ □ □ B. Empathy: To what degree do you believe this group member perceived and communicated accurately your thoughts and feelings? Cheek the appropriate box: ignores generally does usually accurately very feelings not perceive perceives perceives accurately feelings feelings feelings perceives accurately accurately feelings □ □ □ □ 97 To what degree do you believe this group member perceived and communicated accurately the thoughts and feelings of the other members of the group? Check the appropriate box. ignores feelings generally does no£ perceive feelings accurately □ usually perceives feelings accurately accurately perceives feelings very accur ately per ceives feelings □ □ C. Nonpossessive warmth: To what degree do you feel this group member warmly and unconditionally accepts you for what you are? Check the appropriate box. neutral regard negative regard does not accept somewhat neg ative regard, accepts with reservations positive regard but accepts with mini mal reser vations positive re gard, ac cepts without reservations □ negative regard does not accept To what degree do you feel this group member accepted uncon ditionally and warmly the other members of the group? Check the appropriate box. neutral regard somewhat neg ative regard, accepts with reservations positive regard but accepts with mini mal reser vations positive re gard, accepts without res ervations □ 98 Genuineness: To what degree do you believe this group members was real and being himself with you in the group? Check the ap propriate box. generally appears himself, often de nies feel ings D. appears "phony," presents facade, denies feelings "plays a role, denies most feelings appears him self, seldom denies feel ings appears truly himself, does not deny feelings □ □ To what degree do you believe this group member was feal and himself with the other group members? Check the appropriate box. appears "phony," presents facade, denies feelings plays a role, denies most feelings generally appears himself, often de nies feel ings □ □ □ appears him- appears truly self, seldom himself, does denies feel- not deny feel ings ings □ APPENDIX B ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES BEHAVIOR COGNITION PRETEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL SUBGROUPS 99 100 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE PICTURE EXCHANGE PRETEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL SUBGROUPS Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means 20.506 2.000 10.253 1.590 Within Groups 161.255 25.000 6.450 Total 181.761 27.000 *£<•05 = 3.38 **£<.01 = 5.57 101 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE EXPRESSION GROUPING PRETEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL SUBGROUPS Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means 1.082 2.000 .541 .025 Within Group 544.460 25.000 21.778 Total 545.542 27.000 *p<.05 = 19.46 **£<.01 = 99.47 102 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE MISSING PICTURES PRETEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL SUBGROUPS Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means Within Groups Total 9.042 175.380 184.423 2.000 25.000 27.000 4.521 7.015 .644 *£<.05 = 19.46 **£<.01 = 99.47 103 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FACES PRETEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL SUBGROUPS Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means 38.359 2.000 19.180 2.318 Within Groups 206.855 25.000 8.274 Total 245.214 27.000 *£<.05 = 3.38 **£<.01 = 5.57 104 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE CARTOON PREDICTION PRETEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL SUBGROUPS Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means 84.397 2.000 42.199 3.255 Within Groups 324.135 25.000 12.965 Total 408.532 27.000 *£<.05 = 3.38 **£<.01 =5.57 105 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOCIAL RELATIONS PRETEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL SUBGROUPS Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means 7.319 2.000 3.660 .418 Within Groups 218.848 25.000 8.754 Total 226.167 27vQ00 *£<-05 = 19-46 **£<.01 = 99.47 APPENDIX C ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES BEHAVIOR COGNITION PRETEST SCORES CONTROL SUBGROUPS 106 107 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE PICTURE EXCHANGE PRETEST SCORES CONTROL SUBGROUPS Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means 1.385 1.000 1.385 .194 Within Groups 207.581 29.000 7.158 Total 208.966 30.000 *p<.05 = 250 **£<.01 = 6,258 108 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE EXPRESSION GROUPING PRETEST SCORES CONTROL SUBGROUPS Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean c i Square F-Ratio Between Means 1.303 1.000 1.303 .088 Within Groups 427.007 29.000 14.724 Total 428.310 30.000 *£<.05 = 250 **£<.01 = 6,258 109 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE MISSING PICTURES PRETEST SCORES CONTROL SUBGROUP Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom. Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means .084 1.000 .084 .014 Within Groups 177.788 29.000 6.131 Total 177.872 30.000 *£<.05 = 250 **£<.01 = 6,258 110 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FACES PRETEST SCORES CONTROL SUBGROUP Source Sinn of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means 1.185 1.000 1.185 .256 Within Groups 134.214 29.000 4.628 Total 135.399 30.000 *£<.05 = 250 **£<.01 + 6,258 Ill ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE CARTOON PREDICTIONS PRETEST SCORES CONTROL SUBGROUP Degrees Sum of of Mean Source Squares Freedom Square F-Ratio Between Means 31.218 1.000 31.218 2.182 Within Groups 414.845 29.000 14.305 Total 446.062 30.000 *£<.05 = 4.48 **£<.01 * 7.60 112 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOCIAL RELATIONS PRETEST SCORES CONTROL SUBGROUP Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F-Ratio Between Means .000 1.000 .000 .000 Within Groups 187.136 29.000 6.453 Total 187.136 30.000 *p<.05 = 250 **g<k01 = 6,258 APPENDIX D MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS, BEHAVIOR COGNITION SUBGROUPS POSTTEST SCORES PEER RATINGS, SUPERVISOR RATINGS, SUPERVISOR RANKING SUPERVISOR RATING - SUPERVISOR RANKING, SUPERVISOR RATING (SAN DIEGO STATE COLLEGE) 113 114 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES PEER RATINGS (SUBGROUP I N=8) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Picture Exchange 11.5412 2.3840 Expression Grouping 20.5312 4.5009 Missing Pictures 12.7912 3.7114 Faces 18.7500 2.7646 Cartoon Predictions 21.6662 3.2993 Social Relations 12.5412 2.2811 Counselor Effectiveness, Question I 25.0000 2.7255 Counselor Effectiveness, Question II 26.7500 2.4928 Empathy, Question I 22.2500 2.4928 Empathy, Question II 22.2500 1.7525 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I 25.1250 3.1368 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II 25.2500 2.0529 Genuineness, Question I 23.8750 2.3566 Genuineness, Question II 24.3750 1.7678 115 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES PEER RATINGS (SUBGROUP II N=9) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Picture Exchange 12.1111 2.7131 Expression Grouping 20.2500 2.9047 Missing Pictures 13.1111 3.6553 Faces 19.1111 2.7588 Cartoon Predictions 25.4444 1.7401 Social Relations 13.4444 3.3953 Counselor Effectiveness, Question I 29.5556 1.7401 Counselor Effectiveness, Question II 30.8889 2.0883 Empathy, Question I 24.1111 3.2189 Empathy, Question II 24.4444 3.0459 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I 28.4444 3.2447 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II 27.5556 3.8442 Genuineness, Question I 28.1111 4.9610 Genuineness, Question II 28.0000 4.6904 116 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES PEER RATINGS (SUBGROUP III N=ll) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Picture Exchange 12.1209 1.9735 Expression Grouping 19.8636 1.9344 Missing Pictures 14.7873 2.6271 Faces 19.0000 2.0976 Cartoon Predictions 24.5745 2.8054 Social Relations 14.9691 2.4341 Counselor Effectiveness, Question I 36.9091 3.7001 Counselor Effectiveness, Question II 38.2727 6.0513 Empathy, Question I 34.7273 5.1204 Empathy, Question II 34.6364 5.4087 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I 40.1818 4.0204 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II 39.6364 4.4558 Genuineness, Question I 39.2727 6.6044 Genuineness, Question II 39.3636 6.5310 117 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES SUPERVISOR RATINGS (SUBGROUP I N=8) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Picture Exchange 11.5412 2.3840 Expression Grouping 20.5312 4.5009 Missing Pictures 12.7912 3.7114 Faces 18.7500 2.7646 Cartoon Predictions 21.6662 3.2993 Social Relations 12.5412 2.2811 Counselor Effectiveness, Question I 3.6250 1.1877 Counselor Effectiveness, Question II 3.6250 1.0607 Empathy, Question I 3.3750 .9161 Empathy, Question II 33.2500 1.0351 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I 3.2500 .8864 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II 3.3750 .9161 Genuineness, Question I 3.6250 .9161 Genuineness, Question II 3.5000 1.0690 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES SUPERVISOR RATINGS (SUBGROUP II N=9) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Picture Exchange 12.1111 2.7131 Expression Grouping 20.2500 2.9047 Missing Pictures 13.1111 3.6553 Faces 19.1111 2.7588 Cartoon Predictions 25.4444 1.7401 Social Relations 13.4444 3.3953 Counselor Effectiveness, Question I 3.6667 .5000 Counselor Effectiveness, Question II 4.0000 .0000 Empathy, Question I 3.3333 .8660 Empathy, Question II 3.2222 .6667 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I 3.4444 .8819 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II 3.3333 1.1180 Genuineness, Question I 2.4444 .8819 Genuineness, Question II 2.5556 .8819 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES SUPERVISOR RATINGS (SUBGROUP III N=ll) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Picture Exchange 12.1209 1.9735 Expression Grouping 19.8636 1.9344 Missing Pictures 14.7873 2.6271 Faces 19.0000 2.0976 Cartoon Predictions 24.5745 2.8054 Social Relations 14.9691 2.4341 Counselor Effectiveness, Question I 3.7273 .7862 Counselor Effectiveness, Question II 3.9091 .5394 Empathy, Question I 3.1818 .6030 Empathy, Question II 3.0000 .7746 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I 4.0000 .7746 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II 3.6364 .6742 Genuineness, Question I 3.4545 ..6876 Genuineness, Question II 3.5455 .5222 120 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES SUPERVISOR RANKINGS (SUBGROUP I N=8) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Picture Exchange 11.5412 2.3840 Expression Grouping 20.5312 4.5009 Missing Pictures 12.7912 3.7114 Faces 18.7500 2.7646 Cartoon Predictions 21.6662 3.2993 Social Relations 12.5412 2.2811 Counselor Effectiveness, Question I 7^5000 2.4495 Counselor Effectiveness, Question II 7.5000 2.4495 Empathy, Question I 7.5000 2.4495 Empathy, Question II 7.5000 2.4495 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I 7.5000 2.4495 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II 7.5000 2.4495 Genuineness, Question I 7.5000 2.4495 Genuineness, Question II 7.5000 2.4495 121 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES SUPERVISOR RANKINGS (SUBGROUP II N=9) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Picture Exchange 12.1111 2.7131 Expression Grouping 20.2500 2.9047 Missing Pictures 13.1111 3.6553 Faces 19.1111 2.7588 Cartoon Predictions 25.4444 1.7401 Social Relations 13.4444 3.3953 Counselor Effectiveness, Question I 7.0000 2.7386 Counselor Effectiveness, Question II 7.0000 2.7386 Empathy, Question I 7.0000 2.7386 Empathy, Question II 7.0000 2.7386 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I 7v0000 2.7386 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II 7.0000 2.7386 Genuineness, Question I 7.0000 2.7386 Genuineness, Question II 7.0000 2.7386 122 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS BEHAVIOR COGNITION POSTTEST SCORES SUPERVISOR RANKINGS (SUBGROUP III N=ll) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Picture Exchange 12.1209 1.9735 Expression Grouping 19.8636 1.9344 Missing Pictures 14.7873 2.6271 Faces 19.0000 2.0976 Cartoon Predictions 24.5745 2.8054 Social Relations 14.9691 2.4341 Counselor Effectiveness, Question I 6.0000 3.3166 Counselor Effectiveness, Question II 6.0000 3.3166 Empathy, Question I 6.0000 3.3166 Empathy, Question II 6.0000 3.3166 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I 6.0000 3.3166 Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II 6.1818 3.1880 Genuineness, Question I 6.0000 3.3166 Genuineness, Question II 6.0000 3.3166 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS SUPERVISOR RATING--SUPERVISOR RANKING (SUBGROUP I N=8) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Supervisor Rating, Counselor Effectiveness, Question I 3.6250 1.1877 Supervisor Rating, Counselor Effectiveness, Question II 3.6250 1.0607 Supervisor Rating, Empathy, Question I 3.3750 .9161 Supervisor Rating, Empathy, Question II 3.2500 1.0351 Supervisor Rating, Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I 3.2500 .8864 Supervisor, Rating, Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II 3.3750 .9161 Supervisor Rating, Genuineness, Question I 3.6250 .9161 Supervisor Rating, Genuineness, Question II 3.5000 1.0690 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS SUPERVISOR RATING--SUPERVISOR RANKING (SUBGROUP I N=8) (CONTINUED) Standard Variable Mean Deviation Supervisor Ranking, Counselor Effectiveness, Question I 7.5000 2.4495 Supervisor Ranking, Counselor Effectiveness, Question II Supervisor Ranking, Empathy, Question I Supervisor Ranking, Empathy, Question II Supervisor Ranking, Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I Supervisor Ranking, Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II Supervisor Ranking, Genuineness, Question I Supervisor Ranking, Genuineness, Question II 7t5000 7^5000 7.5000 2.4495 2.4495 2.4495 7.5000 2.4495 7.5000 2.4495 7.5000 2.4495 7.5000 2.4495 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS SUPERVISOR RATING--SUPERVISOR RANKING (SUBGROUP II N=9) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Supervisor Rating, Counselor Effectiveness, Question I 3.6667 .5000 Supervisor Rating, Counselor Effectiveness, Question II 4.0000 .0000 Supervisor Rating, Empathy, Question I 3.3333 .8660 Supervisor Rating, Empathy, Question II 3.2222 .6667 Supervisor Rating, Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I 3.4444 .8819 Supervisor Rating, Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II 3.3333 1.1180 Supervisor Rating, Genuineness, Question I 2.4444 .8819 Supervisor Rating, Genuineness, Question II 2.5556 .8819 126 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS SUPERVISOR RATING— SUPERVISOR RANKING (SUBGROUP II N=9) (CONTINUED) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Supervisor Ranking, Counselor Effectiveness Question I 7.0000 2.7386 Supervisor Ranking, Counselor Effectiveness, Question II 7.0000 2.7386 Supervisor Ranking, Empathy, Question I 7.0000 2.7386 Supervisor Ranking, Empathy, Question II 7.0000 2.7386 Supervisor Ranking, Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I 7.0000 2.7386 Supervisor Ranking, Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II 7.0000 2.7386 Supervisor Ranking, Genuineness, Question I 7.0000 2.7386 Supervisor Ranking, Genuineness, Question II 7.0000 2.7386 12 7 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS SUPERVISOR RATING--SUPERVISOR RANKING (SUBGROUP III N=11) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Supervisor Rating, Counselor Effectiveness, Question I 3.7273 . 7862 Supervisor Rating, Counselor Effectiveness, Question II 3.9091 .5394 Supervisor Rating, Empathy, Question I 3.1818 .6030 Supervisor Rating, Empathy, Question II 3.0000 .7746 Supervisor Rating, Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I 4.0000 .7746 Supervisor Rating, Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II 3.6364 .6742 Supervisor Rating, Genuineness, Question I 3.4545 .6876 Supervisor Rating, Genuineness, Question II 3.5455 .5222 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS SUPERVISOR RATING--SUPERVISOR RANKING (SUBGROUP III N=ll) (CONTINUED) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Supervisor Ranking, Counselor Effectiveness, Question I 6.0000 3.3166 Supervisor Ranking, Counselor Effectiveness, Question II 6.0000 3.3166 Supervisor Ranking, Empathy, Question I 6.0000 3.3166 Supervisor Ranking, Empathy, Question II 6.0000 3.3166 Supervisor Ranking, Nonpossessive Warmth, Question I 6.0000 3.3166 Supervisor Ranking, Nonpossessive Warmth, Question II 6.1818 3.1880 Supervisor Ranking, Genuineness, Question I 6.0000 3.3166 Supervisor Ranking, Genuineness, Question II 6.0000 3.3166 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS BEHAVIOR COGNITION TEST SCORES SUPERVISOR RATING (SAN DIEGO STATE-NDEA INSTITUTE N=15) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Picture Exchange 10.8433 2.3163 Expression Grouping 20.6333 3.1123 Missing Pictures 12.6873 3.0132 Faces 18.0667 2.2509 Cartoon Predictions 24.7213 3.9860 Social Relations 12.9327 2.8344 Counselor Effectiveness 3.2000 .8619 Empathy 2.7333 .7988 Nonpossessive Warmth 3.0000 1.0690 Genuineness 2.4000 .6325 APPENDIX E SUMMARY TABLES BEHAVIOR COGNITION PRETEST AND POSTTEST SCORES MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT 130 131 SUMMARY TABLE PICTURE EXCHANGE— PRETEST SCORES Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 10.501 2.691 .350 Experimental (Total Group) 28 9.760 2.595 .490 Subgroup 1 8 8.872 2.714 .960 Subgroup 2 9 10.960 3.057 1.019 Subgroup 3 11 9.424 1.868 .563 Control (Total) 31 11.171 2.639 .474 Control Group 1 17 10.979 2.541 .616 Control Group 2 14 11.404 2.832 .757 132 SUMMARY TABLE PICTURE EXCHANGE--POSTTEST SCORE Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 11.903 2.434 .317 Experimental (Total Group) 28 11.952 2.273 .430 Subgroup 1 8 11.541 2.384 .843 Subgroup 2 9 12.111 2.713 .904 Subgroup 3 11 12.121 1.974 .595 Control (Total) 31 11.859 2.607 .468 Control Group 1 17 11.705 2.977 .722 Control Group 2 14 12.046 2.171 .580 133 SUMMARY TABLE EXPRESSION GROUPING--PRETEST SCORES Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 18.732 4.135 .538 Experimental (Total Group) 28 18.152 4.495 .849 Subgroup 1 8 18.437 4.665 1.649 Subgroup 2 9 18.139 2.848 .949 Subgroup 3 11 17.955 5.720 1.725 Control (Total) 31 19.255 3.778 .679 Control Group 1 17 19.441 4.080 .989 Control Group 2 14 19.029 3.516 .940 SUMMARY TABLE EXPRESSION GROUPING— POSTTEST SCORES Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 19.585 3.887 .506 Experimental (Total Group) 28 20.179 3.036 .574 Subgroup 1 8 20.531 4.501 1.591 Subgroup 2 9 20.250 2.905 .968 Subgroup 3 11 19.864 1.934 .583 Control (Total) 31 19.048 4.504 .809 Control Group 1 17 18.853 5.269 1.278 Control Group 2 14 19.286 3.539 .946 SUMMARY TABLE MISSING PICTURES--PRETEST SCORES Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 12.878 2.607 .339 Experimental (Total Group) 28 12.105 2.614 .494 Subgroup 1 8 11.997 2.174 .769 Subgroup 2 9 12.886 2.496 .832 Subgroup 3 11 11.544 3.041 .917 Control (Total) 31 13.576 2.435 .457 Control Group 1 17 13.529 2.497 .606 Control Group 2 14 13.634 2.449 .655 136 SUMMARY TABLE MISSING PICTURES--POSTTEST SCORES Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 14.192 2.964 .386 Experimental (Total Group) 28 13.678 3.306 .625 Subgroup 1 8 12.791 3.711 1.312 Subgroup 2 9 13.111 3.655 1.218 Subgroup 3 11 14.787 2.627 .792 Control (Total) 31 14.655 2.584 .464 Control Group 1 17 14.451 2.273 .551 Control Group 2 14 14.904 2.989 .799 SUMMARY TABLE FACES— PRETEST SCORES Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 17.928 2.651 .345 Experimental (Total Group) 28 17.214 3.014 .570 Subgroup 1 8 15.937 1.860 .658 Subgroup 2 9 18.833 1.696 .565 Subgroup 3 11 16.818 3.995 1.205 Control (Total) 31 18.573 2.124 .382 Control Group 1 17 18.750 2.437 .591 Control Group 2 14 18.357 1.737 .464 SUMMARY TABLE FACES--POSTTEST SCORES Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 18.169 2.834 .369 Experimental (Total Group) 28 18.964 2.426 .459 Subgroup 1 8 18.750 2.765 .977 Subgroup 2 9 19.111 2.759 .920 Subgroup 3 11 19.000 2.098 .632 Control (Total) 31 17.452 3.018 .542 Control Group 1 17 17.971 2.992 .726 Control Group 2 14 16.821 3.036 .811 SUMMARY TABLE CARTOON PREDICTION- --PRETEST SCORES Standard Standard Error of Group____________ Number____ Mean______ Deviation Measurement All Cases 59 23.286 3.858 .502 Experimental (Total Group) 28 22.879 3.890 .735 Subgroup 1 8 20.497 5.359 1.895 Subgroup 2 9 24.961 1.593 .531 Subgroup 3 11 22.906 3.206 .967 Control (Total) 31 23.654 3.856 ,693 Control Group 1 17 22.744 4.579 1.110 Control Group 2 14 24.760 2.472 .661 140 SIM1ARY TABLE CARTOON PREDICTION— POSTTEST SCORES Standard Standard Error of Group____________ Number____ Mean______ Deviation Measurement All Cases 59 24.050 3.691 .481 Experimental (Total Group) 28 24.023 3.013 .569 Subgroup 1 8 21.666 3.299 1.166 Subgroup 2 9 25.444 1.740 .580 Subgroup 3 11 24.575 2.805 .846 Control (Total) 31 24.075 4.262 .766 Control Group 1 17 23.706 4.455 1.080 Control Group 2 14 24.523 4.136 1.105 ...... I 141 SUMMARY TABLE SOCIAL RELATIONS— PRETEST SCORES q Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 12.693 2.692 .350 Experimental (Total Group) 28 12.331 2.894 .547 Subgroup 1 8 12.705 2.974 1.052 Subgroup 2 9 12.774 3.714 1.238 Subgroup 3 11 11.696 2.158 .651 Control (Total) 31 13.020 2.498 .449 Control Group 1 q 17 13.019 2.551 .619 Control Group 2 14 13.021 2.527 .675 SUMMARY TABLE SOCIAL RELATIONS--POSTTEST SCORES Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 13.084 3.086 .402 Experimental (Total Group) 28 13.785 2.833 .535 Subgroup 1 8 12.541 2.281 .807 Subgroup 2 9 13.444 3.395 1.132 Subgroup 3 11 14.969 2.434 .734 Control (Total) 31 12.451 3.211 .577 Control Group 1 17 12.333 3.387 .822 Control Group 2 14 12.595 3.103 .829 143 SUMMARY TABLE PEER RATING COUNSELOR EFFECTIVENESS QUESTION I Group Nuniber Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 14.780 16.174 2.106 Experimental (Total Group) 28 31.143 5.784 1.093 Subgroup 1 8 25.000 2.726 .964 Subgroup 2 9 29.556 1.740 .580 Subgroup 3 11 36.909 3.700 1.116 SUMMARY TABLE PEER RATING COUNSELOR EFFECTIVENESS QUESTION II Group____________ Number All Cases 59 Experimental (Total Group) 28 Subgroup 1 8 Subgroup 2 9 Subgroup 3 11 Standard Standard Error of Mean Deviation Measurement 15.475 16.989 2.212 32.607 6.379 1.206 26.750 2.493 .881 30.889 2.088 .696 38.273 6.051 1.825 SUMMARY TABLE PEER RATING EMPATHY QUESTION I Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 13.169 14.747 1.920 Experimental (Total Group) 28 27.750 6.899 1.304 Subgroup 1 8 22.250 2.493 .881 Subgroup 2 9 24.111 3.219 1.073 Subgroup 3 11 34.727 5.120 1.544 SUMMARY TABLE PEER RATING EMPATHY QUESTION II Group Nuniber Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 13.203 14.761 1.922 Experimental (Total Group) 28 27.821 6.804 1.286 Subgroup 1 8 22.250 1.753 .620 Subgroup 2 9 24.444 3.046 1.015 Subgroup 3 11 34.636 5.409 1.631 SUMMARY TABLE PEER RATING NONPOSSESSIVE WARMTH QUESTION I Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 15.237 16.973 2.210 Experimental (Total Group) 28 32.107 7.559 1.428 Subgroup 1 8 25.125 3.137 1.109 Subgroup 2 9 28.444 3.245 1.082 Subgroup 3 11 40.182 4.020 1.212 SUMMARY TABLE PEER RATING NONPOSSESSIVE WARMIH QUESTION II Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 15.017 16.742 2.180 Experimental (Total Group) 28 31.643 7.519 1.421 Subgroup 1 8 25.250 2.053 .726 Subgroup 2 9 27.556 3.844 1.281 Subgroup 3 11 39.636 4.456 1.343 SUMMARY TABLE PEER. RATING GENUINENESS QUESTION I Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 14.847 16.766 2.183 Experimental (Total Group) 28 31.286 8.397 1.587 Subgroup 1 8 23.875 2.357 .833 Subgroup 2 9 28.111 4.961 1.654 Subgroup 3 11 39.273 6.604 1.991 150 SUMMARY TABLE PEER RATING GENUINENESS QUESTION II Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 14.915 16.791 2.186 Experimental (Total Group) 28 31.429 8.212 1.552 Subgroup 1 8 24.375 1.768 .625 Subgroup 2 9 28.000 4.690 1.563 Subgroup 3 11 39.364 6.531 1.969 151 SUMMARY TABLE SUPERVISOR RATING COUNSELOR EFFECTIVENESS QUESTION I Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 1.746 1.935 .252 Experimental (Total Group) 28 3.679 .819 .155 Subgroup 1 8 3.625 1.188 .420 Subgroup 2 9 3.667 .500 .167 Subgroup 3 11 3.727 .786 .237 152 SUMMARY TABLE SUPERVISOR RATING COUNSELOR EFFECTIVENESS QUESTION II Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 1.831 1.993 .259 Experimental (Total Group) 28 3.857 .651 .123 Subgroup 1 8 3.625 1.061 .375 Subgroup 2 9 4.000 .000 .000 Subgroup 3 11 3.909 .539 .163 153 SUMMARY TABLE SUPERVISOR RATING EMPATHY QUESTION I Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 1.559 1.735 .226 Experimental (Total Group) 28 3.286 .763 .144 Subgroup 1 8 3.375 .916 .324 Subgroup 2 9 3.333 .866 .289 Subgroup 3 11 3.182 .603 .182 154 SUMMARY TABLE SUPERVISOR RATING EMPATHY QUESTION II Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 1.492 1.675 .218 Experimental (Total Group) 28 3.143 .803 .152 Subgroup 1 8 3.250 1.035 .366 Subgroup 2 9 3.222 .667 .222 Subgroup 3 11 3.000 .775 .234 155 SUMMARY TABLE SUPERVISOR RATING NONPOSSESSIVE_ WARMTH QUESTION I + Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 1.712 1.912 .249 Experimental (Total Group) 28 3.607 .875 .165 Subgroup 1 8 3.250 .886 .313 Subgroup 2 .9 3.444 .882 .294 Subgroup 3 11 4.000 .775 .234 156 SUMMARY TABLE SUPERVISOR RATING NONPOSSESSIVE WARMTH QUESTION II Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 1.644 1.845 .240 Experimental (Total Group) 28 3.464 .881 .167 Subgroup 1 8 3.375 .916 .324 Subgroup 2 9 3.333 1.118 .373 Subgroup 3 11 3.636 .674 .203 157 SUMMARY TABLE SUPERVISOR RATING GENUINENESS QUESTION I Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 1.508 1.726 .225 Experimental (Total Group) 28 3.179 .945 .179 Subgroup 1 8 3.625 .916 .324 Subgroup 2 9 2.444 .882 .294 Subgroup 3 11 3.455 .688 .207 158 SUMMARY TABLE SUPERVISOR RATING GENUINENESS QUESTION II Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Measurement All Cases 59 1.525 1.736 .226 Experimental (Total Group) 28 3.214 .917 .173 Subgroup 1 8 3.500 1.069 .378 Subgroup 2 9 2.556 .882 .294 Subgroup 3 11 3.545 .522 .157 159 APPENDIX F SUMMARY TABLES OF MEANS 159 160 SUMMARY TABLE OF MEANS Group Missing Pictures Pretest Missing Pictures Posttest All Cases 12.878 14.192 Experimental (Total Group) 12.105 13.678 Subgroup 1 11.997 12.791 Subgroup 2 12.886 13.111 Subgroup 3 11.544 14.787 Control (Total) 13.576 14.655 Control Group 1 13.529 14.451 Control Group 2 13.634 14.904 161 SUMMARY TABLE OF MEANS Group Expression Grouping Pretest Expression Grouping Posttest All Cases 18.732 19.585 Experimental (Total Group) 18.152 20.179 Subgroup 1 18.437 20.531 Subgroup 2 18.139 20.250 Subgroup 3 17.-955 19.864 Control (Total) 19.255 19.048 Control Group 1 19.441 18.853 Control Group 2 19.029 19.286 162 SUMMARY TABLE OF MEANS Picture Exchange Picture Exchange Group Pretest Posttest All Cases 10.501 11.903 Experimental (Total Group) 9.760 11.952 Subgroup 1 8.872 11.541 Subgroup 2 10.960 12.111 Subgroup 3 9.424 12.121 Control (Total) 11.171 11.899 Control Group 1 10.979 11.705 Control Group 2 11.404 12.046 163 SUMMARY TABLE OF MEANS Faces Pretest Faces Posttest All Cases 17.928 18.169 Experimental (Total Group) 17.214 18.964 Subgroup 1 15.937 18.750 Subgroup 2 18.833 19.111 Subgroup 3 16.818 19.000 Control (Total) 18.573 17.452 Control Group 1 18.750 17.971 Control Group 2 18.357 16.821 164 SUMMARY TABLE OF MEANS Cartoon Cartoon Prediction Prediction Group___________________________ Pretest___________ Posttest All Cases 23.286 24.050 Experimental (Total Group) 22.879 24.023 Subgroup 1 20.497 21.666 Subgroup 2 24.961 25.444 Subgroup 3 22.906 24.575 Control (Total) 23.654 24.075 Control Group 1 22.744 23.706 Control Group 2 24.760 24.523 165 SUMMARY TABLE OF MEANS Group Social Relations Pretest Social Relations Posttest All Cases 12.693 13.084 Experimental (Total Group) 12.331 13.785 Subgroup 1 12.705 12.541 Subgroup 2 12.774 13.444 Subgroup 3 11.696 14.969 Control (Total) 13.020 12.451 Control Group 1 13.019 12.333 Control Group 2 13.021 12.595 166 SUMMARY TABLE OF MEANS Group Peer Rating Counselor Effectiveness Pretest Peer Rating Counselor Effectiveness Posttest All Cases 14.780 15.475 Experimental (Total Group) 31.143 32.607 Subgroup 1 25.000 26.750 Subgroup 2 29.556 30.889 Subgroup 3 36.909 38.273 167 SUMMARY (CABLE OF MEANS Peer Rating Peer Rating Empathy Empathy Group Pretest Posttest All Cases 13.169 13.203 Experimental (Total Group) 27.750 27.821 Subgroup 1 22.250 22.250 Subgroup 2 24.111 24.444 Subgroup 3 34.727 34.636 168 SUMMARY TABLE OF MEANS Group Peer Rating Nonpossessive Warmth Pretest Peer Rating Nonpossessive Warmth Posttest All Cases 15.237 15.017 Experimental (Total Group) 32.107 31.643 Subgroup 1 25.125 25.250 Subgroup 2 28.444 27.556 Subgroup 3 40.182 39.636 169 SUMMARY TABLE OF MEANS Group Peer Rating Genuineness Pretest Peer Rating Genuineness Posttest All Cases 14.847 14.915 Experimental (Total Group) 31.286 31.429 Subgroup 1 23.875 24.375 Subgroup 2 28.111 28.000 Subgroup 3 39.273 39.364 170 SUMMARY TABLE OF MEANS Group Supervisor Rating Counselor Effectiveness Pretest Supervisor Rating Counselor Effectiveness Posttest All Cases 1.746 1.831 Experimental (Total Group) 3.679 3.857 Subgroup 1 3.625 3.625 Subgroup 2 3.667 4.000 Subgroup 3 3.727 3.909 171 SUMMARY TABLE OF MEANS Supervisor Supervisor Rating Rating Empathy Empathy Group Pretest Posttest All Cases 1.559 1.492 Experimental (Total Group) 3.286 3.143 Subgroup 1 3.375 3.250 Subgroup 2 3.333 3.222 Subgroup 3 3.182 3.000 172 SUMMARY TABLE OF MEANS Group Supervisor Rating Nonpossessive Warmth Pretest Supervisor Rating Nonpossessive Warmth Posttest All Cases 1.712 1.644 Experimental (Total Group) 3.607 3.464 Subgroup 1 3.250 3.375 Subgroup 2 3.444 3.333 Subgroup 3 4.000 3.636 173 SUMMARY TABLE OF MEANS Group Supervisor Rating Genuineness Pretest Supervisor Rating Genuineness Posttest All Cases Experimental (Total Group) Subgroup 1 Subgroup 2 Subgroup 3 1.508 3.179 3.625 2.444 3.455 1.525 3.214 3.500 2.556 3.545

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Are Community College Students With Majors Congruent With The Holland Vocational Inventory Typologies More Persistent In Their Pursuit Of Educational Goals?

PDF

A Comparison Of Implosion And Desensitization In Group Treatments Of Test Anxiety

PDF

Differences In School Behavior As Influenced By Counseling Pattern

PDF

The Effects Of Systematic Audio-Tape Feedback Upon Both The Counseling Relationship And Educational Attitudes

PDF

A Comparative Study Of The Marathon-Group Experience In A University Counseling Center

PDF

Relationships Between Counselors' Philosophical Consistency And Congruency With Their Effectiveness As Counselors

PDF

A Comparison Of The Effectiveness Of Two Group Counseling Formats

PDF

Effects Of Short-Term Group Counseling On Changes In Attitudes Of Flexibility, Tolerance, And Nonauthoritarianism

PDF

An Investigation Of Leader And Member Helpfulness In Group Counseling

PDF

Student Perceptions Of Institutional Environment And Counseling Services At Selected Community Colleges Utilizing Centralized And Decentralized Systems

PDF

Shaping Of Verbal Behavior In An Interview Setting

PDF

Group Counseling With Under-Achievers In A Community College

PDF

Experiential Group Counseling With Intern Teachers

PDF

A Philosophical Model For Counseling Systems

PDF

A Creative Curricular And Evaluative Model Prepared For College Level Remedial Programs

PDF

A Study To Compare The Effectiveness Of Individual And Group Counseling Approaches With Able Underachievers When Counselor Time Is Held Constant

PDF

An Investigation Of Sensitivity As A Predictor In Counselor-Trainee Selection Procedures

PDF

Inservice Education Programs For High School Counselors In California With Recommendations For Improvement

PDF

A Study Of The Effectiveness Of Group Counseling In Achieving The Goals Of Guidance In Education, Using Two Contrasting Formats

PDF

An Investigation Of The Relationships Among Self-Disclosure, Self-Concept, And Counseling Effectiveness

Asset Metadata

Creator Rogal, Richard Alan (author)

Core Title Group Counseling For Counselors: Its Effect Upon The Growth Of Behavior Cognition And Its Relationship To Counselor Effectiveness

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, guidance and counseling,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Carnes, Earl F. (committee chair), Peterson, James A. (committee member), Wilbur, Leslie (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-406075

Unique identifier UC11362305

Identifier 7016885.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-406075 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7016885.pdf

Dmrecord 406075

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rogal, Richard Alan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA