Differential Effects Of Videotape Feedback On Counselor Trainee'S Self-Concept

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF VIDEOTAPE
FEEDBACK ON COUNSELOR TRAINEE'S
SELF-CONCEPT
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Education
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
by
Mary Ellen Torrez
June 1973
INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
74-947
TORREZ, Mary Ellen, 1940-
DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF VIDEOTAPE FEEDBACK
ON COUNSELOR TRAINEE'S SELF-CONCEPT.
University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1973
Education, guidance and counseling
University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
©
Copyright by
Mary Ellen Torrez
1973
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
T his dissertation, w ritte n under the direction
of the C hairm an o f the candidate’s Guidance
C om m ittee and approved by a ll members o f the
Com m ittee, has been presented to and accepted
by the F a culty o f the School o f E ducation in
p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t o f the requirem ents fo r the
degree o f D o c to r o f E ducation.
Date September ,1973
G u id an & G o m rn ittee
tatrman
AC KNO W LEDGMENTS
A number of individuals have contributed to the successful
completion of the present dissertation study. I am indebted to Dr.
D on Schrader, my doctoral committee chairman, whose scholarly
insistence on clarity of expression and experimental precision were
valuable to both the formulation and fruition of this work. 1 am
grateful to Dr. Bill Ofman for his incisive perceptions and sus
tained interest both in the development and design of this study. 1
am also grateful to Dr. Frank Fox for his interest, support and
helpful suggestions.
I am particularly indebted to the Chairman of the Depart
ment of Counselor Education, University of Southern California,
Dr. Earl Carnes, and other staff members who contributed gener
ously of their class time in behalf of this investigation, and to my
children, Ivan and Belinda, for their surrender of precious family
time during my protracted period of educational involvement.
Finally, I wish to express my loving appreciation to my
husband, Joe Torrez, for his unwavering support and encourage
ment in the face of many personal sacrifices he has tolerated as
a result of my academic involvement. H e has contributed his
special talents as a research analyst to the preparation and execu
tion of the computer program for this study. That our relationship
has continued to flourish over the many years of educational com
mitment is a tribute to his understanding.
Cerritos, California Mary Ellen Torrez
TABLE OP CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Page
ii
LIST OP TABLES iv
Chapter
THE PROBLEM 1
II.
III.
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Background of the Problem
Problem Situation
Purpose of Study
Significance of Study
Definition of Terms
Hypotheses and Predictions
Null Hypotheses
Assumptions
Delimitations of Study
Limitations of Study
Organization of Remainder
of the Dissertation
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...................16
Anecdotal, Clinical and
Trainee's Self Reports
Comparison of Various Feedback
Techniques
Various Video Techniques
Videotape Recall (IPR), Videotape
Recall of Affect (URAS), and
Video Modeling or Simulation
Summary
METHODS AND SOURCES OP DATA.................32
Methodology
Introduction
Research Sample
Instrumentation
Mechanical Equipment
Research Design and Statistical
Analysis
Data Collection Procedures
and Recording
iv
Methodological Assumptions
Limitations of the Study
IV. FINDINGS................................. 4-7
Findings for the Sign Magnitude
Test for Ex. 1, Ex. 2, Ex. 3»
Ex. 4 (Control; Groups
Findings for Semantic Differential
Post (Test 2) and Post Posttest
(Test 3)
Findings for the Semantic
Differential Test
Findings for Private Self-viewing
Followed by a Second Private
Self-viewing
Findings for Private Self-viewing
Followed by a Second Viewing
with Group Critique
Findings for Self-viewing with
Group Critique
Summary and Interpretations
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS................... 62
Summary of Procedures
Summary of bindings
Conclusions
Discussion of Findings
Recommendations
APPENDICES...................................... 75
BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................113
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Distribution of Sample Population
Degree Objective........................ 34-
2. Distribution of Sample Population
Research Groups.......................... 36
3. Posttest and Post-Posttest Addi
tive Comparison of Experimental
Control Groups.......................... 4-8
4. Sign Magnitudal Comparison between
Ex. 4 - (Control) and Ex. 1, Ex. 2,
Ex. 3.................................... 4-9
5. Sign Magnitudal Comparison of Con
cept Elements Pre (Test 1), Post
(Test 2), and Post-Post (Test 3 ) ......... 50
6. Variability Comparison by Mean
Corrected Total Sum of Squares ...... 53
7. Two-way Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for Experimental Group I ...........56
8. Two-way Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for Experimental Group II. ..... 56
9. Two-way Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for Experimental Group III.........57
10. Two-way Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for Experimental Group IV.......... 57
vi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Throughout the years counselor educators have relied
on a variety of techniques and procedures to evaluate and
train candidates in gaining professional competence. Role-
playing, case studies, paid actors as clients, peer coun
seling, direct interview supervision by use of one-way vis
ion mirrors and audiotapes have been the most commonly used
approaches in counselor education and supervision. The
traditional supervisory model was an audiotape of the trai
nee's actual counseling session.
Two problems that have plagued supervisors and trai
nees during the supervisory process are the inability to
re-create a true picture of the counseling experience and
the difficulty of presenting client and counselor behavior
and emotions.
Within the past few years the scientific and educa
tional communities have recognized the potential value of
television for teaching and training. This recognition,
coupled with recent technical developments in the area of
videotape machines, which provide an audio-visual recording
instantly available for replay, has opened new vistas for
scholarly investigations. As with any other tool, the ad
vantages and limitations of this technique require close
1
2
study in order to justify the high cost of implementation.
Statement of the Problem
Counselor educators, as well as educators in clinical
psychology, psychiatry and social work, indicate that the
practicum and intern experience is the most important as
pect of the educational process for the training of coun
selors. The basic aspect of effective training is feed
back. Truax (1970) stated,
Feedback informs the counselor of his
behavior and its consequences on the
setting and personnel where he works
and most centrally, of the consequen
ces to his client.
When videotape equipment became more available, edu
cators recognized its potential for feedback and were quick
to incorporate it as a standard teaching modality with
trainees in the counseling practicum and internship place
ments. It offered the advantage of direct, objective and
immediate review of events, which would appear to contri
bute to an optimal climate for self-exploration.
Stoller (1967) and Rogers (1968) would both agree that
cognitive awareness elicited by videotape recordings, or
the viewing of "what is," prevents the distortion involved
when a person gives feedback to another. Both educators
state that videotape feedback makes it difficult to deny
and lessens withdrawal or retaliation by the person con
fronted.
3
A desire for solutions to the problems inherent in ob
taining and giving feedback assured the adoption and utili
zation of videotape recordings as a new training technique.
Empirical studies were not undertaken until videotape re
cordings became a standard procedure in many training pro
grams .
The face validity of this training technique has been
so high that many research studies assumed its value and
did not question the nature of videotape self-confrontation
on trainees. It is only within the last few years that the
value of videotape feedback has been questioned.
A careful review of the literature indicates that the
potentials and limitations of video feedback are still un
clear. Some authors suggest that videotape recording is a
superior communication media to audio tape recordings, par
ticularly in supervision and evaluation of counselors
(Kagan, Krathwohl, Miller, 1963; Poling, 1968; Ifran;
Shapiro, 1966).
Despite numerous subjective statements, the stated
advantages have gathered little empirical support. The re
sults of some studies that have suggested videotape recor
dings are superior to audio recordings as training aids
(Boyd & Sisney, 1967; Ivey, Normington, Miller, Morrill &
Haase, I960; Walz & Johnston, 1963) are contradicted by
other studies (Eisenberg & Delaney, 1970; English &
Jelenevsky, 1971; Markey, Fredrickson, Johnson & Julius,
4 -
1970) which show no advantage over audio recording and in
dicate a negative inhibiting effect on the counselor and
client.
This study proposed to investigate whether or not the
videotape feedback experience has an effect on the self-
concept of counselor trainees and to further evaluate the
effects when videotape feedback is presented to trainees
under three different situations: an opportunity for self
viewing accompanied by directed comments within the context
of a class critique; self-viewing without the presence of
supervisory personnel; and directed group critique without
prior self-viewing. Specific hypotheses are seated in a
later section.
Background of the Problem
The practicum has traditionally been viewed as the
clinical experience component of most existing counselor
education programs. The practicum is supervised exposure
of trainees to clients within the broad philosophical or
psychological position of the particular school.
Two basic approaches or styles of training, the didac
tic and experiential, have developed to assist counselor
candidates in gaining professional competency.
Counselor educators adhering to the didactic orienta
tion (Wolberg, 1954-) contend that training should be pri
marily an information-giving process. The major concern
5
of the educator is to provide information or teach behav
iors (Ivey, Normington, Miller, Morrill & Haase, 1968)
which will aid the trainee in dealing with clients and will
foster his/her growth as a professional. Basically, then,
the didactic educator assumes the role of a teacher (Haigh,
1965). ------
The other major training style, the experiential meth
od, emphasizes the development of trainee self-awareness,
on the assumption that increased self-awareness will make
the trainee a better counselor.
The focus is on learning about oneself (Patterson,
1964) to facilitate the trainee's personal growth and en
able him to deal more effectively with clients (Gibbs,
1968; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967).
In describing counselor trainees, Blocker (1968) sta
ted,
Counselors in preparation are essen
tially people who are attempting so
to improve the quality of their in
terpersonal relationships that they
will be able to facilitate the learn
ing of others... As counselors in
preparation approach new interper
sonal situations, they are in a state
of dissonance, which provides the mo
tivation for new learning. The dis
sonance is reduced or heightened by
the feedback or reinforcement the
student receives in the social sys
tem represented by the counselor ed
ucation program.
It is the feedback within this social system that the
present study is concerned with.
6
Feedback is a descriptive term that has to do with
the communication processes which govern much of day to
day living. Feedback has been defined alternately as
"knowledge of results," "coesthesia," "propriception,"
"kinesthesia," and "homeostasis" (English and English,
1958; Homans, 1950), and has been used in the field of
electronics and cybernetics, in studies of sensory and mo
tor skills, vigilance, tracking, functioning of the ner
vous system, etc. However, it is only recently that social
scientists have introduced the term, feedback, as a con
struct facilitating the study of human behavior.
A behavioral definition presented by Benne, et al
(1964, p. 24) for feedback is,
Verbal and non-verbal responses from
others to a unit of behavior provided
as close in time to the behavior as
possible, and capable of being per
ceived and utilized by the individual
initiating the behavior. It may serve
to steer and give direction to subse
quent behavior. It may also serve to
stimulate changes in the behavior,
feeling, attitude, perception and
knowledge of the initiator.
Feedback is essential to the communication process,
as it enables one to correct, modify, and control actions
or reactions. Coleman (I960, p. 207) states that feedback
helps one to know if he is "on or off the beam." He de
scribes "convergent" feedback as information which tells
the individual that he is progressing satisfactorily to
ward the goal or has reached the goal. "Divergent" feed
7
back indicates that the goal is not being reached or that
perhaps the individual is defeating his purposes by engag
ing in inappropriate behavior.
Gergen (1965) compared the effects of social feedback
during interview sessions to the effects under no feedback
condition. He found that positive character self-descrip
tion increased as a result of feedback. In a conceptually
related experience, Backman, Secord, & Pierce (1963) stu
died the relationship of self-concept to feedback in an in
vestigation in which "interpersonal congruence theory" (the
stability and change in self) is discussed. Experimental
evidence gathered indicated that the greater the number of
significant others who approve and agree in their percep
tion of some aspect of a person's self, the greater will be
the person's resistance to changing that part of himself.
Mechanical tools have been utilized by practicum sup
ervisors to supplement the interactional processes of ver
bal feedback. Audio tape recordings have been widely used
for years, as a residum of early Rogerian studies, to re
cord permanently various interactions. As a rule, these
recordings are made with the notion that the counselor and
supervisor will be able to recreate the actual counseling
session at a later time.
With the use of audio tapes there is an inability to
recreate the counseling experience, due to the inaccess-
ability of the nonverbal behavioral and emotional expres
8
sions of the counselor and client. Kubic (1964, p. 38)
states,
...so much of our raw data consists of
brief impressions of evanescent, fleet
ing moments of behavior. They are here
and gone in a flash, never to recur,
never to be re-enacted or relived in
exactly the same way... It is this
fleeting moment which must be studied.
For this purpose it would have to be
perceived and recorded and recalled
with precision. Yet, we know that dur
ing the whole experience the observer
himself is emotionally involved... Yet
when we are involved emotionally, we
are hardly free to make precise objec
tive observations, to record them ac
curately, or to recall them without
bias... Parents and teachers and psy
chiatrists have all been dependent for
their basic data upon their imperfect
and faliable memories of visual and
auditory perceptions, which are them
selves subject to distortion.
It is not surprising that educators seeking ways in
which to remedy the problems and limitations imposed by
verbal and audio tape feedback would seize upon a new com
munication media, videotape, as a panacea to these prob
lems.
Problem Situation
Despite the enthusiasm based upon anecdotal and clin
ical reports, educators using videotape feedback techniques
have few research studies to substantiate the claims. The
literature clearly indicates that no decisive conclusions
can be drawn about the impact of self-confrontation by
videotape. No rigorous research has been reported that
9
shows that videotape feedback produces positive change in
personality (Basley & Sowder, 1970).
Walz and Johnston's (1963) research findings indicate
that trainees become less positive after videotape self
confrontation .
Studies using a self-report procedure (Beymer, 1969;
Niland, Duling, Allen & Panther, 1971; Poling, 1965;
Yenawine, Arbuckle, 1971) all indicate that counselor
trainees clearly perceived monitoring, particularly video-
monitoring, to have an inhibiting effect upon their inter
view performance.
Nielsen (1962) reports that when a subject is provided
with a visual training procedure, the immediate effects
create a temporary period of retardation. He suggests that
if the subject has enough time to integrate the extra stim
ulation and if the experiment is continued over a longer
period of time, the subject will improve his skills well
beyond the point reached by other subjects who did not re
ceive the visual training.
No studies were reported where videotape feedback was
continual over a long period of time or where a second
viewing was compared to the initial viewing.
Ward Kagan & Krathwohl (1972) assumed that utiliza
tion of a technique known as Interpersonal Process Recall
(IPR) would increase the awareness and effectiveness of
practicum students. Results of the study did not substan-
10
tiate the assumptions.
It is evident that the effects of videotape self
viewing are unclear. Self-reports by trainees and obser
vations by educators point to an inhibiting effect on the
person being confronted by his/her videotape. However,
the nature and magnitude of this initial inhibitory re
sponse has not been investigated.
There is a need for research studies to clarify the
issues of self-viewing, and to explore the conditions un
der which change in self-concept occurs. Clarification of
these issues is necessary to provide a foundation for fu
ture investigations.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the dif
ferential effects of videotape feedback on counselor trai
nees' self-concept. The literature suggests that change
will occur and will be in a negative direction, with suf
ficient magnitude to be perceived as inhibitory to the
trainee. The nature, direction and magnitude of change
in self-concept as a result of self-viewing is presently
unknown.
Significance of Study
Conclusions based on the data will: (a) assist edu
cators in structuring the feedback situation to maximize
or minimize the effects of videotape self-confrontation
11
baaed upon the theoretical position of the school; (b) aid
educators in decision making regarding the purchase of ex
pensive video equipment; (c) add significantly to the lit
erature; (d) help build a compilation of studies in which
a discernable trend will finally emerge; (e) be timely,
and (f) help generate further empirical investigations.
Definition of Terms
Counseling session. When two people engage in a rela
tionship for a fixed period of time, for the expressed pur
pose of helping one of them. The one seeking the help is
referred to as the client, the other, who has had some
training or background in counseling, is referred to as the
counselor.
Counselor trainee. A graduate student who is enrolled
in a program leading to an advanced degree in counseling.
For the purposes of this study the counselor trainee will
be a graduate student seeking the Master of Science, Mas
ter's in Rehabilitation Counseling or the doctorate degree,
who is enrolled in the counseling practicum in the Depart
ment of Counselor Education at the University of Southern
California.
Feedback. The method by which a person receives know
ledge of results. This knowledge may be communicated by
another person or may be transmitted by a recording device
such as audio or videotape.
12
Group critique. Time set aside for members of a group
to give feedback to one other member. For the purposes of
this study group critique will mean the feedback session
set aside after individual counseling sessions to give
feedback to individual members.
Practicum. A class in which students do counseling,
receive supervision, and feedback on their counseling
skill. For the purposes of this study the practicum is an
advanced course offered by the Department of Counselor Ed
ucation at the University of Southern California.
Videotape self-confrontation. The process by which
videotape is played back to the person or persons previous
ly recorded on the videotape.
Hypotheses and Predictions
Three general hypotheses, several specific predic
tions, and four null hypotheses were generated in order to
study systematically the effects of videotape feedback on
self-concept of counselor trainees.
Hypothesis A
Following videotape recording subjects (Ss) who re
ceive videotape feedback will rate the concepts on the
Semantic Differential Test (SD) differently than control
Ss who are involved in a multiple testing group of the SD.
Prediction 1:
Experimental Ss will rate the SD more negatively than
13
control Ss.
Hypothesis B
When a comparison is made between a SD test taken af
ter the initial viewing and after a second viewing, the SD
taken after the second viewing will be more positive.
Hypothesis C
Experimental Ss in the group who receive private self
viewing followed by a second private viewing will test
higher on the positive side of the SD than Ss from either
of the experimental groups.
Prediction 1:
Experimental Ss in the private self-viewing followed
by a second viewing with group critique will demonstrate
the largest magnitude of change on the SD.
Prediction 2:
Experimental Ss in the self-viewing with group criti
que group will demonstrate a change toward the negative end
of the scale upon second viewing.
Null Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
There is no significant difference between the 13 con
cepts on the SD for the experimental or control groups.
Hypothesis 2
There is no interaction of the 13 concepts on the SD
14
within the experimental or control groups.
Hypothesis 3
There is no significant difference between the pretest,
posttest and post-posttest within the experimental groups.
Hypothesis 4
There is no significant difference in the pretest,
posttest and post-posttest, in the control group.
Assumptions
1. That 13 concepts and 13 factors selected by a pan
el of experts constitute a valid framework of dimensions
for the Semantic Differential to measure self-concept and
change in self-concept.
2. That change in self-concept is considered by edu
cators to be a desirable outcome of the practicum.
Delimitations of Study
1. The study is confined to the University of
Southern California Department of Counselor 3ducation.
2. Sample is restricted to counselor trainees en
rolled in the practicum in counseling.
3. The study will provide data from one control group
and three experimental groups.
4. The control group is not a control group for
treatment variable but for the test retest variable.
15
Limitations of Study
1. Scope of study was confined to one university pro
gram.
2. Inability to control for impact of different in
structors .
3. Inability to standardize the group critique.
4. Inability to control for changes which might oc
cur as a result of observing fellow students' videotapes.
5. There was no control for the differential effect
produced by the varied time sequence for feedback. Some
students received their feedback early in the semester and
others later in the semester.
Organization of Remainder of the Dissertation
Chapter II presents a review of selected literature
and previous research primarily related to the substantive
and somewhat incidentally to the methodological aspects of
the investigation.
Chapter III describes the methodology of the study,
including the research design and statistical analysis, the
research sample, the instrumentation, the data collection
procedures and recording, the methodological assumptions,
and the limitations.
Chapter IV reveals the findings of the investigation
and a discussion of the results.
Chapter V consists of a summary of the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations.____________________________
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OP LITERATURE
The review of related literature and research presen
ted in this chapter is a selected review limited to those
articles which will provide a background for a study of
videotape feedback.
Leaders in the field of counselor education have
stressed two main concerns: (1) the counselor should de
velop the ability to examine, critique and improve upon
his own counseling performance, and (2) the counselor
should receive immediate and concrete feedback on his coun
seling session in order to improve upon it (Martin and
Garda, 1970; Beymer, 1969; Truax, 1970).
The recent preponderance of literature utilizing vid
eotape equipment attests to its increasing popularity among
educators as a new feedback technique which may facilitate
self-awareness and growth in counseling skill when used
with counselors-in-training. The majority of authors re
viewed assumed that videotape feedback was valuable and
that it produced change when used with counselor trainees
or clients. The underlying assumption was that the change
produced was desirable and of sufficient magnitude. Pew
studies have investigated the nature of the change produ
ced. Statements of change objectives and assessment of
16
17
outcomes remain a critical problem.
A review of the literature reveals numerous articles
on the subject, but few definitive conclusions can be rea
ched other than the fact that the literature is at best
contradictory and speaks loudly to the need for more and
better designed studies.
A sampling of clinical, anecdotal and trainee self-
reports will be reviewed in the first section. Section
two will review those studies in which videotape playback
is compared to a variety of other playback techniques.
Section three will emphasize those studies exploring vari
ous videotape techniques, such as focused feedback, simu
lation and Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR).
Anecdotal. Clinical and Trainees* Self-reports
One of the first studies in the education field inves
tigating the effects of videotaping for training purposes
was done by Landsman and Lane (1963). The report stated
(no data was provided) that students who saw themselves in
the counselor's role on videotape gained entirely new in
sights as to how they use themselves as instruments in in
terpersonal relations.
We have been considerably encouraged
by the insights revealed by students.
...not infrequently a significant ex
change is seen to take place between
a counselor and client which could be
perceived only from bodily movements.
Discussions lead to a deeper under
standing of the fundamental processes
18
with which we as counselor educators
are concerned, rather than a sterile
and superficial attempt to define
good and bad techniques as such.
Walz and Johnston (1963) investigated counselor change
in self perception after videotape self-confrontation. An
interview check list (ICL) was used. Counselor trainees
were reported as reacting favorably to the experience, with
the majority agreeing that it was the most meaningful ex
perience of the program. The evidence suggested that: (a)
counselors gained greater confidence in their interviewing
techniques; (b) counselors became more aware of their per
sonal qualities; (c) their desire was increased for self-
study; and (d) counselors became less positive, moving
more in the direction of the supervisor's perception.
Walz and Johnston suggest that it might be desirable
to develop an "index of readiness" for videotaping. They
observed that not all trainees could make optimum use of
the experience.
Roberts and Renzoglia (1965) observed that counselors
tended to be less client centered when being recorded and
they concluded that recording did effect the therapeutic
process.
McClain (1969) felt that audio and video feedback to
counselors during the practicum helped them to bring their
self-concepts into greater congruence with their experi
enced selves.
19
Hogan and Alger (1965) report their clinical impres
sions of the use of videotape after using it with 120 pa
tients during 107 group sessions. In their opinion the
playback served a two fold purpose: (l) enhanced develop
ment of insight regarding one's own inner feelings, and
(2) developed insight into one's understanding of inter
personal relations.
Stoller's (1967) report of his work primarily repre
sents a description of his views and techniques, along with
some clinical evidence regarding the impact of the use of
focused feedback in group therapy.
Poling (1968) investigated the benefits of three dif
ferent types of critique sessions using video tapes. He
reports that the analysis of the data yielded no signifi
cant differences between the three methods of critique
sessions; however, in subjective reports from the trainees
it was evident they felt that the small group practicum
was the most beneficial. The data further indicated that
counselor and supervisor ratings tended to be more alike
after viewing the video tape.
Poling reported that the initial videotape self
confrontation was somewhat limited in value due to the ten
dency by trainees to focus on the overt manifestations of
behavior rather than the effect of each trainee's behavior
upon the client and the processes of a counseling session.
Beymer (1969) noticed that approximately 10% of
20
Indiana State University students in the Department of Edu
cation suffer extreme negative reactions to viewing his or
her counseling session. He felt that the explanation for
this is to be found in the communication potential of the
medium; the student is left little room to escape.
Beymer is currently working on the problem of initial
shock by offering the student the opportunity to view his
tapes privately before seeing them again with his super
visors.
He felt researchers must be aware of the extreme re
actions which some students have to total audiovisual con
frontations with themselves and be prepared to deal with
it. Further research was recommended to study this pheno
menon and those involved with it.
In summary, most educators and counselor trainees re
ported that the videotape feedback experience was valuable.
Criterion measures of implied or observable behavior change
however, were not reported.
Several educators cautioned that the impact of initial
self-confrontation needed to -^derstood. Walz and
Johnston (1963) recommended an index of readiness" to as
sist trainees in making maximum use of the experience.
Beymer (1969) recommended private viewing to help the
"shock reaction." A slight trend over time seems to exist.
Initial enchantment, around 1963» has given way to a recog
nition of some limitations starting in 1968.
21
Comparison of Various Feedback Techniques
Techniques for presenting various kinds of feedback to
counselors and clients are still in the developmental sta
ges. This section will provide a review of that literature
which addresses itself to a comparison of various feedback
media.
Pederson (1969) investigated accelerating client ther
apeutic growth via videotape. His design included the use
of three groups with instant replay: (1) control, (2) au
dio, and (3) video. The control group received no counse
ling. Measurements were taken on self-confidence and ab
asement using the Adjective Check List (ACL). Ratings made
by counselors and ratings by a panel of psychologists were
also used. Results indicated that there was more client
growth in the video group than either the audio group or
control group. Pederson notes that the initiation of vid
eotape instant replay in counseling seemed to be more ef
fective than conventional counseling.
Tanney and Gelso (1972) found that when results on an
excitation-inhibition scale were combined with the data of
an earlier study done by Gelso, it was found that the cli
ents' self-reports were effected by recording. Unrecorded
clients found counseling more stimulating. Video-recorded
clients found counseling less stimulating. Counselors'
ratings of clients, however, showed an almost opposite
pattern. The efficacy of counselors' judgments of the
22
effects of recording on their clients was questioned.
Thus it seems while Pederson (1969) found that video
taping accelerated client growth, Tanney and Gelso (1972)
found that clients perceive it as less stimulating and in
hibiting. Pederson used, for part of his data, ratings
made by counselors and psychologists, which according to
Tanney and Gelso, work could account for some of his find
ings.
Yenawine (1969, 1971) contrasted the written reac
tions of two groups of counselors and one supervisor, to
the use of audiotape and videotape in the practicum. The
aim was to clarify how counselors react to audio vs. video
confrontation and the effect these two recording media have
on group experience in the course of the practicum. Total
sample size was thirteen students and one supervisor.
Videotaping was initially perceived as more threaten
ing than audiotaping, but students using videotape devel
oped and maintained a more positive attitude for recording
and playback than students using audiotape who continued
to resist the requirement. The video group focused on
counselor behavior. Evidence indicated that it was easier
to identify emotionally with counseling interviews on au
diotape. Videotape facilitated more group discussions,
interactions with one another, and the students worked
more independent of the supervisor. The videotape group
appeared more open and critical of themselves, others and
23
tape evaluations. The supervisor reported that viewing
videotapes, week after week, can become a very passive and
uninvolved experience.
Markey, Fredrickson, Johnson and Julius (1970) inves
tigated the training impact of: (a) audio and video, (b)
audio, (c) video, and (d) no playback. The study used
coached clients. Trained judges rated the second inter
view using the Counselor Evaluation Inventory, Nonverbal
Behavior Scale and Audio Visual Counseling Scale.
Results indicated that there was no significant dif
ference between playback treatments. The results may be
attributable to the following factors: use of a one-time
only playback, lack of time between interviews, lack of
supervision and counselor anxiety.
English and Jelenevsky (1971) investigated the reli
ability of the counselor evaluation process as a visual and
audiovisual interaction. The findings indicate no superi
ority of audiovisual tape over either visual only or audio
only. The results suggest that audio recording may be sup
erior for interrate reliability in judging counselor em
pathy.
Niland, Duling, Allen and Panther (1971) investigated
whether inexperienced counselors-in-training feel inhibited
by different types of monitoring devices and attempted to
measure the degree of perceived inhibition, with regard to
the particular device used. Counselors-in-training indi
24
cated that when monitored, especially in the videotaping
situations, they felt more tense, probing, defensive, hur
ried and less friendly, empathetic, involved and consis
tent than when not monitored. Results clearly indicated
that beginning counselors perceive video monitoring to
have an inhibiting effect on their interview performance.
In summary, claims that audiovisual tape recordings
are superior to other communication media as aids in coun
selor education, supervision and evaluation have not yet
been substantiated. Conclusions based upon the studies
reviewed in this section indicate that both counselors-in-
training and clients view videotaping as inhibiting. Cli-\
ent growth may be accelerated, but counselors do not seem
to be good judges of the effects of videotaping on clients.
Videotaping does not seem to be a superior media for
supervision and evaluation. Audiotaping offers greater
emotional involvement during playback and seems more reli
able for evaluating the level of empathetic understanding.
Various Video Techniques
The preponderence of literature on videotape is con
cerned with different methods of presentation. This sec
tion will be divided into an investigation of: (a) Inter
personal Recall Process (IPR) and Video Tape Recall of Af
fect Simulation (VRAS), and (b) Video modeling or simula
tion.
25
Video Tape Recall (IPR). Video Tape Recall of Affect
Simulation (VRAS) and Video Modeling or Simulation
Kagan, Krathwohl and Miller (1963) introduced a new
technique called "Interpersonal Process Recall" (IPR).
Psychotherapy sessions were videotaped and the tape was
played back immediately for both client and therapist who
were in separate rooms. Each sits with a different person
who is called an "interrogator" or "recall worker." The
authors believe that the addition of this third person is
basic to the obtaining of significant data dnd learning
from video recall. The interrogator attempts to keep the
client focused on the feelings or the content of the ori
ginal relationship. He helps the client and counselor re
live the original counseling experience. Attention is di
rected to the television monitor rather than to the inter
rogator. The interrogator is mostly concerned with teach
ing the client how to interrogate himself and how to gain
insight through the "self-confronting" experience afforded
by videotape. The client is pushed for greater clarity in
describing and understanding specific behavior by the in
terrogator.
The IPR method was first studied in the counseling
practicum. One group of counselors received the IPR meth
od with the playback and interrogation of the client but
not the interrogation of the counselor. The second group
was like the first, except that audio tape playback was
26
used with the client in a recall session with a supervisor.
The third group received the traditional practicum method
in which the counselor records the session, listens to the
playback, then receives supervision. No significant dif
ference was found.
Kagan, et. al. (1963-1967) presented six case studies
to investigate the acceleration of client progress. IPR
technique was presented in different formats and sequence
and were varied. The finding and conclusions drawn from
the six studies were not substantiated by the statistical
results from any of the studies.
In another conceptually related experiment, Ward,
Kagan, Krathwohl (1972) evaluated the use of IPR in impro
ving the effectiveness of practicum students. The results
of this study did not substantiate the expected change in
practicum students. Observations of unmeasured effects
were reported by supervisors. Students at times seemed
shocked and somewhat depressed, suggesting to supervisors
that IPR provides an overabundance of insightful and mean
ingful material.
Kagan and Schauble (1969) after working with IPR de
veloped a technique called Video Tape Recall of Affect Sim
ulation (VRAS).
...It is a technique wherein clients
are confronted with films which en
courage them to engage in simulated
interpersonal relations. Both the
client and film are videotaped while
the client watches the film. The
videotape is then played back to the
client while his counselor helps him
examine his reactions to the film.
VRAS technique is explained here so the reader can
differentiate between IPR and VRAS. Both techniques ap
pear in the literature and it is often difficult to dis
tinguish which process is being referred to.
Kagan, Schauble and Pierce (1970) report that thera
pists voiced reservations about the inflexibility of the
treatment schedule when using IPR or VRAS research studies.
Both techniques use a step-by-step program which lim
its the therapist in responding to clients' individual
needs. Flexibility in varying the approaches based on
client readiness was not allowed due to the research de
sign.
While these researchers report that therapists who
were functioning at a lower than minimal level on Truax
and Carkhuff Scales of Facilitative Behavior were able to
facilitate positive client movement with the use of IPR
when they had not been able to do so with the traditional
method of counseling. This has not been substantiated by
any research studies.
In summary, despite the staggering number of publica
tions by Kagan and his numerous associates, he has failed
to clearly show that the Interpersonal Recall Process
(IPR) and Video Tape Recall of Affect Simulation (VRAS)
28
produces sufficient change to warrant its inclusion in
counselor education training programs. His research find
ings do not warrant or even suggest many of the conclu
sions he reports. Sample size is extremely small, fre
quently an N=sl. Ward, Kagan, Krathwohl's (1972) study did
not support the effectiveness hypothesized by the research
ers. Many researchers attributed the lack of results to
what seemed like initial shock to the videotape procedure,
yet in all of Kagan's work there is a clear lack of con
cern for this initial impact.
Video Modeling or Simulation
Eisenberg and Delaney (1970) used video simulation of
counseling for training counselors. Results indicate that
exposure to a model demonstration of counseling presented
on videotape to counseling students significantly influ
enced counselor trainee responses on an interview sheet,
but counselor trainees did not develop transfer to their
own live counseling sessions.
Frankel (1971) investigated videotape modeling, video
tape feedback and a combination of videotape modeling and
feedback, to ascertain the contributions of each of these
components on the behavior of undergraduate females in a
quasi-therapy, microcounseling situation. Their perfor
mances were compared to those of control trainees who were
given only a written description of the counseling skills
29
in question, emphasizing attention to client feelings.
Judges rated the proportion of counselor comments directed
at client feelings.
It was concluded that there was no differences between
experimental groups. Modeling and feedback techniques are
equally effective in increasing the frequency but not the
accuracy of counselor focus on client feeling.
The purpose of Quinn's (1971) study was to investigate
the effects of videotaped models and selected reinforcement
procedures in teaching confrontation techniques to counsel
ing practicum students. The results of videotaped model
reinforcement procedures were compared with the results of
group critiquing of audiotaped counseling sessions.
Both audio and video tapes were rated on Carkhuff's
Scale for Measurement of Client Depth of Self-Exploration
and the number of confrontations were counted. The number
of confrontations tended to increase more by videotaped
modeling than through critiquing of counseling tapes, but
not at the .05 level of significance. The accuracy of con
frontation increased slightly for the control group but not
for the experimental group.
Miller (1971) compared the effects of two techniques
in the teaching of Understanding Responses (UR) to counsel
or trainees by evaluating interview performance in simula
ted and live counseling situations.
Conclusions indicated that the modeling and reinforce
30
ment treatment was more effective than modeling only treat
ment. The performance of subjects in a simulated counsel
ing situation did not predict performance in an actual
counseling session.
Videotape modeling or simulation seems to increase the
frequency of the behavior modeled but not the accuracy, and
findings by both Eisenberg and Delaney (1970), and Miller
(1971) indicate that modeling with reinforcement (practice)
does not transfer to the live counseling situation.
Summary
Thus, a selected review of the literature indicates a
state of confusion around the use of videotape feedback.
Most educators, researchers, trainees, clients and subjects
agree that the videotape experience is valuable. They fur
ther agree that there is an initial reaction experienced
when first confronted with one's videotape. The nature of
this reaction is not known. Some descriptive words are:
shock, inhibiting, anxiety provoking, retarding and a ner
vous experience. Here agreement among investigators ends.
Claims that videotaping is a superior communication media
have not been substantiated.
Audiotaping seems to offer higher inter-judged reli
ability and greater emotional involvement to those listen
ing. Perhaps counselor educators would be wise to use
audiotaping for the purpose of evaluation.
31
Videotaping techniques, while extensively developed
and written about, do not seem to hold up to their numer
ous claims, when carefully investigated.
Videotape modeling and simulation does not seem to
transfer to the live counseling session, and although the
frequency of responses is increased, accuracy is not.
A study investigating the effects of initial and sub
sequent viewing on self-concept is timely and relevant.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The organization of this chapter will include the fol
lowing sections: (1) introduction, (2) research sample,
(3) instrumentation and mechanical equipment, (4-) research
design and statistical analysis, (5) methodological as
sumptions, and (6) methodological limitations.
Introduction
The ultimate objective of the present study was to
determine the value of videotape feedback, as an accessory
technique in promoting self-awareness and behavioral change
among trainees in counseling practicum. Research proce
dures focused on exploring the effects of videotape feed
back, resulting from several different manipulations of the
feedback situation.
Research Sample
Experimental Groups
Counselor Education course number C. E. 560, at the
University of Southern California, is the Practicum in
Counseling. It is a graduate course which every student
must successfully complete before the student is granted
permission to finish the master's degree and/or continue
in the doctoral program. Enrollment in C. E. 560 is per-
52
33
mitted after the student has completed a sequence of pre
requisite courses totaling 15-18 units. The grading pro
cedure for this class is Pass or Dash (no credit). This
class is used as a screening class for degree programs, and
results in the course being highly evaluative. The student
must demonstrate counseling ability with "real clients."
Course C. E. 560 was divided into five sections, meet
ing once a week, eighteen weeks, for the Spring of 1972.
Two sections, composed of second year graduate students in
the Rehabilitation Counseling Program, each met one morning
a week for four hours. Two other sections were offered on
Tuesday and Wednesday evenings. These two sections were
composed of students working toward the master's or docto
rate degrees, Table 1. The remaining one section met Sat
urday mornings and was composed of students working toward
the master's and doctorate degrees.
Each of the five sections was taught by different in
structors and different teaching assistants. Each instruc
tor followed the same format and used the same method of
final evaluation. The format was for each student to be
assigned two clients, one for the first hour of class and
one for the second hour. Each student was to conduct the
counseling sessions in rooms with one-way vision mirrors
and audio monitoring equipment. At the beginning of the
class period two students were assigned for videotaping,
one for the scheduled first hour of counseling and one for
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE POPULATION
DEGREE OBJECTIVE
GROUPS M. A. M.S. Ed.D. Ph.D. TOTALS
EXPERIMENTAL
Males 1 2
3
Females
(7) (3) (2) (12)
Males
6 6
Females
(1)
(6) (2) (9)
Males
3
2
5
Females
(6) (4) (10)
CONTROL
Males
7
2
9
Females
(3) (4)
(1)
(2) (10)
TOTALS
MALES 11 12
23
FEMALES
(11) (19) (1)
(10)
(41)
35
the second hour. When all students finished their counsel
ing session, each week, they either took a dinner break
then returned to class, or they returned immediately to
class for a two to three hour group critique.
All students enrolled for the first time in C. E. 560
during the Spring of 1972, and all students enrolled for
the first time in one six-week Summer session of 1972, were
randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups.
Each experimental group was composed of 15 students. Total
experimental group sample size consisted of 45 students,
Table 2.
Control Group
The control group was composed of 19 students enrolled
in C. E. 54-1 ♦ a graduate theories of counseling course.
This group was a no-treatment group. Near the end of the
Spring 1972 semester, the experimentor handed out test pac
kets and requested they be filled out and turned in as soon
as completed. Each student was instructed to mark the test
materials, based upon his own understanding and impres
sions. All tests were collected before the end of the
class period.
Total Sample
Total sample size for this study was 64 graduate stu
dents. Forty-five (45) students were distributed equally
across three experimental groups and 19 students comprised
the control group. The research sample was considered a
TABLE 2
DISTRIBUTION OP SAMPLE POPULATION
RESEARCH GROUPS
SUBJECTS
EXPERIMENTAL
CONTROL TOTAL
I II III
PEMALES 12
9
10 10 41
MALES
3
6
5 9 23
TOTALS
15 15 15 19
64
c r >
37
representative cross-section of the graduate student popu
lation in the Department of Counselor Education, University
of Southern California.
Instrumentation
According to the self-concept theory of personality,
an individual's behavior is determined by the perceptions
he has as an individual, the world around him, and especi
ally of his occupational role as a practitioner in his pro
fession (Galinsky & Past, 1966; Hatfield, 1961).
It is with this self-concept theory in mind that this
researcher chose the semantic differential (SD) as the mea
surement instrument. The semantic differential is a combi
nation of controlled associations and scaling procedures
in which meaning is defined operationally. Osgood devel
oped the SD to measure the psychological or connotative
meaning of concepts as points in what he has called "seman
tic space" (Osgood, 1957)*
The SD process involves no directly observable right
or wrong answers. The subject responds according to the
way he thinks and feels about the particular concept being
rated. This indirect method of rating concepts against bi
polar objectives requires that the subject respond in ac
cord with his attitudes, beliefs and values (Jones &
Gerard, 1967)* Thus, the SD procedure is a measure of the
way in which a person perceives himself and his world, and
is a good measure of self-concept.
38
Extensive applications have been made of the SD tech
nique devised by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957)• Com
prehensive reviews of psychological literature regarding
the SD have been presented in doctoral dissertations at
the University of Southern California by Adams (1967),
Rosenthal (1965) and Strus (1966). In view of the infor
mation afforded by these three contributors and in light
of readily available descriptions of the SD technique to
be found in the literature (Jenkins, 1958; Osgood, Suci
and Tannenbaum, 1957; Anastasi, 1961) no attempt is made
to review either the substantive or methodological subtle
ties of the SD.
Development of SD for the Present Study
The semantic differential technique was employed in
the development of an instrument that could be used in
this study to measure self-concept of trainees participa
ting in a practicum in counseling. Thirteen concepts were
selected by a panel of three doctoral students as repre
sentative nouns or noun phrases, as having relevance for
the practicum experience. Within each concept and rela
tive to each of three postulated factors of evaluation,
potency, and activity underlying Osgood's theoretical mo
del, three bipolar adjective scales were constructed.
Three sets of three bipolar adjectives were used; one set
for each of the three factors of evaluation, potency and
activity.
39
In addition, three factors from Osgood's Thesaurus
Analysis, those of receptivity, aggression and stability
were selected. Two bipolar adjectives for receptivity and
one bipolar adjective for stability were included. Hence,
13 bipolar adjectives were employed for each of the 13
concepts, so that a total of 169 scales resulted.
The sets of bipolar adjectives were chosen from em
pirically derived lists prepared by Osgood, et al, who
suggested that bipolar adjectives selection should include
scales maximally and minimally loaded on the factor. This
was done to provide the subject with a balanced space
which he may use as he sees fit; if he makes more discrim
inative use of one bipolar adjective relative to others,
this will show up in the data. The magnitudes, both high
and low, of bipolar adjectives factor loadings and their
appropriateness to the practicum situation constituted the
criteria for selection.
For purposes of scoring consistency, all but the
eighth scale were uniformly assigned the score of "1" for
favorable poles and the score of "7" for unfavorable. One
scale was reversed, the adjective "free" is seen by coun
selor educators as more favorable than "constrained." The
reversal of scores was necessitated by the fact that the
test packets were prepared before the situation was noted.
Test packets were provided to each subject in the.
study. Each packet consisted of: (1) instructions to
40
subjects, and (2) a SD consisting of three identical SD's
(pretest, posttest and post-posttest). The three SD's
were identical in format to provide a baseline reference
and consistency of response style.
In essence, instructions included: (1) orientation
to the general nature of task, (2) the significance of
scale positions and how to mark them, and (3) the atti
tude to be taken toward task, e.g., speed, first impres
sion, etc.
Mechanical Equipment
The instrument used for carrying out the operations
of the present study was a Sony Videocorder TCV-2010. The
machine recorded both picture and sound on tape and was
capable of playing back the videotape recording at any gi
ven moment.
The mechanism was transistorized and relatively sim
ple to operate. In addition to the video recording de
vice, the main unit included a built-in nine-inch tele
vision set which also served as a monitor for the video
tape recordings. Basic accessory equipment consisted of a
video camera kit, which included a Sony camera with stan
dard lens, camera cable, tripod, microphone and AC cord.
All equipment operated on standard household AC current.
The Sony videotape had a recording or playing time of
one hour, and could be stored for future replay and refer
41
ence. The fidelity of the reproduction was fair, and
there were no instances of failure or inadequate function
ing.
Research Design and Statistical Analysis
Instructors teaching the five sections of the practi
cum assigned students from their class for videotaping at
the beginning of each class hour. The experimentor con
tacted each instructor on a weekly basis, noted which stu
dents would be videotaped, checked to find out which ex
perimental group the student had been assigned to, and
handed either the instructor or student a packet contain
ing test material and instructions.
Each e:>q?erimental group received different instruc
tion on how to proceed after the counseling session had
been videotaped.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical tools used in the investigation included
means, analysis of variance and sign magnitudal change
test. The computer program ARCSAN from the ISML Library
was used for the analysis of variance. Each analysis of
variance table includes an expected mean square in terms
of the population variance components. For this calcula
tion each index may be specified as fixed or random from a
finite population.
42
Data Collection Procedures and Recording;
The SD was administered to the entire sample popula
tion during the Spring and early Summer of 1972. Subjects
in the experimental group were contacted individually and
tested as they were randomly assigned by their instructors
to be videotaped. Subjects in the control group were tes
ted as a group.
Experimental Group I
All students in experimental group I were instructed
to fill out SD(1) immediately following videotaping of the
student's counseling session. When class reconvened the
following instructions were to be followed:
Instructions for Videotape Group Critique
You will have the opportunity to
view your videotape with group criti
que. View a segment of your videotape
during class critique, spending approx
imately 10 minutes watching the tape
and receiving group critique. Stop and
fill out Semantic Differential (2).
When finished, renew videotape viewing
and group critique for approximately
10 more minutes. Stop and fill out
Semantic Differential (3). Turn all
three completed tests into your in
structor. It is very important that
you do each test independently. Please
do not refer back to a prior test.
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP I N=15
Counseling Videotape Videotape
Session (Test) Feedback (Test) Feedback (Test)
Videotaped SD(1) with Group SD(2) with Group SD(3)
Critique Critique
43
Experimental Group II
All students in experimental group II were instructed
to fill out SD(l) immediately following videotaping of the
student's counseling session. When class reconvened, the
following instructions were to he followed:
Instructions for Private Viewing
FolTowed by Videotape Group Critique
You will have the opportunity to
view a segment of your videotape pri
vately before it is shown in class for
videotape group critique. View approx- "
imately 10 minutes of your videotape
privately in the video room. Stop and
fill out Semantic Differential (2;.
Rewind the tape in preparation for
video group critique. View a segment
of your videotape during class criti
que, spending approximately 10 minutes
watching the tape and receiving group
critique. Stop and fill out Semantic
Differential (3)» Turn all three com
pleted tests into your instructor. It
is very important that you do not re
fer back to a prior test.
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP II N=15
Counseling
Session
Videotaped
Private
“ S '
(Test)
SD(2)
Videotape
Feedback
with Group
Critique
(Test)
SD(3)
Experimental Group III
All students in experimental group III were instruc
ted to fill out SD(1) immediately following videotaping of
the students' counseling session. When class reconvened,
the following instructions were to be followed:
44
Instructions for Private Viewing
You will have the opportunity to
to view your videotape privately.
View approximately 10 minutes of your
videotape privately in the video room.
Stop and fill out Semantic Differen
tial (2). Resume viewing for approx
imately 10 more minutes. Stop and
fill out Semantic Differential (3)»
Turn all three completed tests into
your instructor. It is very impor
tant that you do each test indepen
dently. Please do not refer back to
a prior test.
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP III
N-15
Counseling
Session
Videotaped
(Test) „?JlT2te (Test)
SD(1) viewing6 SD(2)
Private
Videotape
Viewing
(Test)
SD(3)
Control Group
All students in the control group were instructed to
follow the directions in the test packet and complete the
enclosed test. Three identical SD's were stapled together
as one test.
CONTROL GROUP N=19
No (Test) No (Test) No (Test)
Treatment SD(1) Treatment SD(2) Treatment SD(3)
The control group was designed to provide: (1) base
line measures for treatment effect in the experimental
groups, and (2) to control for repeated applications of
the SD.
Scores were obtained for each subject on the multiple
testing of the SD. Since each subject completed three
4 - 5
SD's a total of 32,448 separate scores were generated for
computer reduction. All scores were generated for compu
ter reduction. All scores were coded on to computer key
punch sheets for the purpose of computer data reduction
and analysis.
Methodological Assumptions
Relative to the methodology, the following assump
tions were made:
(1) The SD procedure was sufficiently reliable
and valid for the purposes of this study.
(2) The participating subjects could interpret
the intended meaning of both the concepts
and bipolar adjectives in the SD instrument.
(3) On the SD the variables, scales or factors,
across which differences are taken, are in
dependent of one another.
(4) Response set on the SD is hot sufficiently
great to invalidate the interpretability
of the results.
Limitations of the Study
To the extent that the conceptual assumptions enumer
ated in Chapter I and the methodological assumptions set
forth in this chapter were not met, limitations in the in
vestigations were present. A few specific limitations
should be noted as follows:
46
(1) All three SD's were identical. Concepts and
bipolar scales were not perbulated.
(2) Sample size was limited to 64 subjects.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
The purpose of this chapter is to report the results
of the statistical analysis used in the analysis of the
data to determine the effect of videotape feedback on the
self-concept of counselor trainees.
Findings for the Sign Magnitude
Test for Ex. 1. Ex. 2. Ex. 5 and
Ex. 4 - (Control) Groups
Given the means on the pretest, posttest and post
posttest of concepts 1 through 15 on the Semantic Differ
ential, as found in Table 3* a sign magnitude test was
performed, Table 4. A comparison was made between the
mean of the pretest and posttest, pretest and post-post-
test, and the posttest with post-posttest, thus three
comparisons were possible. For example, if the mean for
the element in the posttest was greater than the mean for
the pretest, a positive entry was tallied.
The statistical data for the sign magnitude test in
dicates that there is a difference between the experimen
tal and control group. The values shown in Table 3 are
the posttest and post-posttest concept means added toge
ther to form a larger collective grouping for hypothesis
A.
47
TABLE 3
POSTTEST AND POST-POSTTEST ADDITIVE COMPARISON
OP EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS
CONCEPT EX. 1 EX. 2 EX. 3 EX. 4 (CONTROL)
1 VIDEOTAPE 2.462 1.846 2.287 1.919
2
LEAST LIKED SELF
-1.789 -1.939 -1.554 -2.539
3
COUNSELOR
2.585 1.667
2.200
3.033
4 PRACTICUM 3.036
2.523
2.646
2.385
5
IDEAL SELF 3.656 3.215 3.107 3.389
6
RISKING
2.933
2.318 2.518 2.384
7
SUPERVISION 3.364 2.692 2.590
2.235
8
CLIENT 1.334
.733 1.133 .952
9
GROUP CRITIQUE 2.918
2.697
1.621
2.069
10
ME
1.897
1.792 2.154 2.384
11
PEERS
2.467
2.312 2.098 2.461
12
THERAPY 2.872 2.815 2.569 2.631
13
OBSERVATION
2.329 2.005 2.324 1.028
oo
TABLE 4
SIGN MAGNITUDAL COMPARISON BETWEEN
EX. 4 (CONTROL) AND EX. 1, EX. 2, EX.
49
3
CONCEPT EX. 1 EX. 2 EX. 3
1 VIDEOTAPE + — +
2 LEAST LIKED SELF + - +
3
COUNSELOR - + -
4 PRACTICUM + + +
5
IDEAL SELF + - -
6 RISKING + - +
7
SUPERVISION + + +
8 CLIENT + - +
9
GROUP CRITIQUE + + -
10 ME - - -
ll
PEERS + - -
12 THERAPY + + -
13
OBSERVATION + + +
11+ 6+
7+
2- 7-
6-
50
The responses for the aggregate grouping are 24 posi
tive and 15 negative, which is 61.5% positive and 38.5%
negative, Table 4.
Finding for Semantic Differential
Post (Test 2) and Post-Posttest (Test 5)
A sign magnitude test was performed on the concept
elements for the posttest and for the post-posttest for
all groups, Table 5*
It is interesting to note that experimental groups 1
and 2 became more negative than experimental group 3. A
second videotape viewing for these groups resulted in more
negative scores on the third test. Thus hypothesis B was
rejected.
When a comparison is made between a SD
test taken after the initial viewing
and after a second viewing, the SD ta
ken after the second viewing will be
more positive.
TABLE 5
SIGN MAGNITUDAL COMPARISON OF CONCEPT ELEMENTS FOR
. PRE (TEST 1), POST (TEST 2), AND POST-POST (TEST 3)
Comparison of Tests
_________________________2 1_______3 2______ 3 1
EX. 1 +87 +75
+81
-82 -94 -88
■pv P
+72
+79
+61
• C u v t C
-87 -90 -108
- c \ - z
+84 +101 +97
-£X« ^
-85
-68 -72
Ex. 4 +79
+108 +103
(Control) -90 -61 -66
51
It is interesting to note that experimental group 1,
self-viewing with group critique followed by a subsequent
self-viewing with group critique, had 11 out of 13 posi
tive tallies accounting for approximately 50% of the total
positive responses in the experimental groups. The fact
that'* experimental group 1 has such a high rating may be
correlated to the variability comparison shown in Table 6.
Based upon the data, hypothesis A was accepted:
Following videotape recording sub
jects (Ss) who receive videotape feed
back will rate the concepts on the Sem
antic Differential Test (SD) differently
than control Ss who are involved in a
multiple testing group.
Prediction 1 was rejected:
Experimental Ss will rate the SD more
negatively than control Ss.
Findings for Private Self-viewing
Followed by a Second Private Self-viewing
An inspection of Table 5 indicates that experimental
group 3 was the only experimental group which did test
higher on a second viewing of the videotape. Hypothesis
C was accepted:
Experimental Ss in the group which re
ceive private self-viewing followed by
a second private viewing will test
higher on the positive side of the SD
than Ss from either of the experimen
tal groups.
52
Findings for Private Self-viewing Followed by
A Second Viewing with Group Critique
Variability comparison, Table 6, was derived by an
analysis of the mean corrected TOTAL sum of squares for
all the experimental groups. The greatest magnitude of
change occurred in group 4-, the control group. Prediction
1 was rejected:
Experimental Ss in the private self
viewing followed a second viewing with
group critique will demonstrate the
largest magnitude of change on the SD.
Findings for the Self-viewing
with Group Critique
Sign magnitude test was performed on all experimental
groups to indicate change and direction of change for the
three testings of the SD, Table 5« Based upon the statis
tical data generated, Prediction 2 was accepted:
Experimental Ss in the self-viewing
with group critique will demonstrate
a change toward the negative end of
the scale upon a second viewing.
53
TABLE 6
VARIABILITY COMPARISON BY MEAN
CORRECTED TOTAL SUM OP SQUARES
EXPERI
MENTAL
GROUP
I
EXPERI
MENTAL
GROUP
II
EXPERI
MENTAL
GROUP
III
CONTROL
GROUP
IV
VIDEOTAPE 1 2.198 1.589 1.572 2.732
LEAST LIKED SELF 2
3.327
2.14-8
2.94-5
3.568
COUNSELOR
3
1.988 1.815 1.792 2.352
PRACTICUM 4 - 1.84-2
1.299 1.921 2.178
IDEAL SELF
5
2.086 1.764- 2.124-
2.033
RISKING 6
2.159 1.64-3 2.053
2.970
SUPERVISION
7
1.64-0 1.337 1.865 1.94-6
CLIENT 8
2.613 2.123 1.869 2.905
GROUP CRITIQUE
9
1.74-2
1.271
1.900 2.4-01
ME 10 1.958 1.634-
1.599
2.138
PEERS 11
1.527 0.995
1.350
1.659
THERAPY 12 1.878 1.627 1.706 2.4-04-
OBSERVATION
13
1.74-0 1.64-5 1.669
2.634-
26.698 20.89 24-. 315
31.42
magNitudB
ORDER
3
1 2 4 -
GROUP
ORDER
II III I IV
Bindings for the Semantic Differential Teat
A two-way analysis of variance was performed on the
test scores for each of the treatment and control groups,
for the thirteen concepts on the SD. The data for the ex
perimental groups indicate that a significant difference
exists between the elements in all of the concepts, Tables
7 through 10 (the complete analysis of variance tables are
reported in appendices A through D).
The fact that the elements were significantly differ
ent may be attributed to Osgood's 1957 findings that bi-
54
polar adjectives do in fact measure an internal frame of
reference unique to the individual.
Based upon the data, the following null hypothesis was
rejected:
There is no significant difference be
tween the 13 concepts on the SD for the
experimental or control groups.
A two-way analysis of variance was performed on the
SD to test for interaction between the various elements
and the three administrations of the test. There was no
significant interaction as reported in Tables 7 through 10
(the complete analysis of variance tables are reported in
Appendices A through D).
It is interesting to note that among the thirty-nine
analyses there was no significant interaction between the
elements and the test. The following null hypothesis was
accepted:
There is no interaction of the 13 con
cepts on the SD within the experimental
or control groups.
A two-way analysis of variance was performed on each
of the three tests in each experimental group. Experimen
tal group 1 showed a significant difference in the concepts
videotape, counselor, me and therapy (Table 7)»
Experimental group 2 showed a significant difference
in the concept least liked self, counselor, client. group
critique and me (Table 8).
Experimental group 3 showed a significant difference
55
in the concept videotape. least liked self, counselor and
peers (Table 9).
In the control group, group 4 - (Table 10), more of the
concepts reached the level of significance.
It is interesting that the concept counselor was the
only concept to reach the level of significance in all
three experimental groups. The concepts videotape. least
liked self and me appeared as significant in the two
groups.
Based on the data, the following null hypothesis was
rejected:
There is no significant difference be
tween the pretest, posttest and post
posttest within the experimental groups.
An analysis of variance performed on the control
group indicates that there was no significant difference
between the tests. _
The following null hypothesis was accepted:
There is no significant difference in
the pretest, posttest and post-posttest
in the control group.
56
TABLE 7
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY
TABLE FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUP I
P>.05
CONCEPTS ELEMENTS TEST INTERACTION
1 VIDEOTAPE
5.929 9.818 0.402*
2 LEAST LIKED SELF 3.982 0.980*
0.593*
5
COUNSELOR 18.290
4.889 0.740*
4 PRACTICUM 11.200 0.023* 0.445*
5
IDEAL SELF 25.156 0.328* 0.324*
6 RISKING
18.651 2.631* 0.395*
7
SUPERVISION 11.324
2.619*
0.380*
8 CLIENT 7.826 1.508* 0.659*
9
GROUP CRITIQUE
9.3 07 2.385* 0.471*
10 ME 7.886 5.556 0.244*
n PEERS 3.976 2.125* 0.563*
12 THERAPY 21.154 5.588
0.503*
13
OBSERVATION
6.487
1.832* 0.417*
TABLE 8
GROUP II
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY
TABLE FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUP II
P>.05
CONCEPTS ELEMENTS TEST INTERACTION
1 VIDEOTAPE
4.925
0.256* 0.488*
p
LEAST LIKED SELF 5.438 3.438
0.571*
3
COUNSELOR
9.317 11.125 1.174*
4 PRACTICUM 9.314 1.662*
0.593*
5
IDEAL SELF 22.528
0.399*
0.432*
6 RISKING
13.203 1.609* 0.289*
7
SUPERVISION 8.242 2.401*
0.313*
8 CLIENT
6.759 5.335 0.477*
9
GROUP CRITIQUE 8.681 4.208 0.426*
10 ME
12.035
9.681 0.566*
n PEERS 12.960
0.523* 0.693*
12 THERAPY 21.710 1.542*
1.035*
13
OBSERVATION 9.081 0.130*
0.593*
* Not Significant
57
TABLE 9
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE SUMMARY
TABLE FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUP III
P^.05
CONCEPTS ELEMENTS TEST INTERACTION
1 VIDEOTAPE 9.098 5.865 0.966*
2 LEAST LIKED SELF 2.861 4-. 227 0.555*
3
COUNSELOR
16.269 3.912 0.637*
4 - PRACTICUM 10.011 0.988*
0.665*
5
IDEAL SELF 4-3.755 0.04-2*
0.54-3*
6 RISKING 14-. 981 1.361* 0.884-*
7
SUPERVISION
8.363
1.222* 0.380*
8 CLIENT 18.716
0.677* 0.4-25*
9
GROUP CRITIQUE 3.554- 0.099* 0.189*
10 ME 15.4-4-7 1.920* 0.294-*
ll PEERS 14-. 4-68 3.035
0.296*
12 THERAPY 18.858 0.770* 0.4-98*
13
OBSERVATION 9.606
1.395* 0.345*
TABLE 10
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONTROL GROUP IV
P^.05
CONCEPTS ELEMENTS TEST INTERACTION
1 VIDEOTAPE 10.738 1.521* 0.564-*
2 LEAST LIKED SELF 4 -. 752 0.4-15* 0.311*
3
COUNSELOR
21.699
1.280* 0.261*
4 - PRACTICUM
10.789
0.838* 0.536*
5
IDEAL SELF 22.387 0.117*
0.304-*
6 RISKING 10.766 0.002*
0.193*
7
SUPERVISION
7.597
0.084-* 0.372*
8 CLIENT
8.617 0.74-8*
0.377*
9
GROUP CRITIQUE
8.603 0.325*
0.4-24-*
10 ME
11.287 0.066* 0.4-25*
11 PEERS
6.785
0.4-4-8* 0.258*
12 THERAPY 18.4-54-
2.313* 0.119*
13
OBSERVATION
5.075 0.817*
0.396*
* Not Significant
58
Summary and Interpretations
This chapter reported the findings of the statistical
analysis of the data in order to assess the effects of
videotape feedback on the self-concept of counselor train
ees.
After performing both a sign magnitude test and an
analysis of variance on the Semantic Differential Test,
the results may be summarized as follows:
1. Subjects who receive videotape feedback rate the
concepts on the Semantic Differential Test more
negative than control Ss. Subjects in Ex. 1, self
viewing with group critique, rate the concepts
more positive than either of the other two ex
perimental groups.
2. When a comparison is made between initial video
tape viewing and a subsequent second viewing, the
sign magnitude test indicates that subjects in
Ex. 1, self viewing with group critique, and
Ex. 2, private self viewing followed by a second
self-viewing with group critique, rate the SD
more negatively.
3. Experimental Group 3, private self-viewing, rate
the concepts higher after a second viewing. The
condition under which a second viewing occurs
does make a difference in the way that Ss rate
59
themselves. Videotape viewing effects the self-
concept either negatively or positively, depen
ding upon the circumstances under which the self
viewing occurs•
4. Experimental Ss in the private self-viewing
group, followed by a second viewing with group
critique, demonstrate the lowest magnitude of
change on the SD. Since the control group
showed the largest magnitude of change, one may
conclude that the treatment variable, videotape
feedback, did have an effect, and that that ef
fect produced a less positive rating on the SD
than would have been expected to occur from ta
king the SD three times without this indepen
dent variable.
5. Experimental Ss in the private self-viewing,
followed by group critique, demonstrate a
change in the negative direction. If the con
trol group, which is a no-treatment group,
shows the largest magnitude of change on the
SD, then one must conclude that the experimen
tal group, which has the smallest or most neg
ative change, will be the group where video
tape had the maximum effect. Thus, Ex. 2, pri
vate self-viewing followed by a second viewing
with group critique, is the experimental group
which demonstrates the greatest videotape feed
back impact.
6. All the concept elements showed a significant
difference in the experimental groups, substan
tiating that the SD measures a subject's unique
internal frame of reference.
7. There was no interaction of the 13 concepts on
the SD within the experimental or control group;
once again supporting the individualistic nature
theory of the SD procedure.
8. There was significant difference on some concepts
between the pretest, posttest and post-posttest
within the experimental groups. Ex. 1, self
viewing with group critique, showed significant
change on the concepts of videotape, counselor.
me and therapy. Conclusions as to the implica
tions of changes on these concepts are hard to
extrapolate. It is interesting to note that
only one of the concepts showing significance
is a personal concept. They may, however, be
the concepts which are the most closely attended
to during the group critique, thus reflecting
the greatest change. Ex. 2, private self-view
ing with group critique showed the concepts of
least liked self, counselor. client. group cri
tique and me, as the ones demonstrating signifi
61
cant change. More concepts were significantly
changed in this group than any other group.
The concepts reaching significance are very
important concepts in counselor education pro
grams and may be the ones that are considered
most important to effect a change in.
9. Ex. 3» private self-viewing groups, showed sig
nificant change on videotape, least liked self.
counselor and peers. It would seem appropriate
to say that there was a positive change regar
ding the independent variable (videotape), how
well the student liked himself, and the stu
dent's idea of the role counselor.
10. A few generalizations may tentatively be made.
Videotape feedback produced significant change
in the concept of counselor in all groups. The
control group did not show significance on any
of the concepts. This lends support to the
idea that the significance shown in the experi
mental groups was indeed attributable to treat
ment affect.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study was to determine the dif
ferential effects of videotape feedback on counselor trai
nees' self-concept, and to access the nature, direction
and magnitude of change as a result of presenting feedback
under three different situational conditions. A review of
the literature indicates a state of confusion exists
around the impact of self-confrontation by videotape.
Studies using a self-report procedure (Beymer, 1969;
Niland, Duling, Allen & Panther, 1971; Poling, 1965;
Yenawine and Arbuckle, 1971) all indicate that counselor
trainees clearly perceived monitoring to have an inhibi
ting effect. Studies have not substantiated the impact
made by videotape feedback, yet many educators make en
thusiastic claims as to the value of this new feedback
media based on clinical observations, not research stu
dies.
This chapter presents a summary of the procedures
used in this study and a brief review of the findings.
These, together with conclusions and implications, as
well as recommendations for further study, are presented
here.
62
63
Summary of Procedures
This study used a sign magnitude test of pretest,
posttest and post-posttest means to test the following
hypothesis and prediction:
Hypothesis A
Following videotape recording sub
jects (Ss) who receive videotape feed
back will rate the concepts on the Sem
antic Differential Test (SD) differently
than control Ss who are involved in a
multiple testing group of the SD.
Prediction 1:
Experimental Ss will rate the SD
more negatively than control Ss.
Hypothesis B
When a comparison is made between
a SD test taken after the initial view
ing and after a second viewing, the SD
taken after the second viewing will be
more positive.
Hypothesis C
Experimental Ss in the group which
receives private self-viewing will test
higher on the positive side of the SD
than Ss from either of the experimental
groups.
Prediction 1:
Experimental Ss in the private
self-viewing followed by a second view
ing with group critique will demonstrate
the largest magnitude of change on the
SD.
Prediction 2:
Experimental Ss in the self view
ing with group critique group will dem
onstrate a change toward the negative
end of the scale upon second viewing
with group critique.
This study utilized a two-way analysis of variance
design to test the following null hypotheses.
64
Hypothesis 1
There is no significant difference
between the 15 concepts on the SD for
the experimental or control groups.
Hypothesis 2
There is no interaction of the 13
concepts on the SD within the experi
mental or control groups.
Hypothesis 5
There^is no significant difference
between the pretest, posttest and post
posttest within the experimental groups.
Hypothesis 4
There is no significant difference
in the pretest, posttest and post-post-
test in the control group.
These hypotheses were tested at the .05 significance
level.
A total of 64 graduate students enrolled in the Coun
selor Education Department and Rehabilitation Counselor
Education Department at the University of Southern Calif
ornia were used as subjects of this study during the
Spring and Summer of 1972. The three of the experimental
groups each contained 15 subjects who were students en
rolled in the practicum in counseling. The fourth exper
imental group was a control no-treatment group containing
19 students enrolled in a theories of counseling course.
Experimental design was as follows:
Experimental group one, after be
ing videotaped then pretested, Ss re
ceived initial videotape feedback with
a group critique, followed by posttest
ing. Immediately following the post
test, a second videotape feedback ses
sion was conducted followed by a post
posttest.
Experimental group two, after be
ing videotaped then pretested, Ss re
ceived initial private self-viewing
followed by a posttest. Following the
posttest, a second videotape viewing
with group critique was conducted,
followed by a post-posttest.
Experimental group three, after
being videotaped then pretested, Ss
received initial private self-viewing,
followed by a posttest. Immediately
following the posttest, a second pri
vate videotape feedback session occur
red, followed by post-post testing.
Experimental group four was a no-
treatment group. Subjects were asked
to take the pre, post and post-post
tests one right after another.
The Semantic Differential procedure was used to de
sign a Semantic Differential test using 13 concepts with
13 bipolar adjectives for each concept. This test was gi
ven three times to all experimental groups. The concepts
and elements were chosen for their particular relevance
for the practicums in counseling.
A sign magnitude test and a two-way analysis of vari
ance was performed on each of the concepts and elements
for all administrations of the teste
Summary of Findings
Results of hypotheses tested are as follows:
Hypothesis A: Accepted.
Following videotape recording sub
jects (Ss) who receive videotape feed
back will rate the concepts on the Sem
antic Differential test (SD) differently
66
than control Ss who are involved in a
multiple testing group of the SD.
Prediction 1: Rejected.
Experimental Ss will rate the SD
more negatively than control Ss.
Hypothesis B: Rejected.
When a comparison is made between
a SD test taken after the initial view
ing and after a second viewing, the SD
taken after the second viewing will be
more positive.
Hypothesis C; Rejected.
Experimental Ss in the group which
receives private self-viewing followed
by a second private viewing will test
higher on the positive side of the SD
than Ss from either of the experimental
groups.
Prediction 1: Accepted.
Experimental Ss in the private
self-viewing followed by a second view
ing with group critique will demonstrate
the largest magnitude of change on the
SD.
Prediction 2: Accepted.
Experimental Ss in the self-view
ing with group critique group will dem
onstrate a change toward the negative
end of the scale upon second viewing
with group critique.
Hypothesis 1: Rejected.
There is no significant difference
between the 13 concepts on the SD for
the experimental or control groups.
Hypothesis 2: Accepted.
There is no interaction of the 13
concepts on the SD within the experi
mental or control groups.
Hypothesis 3: Rejected.
There is no significant difference
between the pretest, posttest and post
posttest within the experimental groups.
67
Hypothesis 4; Accepted.
There is no significant difference
in the pretest, posttest and post-post
test, in the control group.
Conclusions
The conclusions for this study are:
1. Videotape feedback does effect the self-concept
of counselor trainees. The direction and magni
tude of the effect is somewhat mediated by the
environmental situation in which feedback occurs.
2. Trainees who received initial videotape feedback
in a group critique situation rated their self
concepts slightly higher than the mean or neu
tral position on the positive end of the scale.
When the videotape was presented again in the
group with group critique, their self-concept
dropped below the neutral area to the negative
side of the scale. Thus initial videotape feed
back in the group had little effect on the self-
concept of trainees. A second viewing with
group critique had a negative effect on the
trainees' self-concept. Thus, the greatest
videotape impact occurred after a second view
ing and was in a negative direction relative
to initial viewing. Videotape feedback changes
significantly the trainees' concepts of video
tape. counselor and therapy. The concepts be-
68
came less positive.
3. Trainees who initially viewed their videotapes
privately became less positive in their self-
concept. A second viewing with group critique
had the effect of lowering the trainees' self-
concept even more. Those concepts which chan
ged significantly were least liked self, coun
selor. client. group critique and me.
While the self-concept became more nega
tive, one must understand that multiple test
ing with the Semantic Differential in the no-
treatment control group showed that while no
concepts reached significance, the effect of
the multiple testing was to positively increase
the ratings for self-concept.
With this in mind it now becomes clear
that videotape feedback, while producing a
more negative self-concept rating, had the
greatest impact when presented privately fol
lowed with a second group critique viewing.
4 - . Trainees who initially received private self
viewing became less positive in their self
concept ratings after videotape feedback. A
second private self-viewing produced a posi
tive change on the self-concept ratings. The
magnitude of the positive change was greater
69
than the initial ratings of self-concept taken
on the pretest. This shift approached the mag
nitude of change evidenced by the no-treatment
group. Positive change occurred in the con
cepts of videotape. counselor, least liked self
and peers. Thus, initial private self-viewing
had a negative effect on the trainees' self-
concept. A second private self-viewing tended
to level out the initial negative impact of
videotape feedback.
Discussion
The use of videotape feedback in the practicum is
based on the assumption that the added stimulus will cre
ate a greater awareness for the student of his own coun
seling behavior, and the dynamics which create a facili-
tative relationship. The results of this study did sub
stantiate that videotape feedback produced change in the
trainee.
The most provocative questions which emerge from the
data are those having to do with the direction of the
change and the situational conditions under which change
occurred.
Rogers (1959) states that:
It is not change that needs to be ex
plained but its specific direction;
and it is not lack of change that
needs to be taken for granted, but
70
change itself.
For the purpose of this study it has been assumed
that behavioral change is concomitant with or subsequent
to a change in self-concept and that change is a desirable
goal in education.
It is known that behavior becomes available for
change by increasing information and action and that self-
evaluation which comes from outside may be resisted by the
ego defenses. The self-concept seems to be more suscep
tible to change through methods designed to improve self
insight. Perhaps the desire to change, based on videotape
feedback, is experienced by the person as coming from him
self as a result of his own observations and conclusions
rather than imposed upon him by some authority.
It seems that when insight is concretely connected to
actual events it has more impact and the person can more
easily act upon it. To see oneself actually doing coun
seling makes it possible to experience more freely and
makes it possible to integrate the experience more com
pletely into one's behavior.
The private self-viewing allowed the trainee the op
portunity to fully experience the actual self, without the
need to protect from the criticism of others. The fact
that the students' self-concept rating became more nega
tive has been recognized by(Poling, 1965; Beymer, 1969;
Ward, Kagan, Krathwohl, 1972), several researchers who pos
71
tulate two theories to account for the "shock reaction" to
videotape feedback. One theory states that the reaction
is a result of threat or anxiety produced by the self-con
frontation. If this theory were true then students in all
treatment groups would experience a negative change in
self-concept. The findings of this study do not support
that conclusion; thus the theory is rejected.
The second theory states that students are provided
with such an overabundance of insightful and meaningful
material that they are unable to integrate the information
provided and are thrown into a state of confusion or
shock.
The findings of this study show that differential re
sponses occurred to a variety of concepts and to a variety
of situations. This would tend to suggest that some inte
gration and differentiation was occurring. Thus, it seems
that neither theory can accurately account for the finding
in this investigation.
It would seem that a congruence theory might more ac
curately explain the results. As the discrepancy between
ideal self and actual or experienced self decreases the
self-concept may become less positive. This would lend
support to the findings that concepts about the self
(least liked self and me) and concepts regarding role
(counselor and group critique) significantly changed in a
negative direction.
72
The group critique which followed the private self
viewing helped by objectifying and increasing the amount
of information available. Particular behavioral patterns
pinpointed by the group critique may serve as a reference
point for the trainee. This process, group critique,
would help define and clarify the self-insight which may
have come into awareness during the initial private view
ing.
Change in the same direction did not occur in the ex
perimental group receiving group critique. It may be that
a need to protect oneself from criticism prevented a move
toward greater congruence when videotape feedback was
first presented with group critique. It is interesting to
note that a negative impact was evident on a second view
ing with group critique.
While a negative change occurred with both private
self-viewing groups, the group receiving only private self
viewing did not sustain the change. One can only specu
late as to the reason this occurred. It would seem logi
cal that when one experiences a discrepancy between ideal
and actual self there is a need to check the discrepancy
out with others. Without the external validation denial
sets in and there is a return to the ideal self, which
would be in a positive direction.
While the discussion of the findings of this investi
gation are highly speculative, it points out several major
73
criticisms of the present study. There was no procedure
to examine the impact of negative sfclf-concept change on
the effectiveness of the trainee in the counseling rela
tionship. Additional ratings from supervisors and peers
would help to clarify the congruence theory postulated by
this researcher.
Pretest occurred after the trainee had been video
taped. Any anxiety associated with this experience may
have been reflected in the pretest ratings which served
as a baseline rating for the subsequent tests.
This study is important in helping to define and
clarify the results of a new educational device. No mat
ter what the potential of the device, the effectiveness
depends upon understanding what the device can do and
wisely applying it.
Recommendations
There is a need for further research studies to ex
plore the effects of multiple videotape viewing based on
different time sequencing. A replication study is needed
to lend strength to the research findings of this study.
When a replication study is conducted there is a need to
assure that the pretest situation is not confounded by
videotaping. In this study pretesting was conducted af
ter the subjects had been videotaped. The impact of the
videotaping situation may have influenced the pretesting.
74
It would be desirous to have additional ratings from
supervisors and peers to assess whether or not the per
ceived negative direction of self-concept changes in the
trainee resulted in the trainee being seen as more congru
ent by others.

APPENDIX A
76
77
TABLE 11
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 1 - VIDEOTAPE EX. 1
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
141.091
38.988
19.145
1084.133
1283.557
12
2
24
546
584
11.758
19.494
0.798
1.986
2.198
5.921
9.818
0.402
TABLE 12
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 2 - LEAST LIKED SELF EX. 1
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
152.202
6.239
45.316
1738.933
1942.691
12
2
24
546
584
12.683
3.120
1.888
3.185
3.327
3.982
0.980
0.593
TABLE 13
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 3 - COUNSELOR EX. 1
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
321.361
14.318
25.993
799.467
1161.138
12
2
24
546
584
26.780
7.159
1.083
1.464
1.988
18.290
4.889
0.740
TABLE 14-
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 4- - PRACTICUM EX. 1
Slim of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
209.227
0.072
16.639
850.000
1075.938
12
2
24
54-6
584-
17.4-36
0.036
0.693
1.557
1.84-2
11.200
0.023
0.445
TABLE 15
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 5 - IDEAL SELF EX. 1
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
4-29.395
0.933
11.067
776.667
1218.062
12
2
24
54-6
584-
35.783
0.467
0.422
1.422
2.086
25.156
0.328
TABLE 16
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 6 - RISKING EX. 1
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
359.658
8.455
15.234-
877.333
1260.660
12
2
24
54-6
584-
29.970
4.227
0.635
1.607
2.159
18.551
2.631
0.395
79
TABLE 17
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 7 - SUPERVISION EX. 1
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
186.896
7.203
12.530
750.933
957.562
12
2
24
546
584
15.575
3.602
0.522
1.375
1.640
11.324
2.619
0.380
TABLE 18
TWO--WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 8 - CLIENT EX. 1
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
217.54-9
6.988
36.656
1264.800
1525.993
12
2
24
546
584
18.129
3.494
1.527
2.316
2.613
7.826
1.508
0.659
TABLE 19
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 9 - GROUP CRITIQUE EX. 1
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
168.639
7.203
17.063
824.400
1017.306
12
2
24
546
584
14.053
3.602
0.711
1.510
1.742
9.307
2.385
0.471
80
TABLE 20
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 10 - ME EX. 1
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
j - : Elements 164.561 12
13.713
7.886
Tests
19.323
2 9.662 5.556
Interaction 10.188 24 0.425
0.244
Error 949.467 546 1.739
Total 1143.538 584 1.958
TABLE 21
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 11 - PEERS EX. 1
Sum of Degrees Mean
Squares Freedom Squares
Elements 69.573 12 5.798 3.976
Tests 6.198 , 2
3.099 2.125
Interaction 19.668 24 0.820 0.562
Error 796.133 546 1.458
Total 891.573 584
1.527
TABLE 22
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 12 - THERAPY EX. 1
Sum of Degrees Mean
R—Ratio
Squares Freedom Squares
Elements 338.284 12 28.190 21.154
Tests 14.892 2 7.446 5.588
Interaction 16.085 24 0.670 0.503
Error 727.600 546
1.333
Total 1096.862 584 1.878
TABLE 23
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 13 - OBSERVATION EX. 1
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements 124.062 12 10.338 6.487
Tests
5.839
2 2.920 1.832
Interaction 15.938 24 0.664
0.417
Error
870.133
546 1.594
Total
1015.973
584 1.740
APPENDIX B
82
83
TABLE 24
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 1- VIDEOTAPE EX. II
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
88.824
0.769
17.586
820.667
927.846
12
2
24
546
584
7.402
0.385
0.733
1.503
1.589
4.925
0.256
0.488
TABLE 25
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 2 - LEAST LIKED SELF EX. II
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
128.838
13.665
27.224
1084.933
1254.660
12
2
24
546
584
10.736
6.832
1.134
1.987
2.148
5.403
3.438
0.571
TABLE 26
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 3 ~ COUNSELOR EX. II
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
167.306
33.296
42.171
817.067
1059.839
12
2
24
546
584
13.942
16.648
1.757
1.496
1.815
9.317
11.125
1.174
84
TABLE 27
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 4 - PRACTICUM EX. II
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
125.549
3.735
16.000
615.333
758.615
12
2
24
546
584
10.462
1.867
0.667
1.123
1.299
9.314
1.662
0.593
TABLE 28
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 5 - IDEAL SELF EX. II
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
336.622
0.995
12.916
679.867
1030.400
12
2
24
546
584
28.052
0.497
0.538
1.245
1.764
22.528
0.399
0.432
TABLE 29
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 6 - RISKING EX. II
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
212.718
4.321
9.323
733.067
959.429
12
2
24
546
584
17.726
2.161
0.388
1.343
1.643
13.203
1.609
0.289
85
TABLE 50
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 7 - SUPERVISION EX. II
Stun of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
117.504
5.706
8.916
648.667
780.795
12
2
24
546
584
9.792
2.853
0.372
1.188
1.337
8.242
2.401
0.313
TABLE 31
TWO--WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 8 - CLIENT EX. II
Stun of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
154.916
20.379
21.843
1042.800
1239.938
12
2
24
546
584
12.910
10.190
0.910
1.910
2.123
6.759
5.335
0.477
TABLE 32
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 9 - GROUP CRITIQUE EX. II
Stun of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
115.573
9.337
11.330
605.733
741.973
12
2
24
546
584
9.631
4.668
0.472
1.109
1.271
8.681
4.208
0.426
86
TABLE 33
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 10 - ME EX. II
Slim of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements 190.516 12 15.876
12.035
Tests 25.54-2 2
12.771
9.681
Interaction
17.925
24
0.74-7
0.566
Error
720.267
54-6
1.319
Total 954-. 250 584- 1.634-
TABLE 34-
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 11 - PEERS EX. II
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
125.593
12 10.466 12.960
Tests 0.844 2 0.422
0.523
Interaction 13.4-22 24
0.559 0.693
Error
440.933
546 0.808
Total
580.793
584
0.995
TABLE 35
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 12 - THERAPY EX. II
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
296.595
12 24.716 21.710
Tests
3.511
2 1.756 1.54-2
Interaction
28.267
24 1.178
1.035
Error 621.600 546 1.138
Total
949.973
584. 1.627
87
TABLE 36
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 13 - OBSERVATION EX. II
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
P-Ratio
Elements
156.393
12
13.033
9.081
Tests
0.373
2 0.186 0.130
Interaction
20.427
24
0.851 0.593
Error 783.600 546
1.435
Total
960.793
584
1.645
APPENDIX C
88
89
TABLE 57
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 1 - VIDEOTAPE EX. Ill
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
14-5 • 221
15.603
30.84-1
726.267
917.952
12
2
24
54-6
584-
12.102
7.802
1.285
1.330
1.572
9.098
5.865
0.966
TABLE 38
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 2 - LEAST LIKED SELF EX. Ill
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
P-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
98.072
24-. 14-7
38.031
1559.4-67
1719.716
12
2
24
546
584
8.173
12.074
1.585
2.856
2.945
2.861
4.227
0.555
TABLE 39
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 3 - COUNSELOR EX. Ill
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
267.272
10.711
20.953
74-7.467
104-6.383
12
2
24-
546
584
22.273
5.356
0.872
1.369
1.792
16.269
3.912
0.637
TABLE 40
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 4 - PRACTICUM EX. Ill
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
P-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
196.998
3.241
26.181
895-333
1121.754
12
2
24
546
584
16.417
1.621
1.091
1.640
1.921
10.011
0.988
0.665
TABLE 41
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 5 - IDEAL SELF EX. Ill
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
600.838
0.096
14.926
624.800
1240.660
12
2
24
546
584
50.070
0.048
0.622
1.144
2.124
43.755
0.042
0.543
TABLE 42
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 6 - RISKING EX. Ill
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
287.460
4.352
33.915
873.067
1198.793
12
2
24
546
584
23.955
2.176
1.413
1.599
2.053
14.981
1.361
0.884
91
TABLE 43
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 7 - SUPERVISION EX. Ill
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements 166.14-0 12
13.845 8.363
Tests 4.044 2 2.022 1.222
Interaction 15.111 24 0.630 0.380
Error
903.867
54-6
1.655
Total 1089.162 584
1.865
TABLE 44
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 8 - CLIENT EX. III
Sum of Degrees Mean
Squares Freedom Squares
Elements
313.4-39
12 26.120 18.716
Tests 1.891 2
0.94-5 0.677
Interaction 14-. 243 24
0.593 0.425
Error 762.000 546 1.396
Total
1091.573
584
1.869
TABLE 45
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 9 - GROUP CRITIQUE EX. Ill
Sum of Degrees Mean
Squares Freedom Squares
Elements 79.74-0 12
6.645 3.554-
Tests
0.369
2
0.185 0.099
Interaction
8.475
24
0.353 0.189
Error 1020.800 546 1.870
Total
1109.385
584 1.900
92
TABLE 46
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 10 - ME EX. Ill
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
225.884
4.680
8.609
665.333
904.506
12
2
24
546
584
18.824
2.340
0.359
1.219
1.54-9
15.447
1.920
0.294
TABLE 47
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 11 - PEERS EX. Ill
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
186.838
6.533
7.644
587.600
788.615
12
2
24
546
584
15.570
3.267
0.319
1.076
1.350
14.468
3.035
0.296
TABLE 48
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 12 - THERAPY EX. Ill
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
286.913
1.952
15.159
692.267
996.291
12
2
24
546
584
23.909
0.976
0.632
1.268
1.706
18.858
0.770
0.498
93
TABLE 49
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 13 - OBSERVATION EX. Ill
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements 167.118 12 13.926 9.606
Tests 4.044 2 2.022
1.395
Interaction 12.000 24 0.500
0.345
Error 791.600 546 1.450
Total 794.762 584
1.669
APPENDIX D
94
95
TABLE 50
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 1 - VIDEOTAPE EX. IV
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
P-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
307.4-52
7.258
32.321
16 74-. 94-7
2021.978
12
2
24
702
74-0
25.621
5.629
1.547
2.386
2.752
10.758
1.521
0.564
TABLE 51
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 2 - LEAST LIKED SELF EX. IV
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
196.211
2.855
25.709
24-15.684-
264-0.4-56
12
2
24
702
740
16.551
1.426
1.071
3.441
5.568
4.752
0.415
0.3H
TABIiE 52
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 3 - COUNSELOR EX. IV
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
Elements
Tests
Interaction
Error
Total
4-66.583
4-. 586
11.239
1257.895
1740.302
12
2
24
702
740
38.882
2.293
0.468
1.792
2.352
21.699
1.280
0.261
96
TABLE 53
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 4 - PRACTICUM EX. IV
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
ELEMENTS 246.650 12
20.554 10.789
TESTS
3.193
2 1.596 0.858
INTERACTION 24.491 24 1.020 0.556
ERROR 1337.368 702
1.905
TOTAL
1611.705
740 2.178
TABLE 54
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 5 - ILEAL SELF EX. IV
Sum of Degrees Mean
Squares Freedom Squares
ELEMENTS 415.128 12
54.427 22.587
TESTS
0.559
2
0.179 0.117
INTERACTION 11.220 24
0.467
0.504
ERROR
1079.579
702 1.538
TOTAL 1504.286 740
2.053
TABLE 55
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 6 - RISKING EX. IV
Sum of Degrees Mean
Squares Freedom Squares
ELEMENTS
539.755
12
28.511
10.766
TESTS 0.008 2 0.004 0.002
INTERACTION
12.167
24
0.507 0.195
ERROR
1846.105
702 2.650
TOTAL 2198.016 740 2.970
97
TABLE 56
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 7 - SUPERVISION EX. IV
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
P-Ratio
ELEMENTS
163.671
12
13.639 7.597
TESTS 0.302 2
0.151
0.084
INTERACTION 16.013
24
0.667 0.372
ERROR
1260.316 702
1.795
TOTAL 1440.302 740 1.946
TWO
TABLE 57
-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 8 - CLIENT EX. IV
Sum of Degrees Mean
Squares Freedom Squares
ELEMENTS 225.560 12
18.797 8.617
TESTS
5.263 2 1.652 0.748
INTERACTION
19.719
24 0.822
0.577
ERROR 1551.568 702 2.181
TOTAL
1779.911
740 2.405
TABLE 58
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 9 - GROUP CRITIQUE EX. IV
Sum of Degrees Mean
F-Ratio
Squares Freedom Squares
ELEMENTS 224.785 12 18.752 8.603
TESTS 1.417 2
0.709 0.325
INTERACTION 22.162
ERROR 1528.526
TOTAL 1776.891
24
702
740
0.925
2.177
2.401
0.424
98
TABLE 59
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE POR
CONCEPT 10 - ME EX. IV
Sum of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
ELEMENTS
252.715
12 21.060
11.287
TESTS 0.246 2
0.123 0.066
INTERACTION 19.018 24 0.792 0.425
ERROR 1309.789 702 1.866
TOTAL 1581.768 740 2.138
TABLE 60
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 11 - PEERS EX. IV
Sum of Degrees Mean
Squares Freedom Squares
ELEMENTS 126.472 12
10.539 6.785
TESTS
1.395
2 0.696 0.448
INTERACTION
9.625
24 0.401 0.258
ERROR 1090.421 702
1.553
TOTAL
1227.911
740
1.659
TABLE 61
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 12 - THERAPY EX. IV
Sum of Degrees Mean
Squares Freedom Squares
i ; — iXcL^lO
ELEMENTS
423.233
12
35.269
18.454
TESTS 8.842 2 4.421
2.313
INTERACTION
5.^39
24
0.227 0.119
ERROR 1341.684 702
1.911
TOTAL 1779.198 740 2.404
99
TABLE 62
TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
CONCEPT 13 - OBSERVATION EX. IV
Slim of
Squares
Degrees
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F-Ratio
ELEMENTS
153.34-7
12
12.779 5.075
TESTS 4.113 2
2.057 0.817
INTERACTION
23.957
24 0.998 0.396
ERROR 1767.684 702 2.518
TOTAL 1949.101 740 2.634
APPENDIX E
100
TABLE 63
POSITIVE SIGN MAGNITUDE COMPARISON SUMMARY TABLE
POR EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS
CONCEPTS * T 2 > 1 3>2 3>1
1 VIDEOTAPE +12 + 6 +12 +
7
+ 8 +
9
+10 +10 +11 + 6 +10 + 8
2 LEAST LIKED SELF
+ 7
+
5 + 7
+11 + 4 - +11 + 1 + 6 + 8 + 4 - + 8 + 4 -
3
COUNSELOR
+ 7
+12 +10 + 6 + 2 + 2 + 4 - +12 +12 +10
+ 9 +10
4 - PRACTICUM + 6 + 6 + 6 + 4 - +10 +
5
+
9
+ 4 - +10 + 4 - +10 + 6
5
IDEAL SELF + 4 - + 8
+ 5
+ 8 + 4 - +
5
+
7
+
7 + 7
+
7
+ 8 +10
6 RISKING +11 + 1
+ 7
+
3 + 9
+
5
+
9
+ 8 + 9
+
7 + 7 + 7
7
SUPERVISION + 4 - +
5
+ 1 + 4 - +10 + 4 - +
5
+
9 + 5
+ 6 + 6 + 6
8 CLIENT + 8 + 8 +10 + 1 + 4 - + 1 + 6 +
7 + 5
+ 6
+ 9 + 9
9
GROUP CRITIQUE + 8 + 2
+ 5
+
3
+ 8 +
3
+
7
+ 8
+ 9
+
5
+ 8
+ 7
10 ME + 0 +
5
+ 0 +
3
+ 2 + 2 +
3
+
7
+ 4 - +
7 + 9 + 7
11 PEERS +10 +
5
+10 +
7
+ 8 + 4 - +11 + 6 +11 + 6 + 4 - + 6
12 THERAPY + 1 +
7 + 3
+ 8 + 4 - + 4 - +
5
+ 6
+ 3
+ 4 - +11 +11
13
OBSERVATION + 8 + 4 -
+ 5
+
7 + 7
+ 6 +
7
+11 + 9
+
7
+ 8 +10
* T]_, T2, T3, indicates test sequence
o
i - *
APPENDIX P
102
103
Definitions of Instrumentation Terms
Activity factor. This factor seems
to he primarily an activity variable in
judgments, alone, with some relation to
physical sharpness or abruptness (Osgood,
Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957, P« 58).
Aggressiveness factor. This factor
appears in the unrotated square root fac
tor analysis of the Thesaurus study
(Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957, P. 59).
Concept. A term borrowed from
Osgood, et al. (1957, p. 77) referring
to individual descriptive adjectives
(often psychologically oriented terms)
which subjects are asked to rate rela
tive to bipolar adjectives placed on a
scale of the Semantic Differential. The
direction and intensity of the concept
is rated by a subject on a five or
seven-place scale. Numerical values
are assigned to each of these spaces
in order to evaluate and record the
direction, or intensity, of the responses
as related to a given concept.
Evaluation factor. The factor
which describes value or worth (Osgood,
et al., p. 36).
Factor. Relative to the Semantic
Differential, factor refers to one of
the 6 dimensions found in factor ana
lytic studies by Osgood, Suci, &
Tannenbaum, 1957 - activity, evaluation,
potency, stability, receptivity, aggres
siveness.
Factor concept. The permutation of
each of the 13 concepts corresponding to
6 factors comprising 78 factor-concept
measures in all on the Semantic Differ
ential instrument devised by the writer.
Potency factor. The factor which
denotes power or strength (Osgood, et
al., p. 36).
104-
Scales. In terms of the formulation
by Osgood, et al. (1957* p. 20), a scale
is a continuum lying between a set of bi
polar adjectives against which a subject
differentiates or rates his degree of ac
ceptance of a concept.
Semantic Differential (SD) measure.
An instrument devised by the author con
sisting of 13 concepts selected by a pan
el of experts from Osgood, Suci, &
Tannenbaum, 1957* Thirteen bipolar ad
jectives were placed on 13 scales. Three
bipolar adjectives for the hypothesized
evaluation factors, three bipolar adjec
tives for the hypothesized activity fac
tor, one bipolar adjective for the hypo
thesized receptivity factor and one bi
polar adjective for the hypothesized ag
gressiveness factor.
Semantic Differential technique.
Osgood, et al., described the technique.
as follows:
The semantic differential is
essentially a combination of
controlled association and
scaling procedures. We provide
the subject with a concept to
be differentiated and a set of
bipolar adjectives scales
against which to do it, his
only task being to indicate,
for each item (pairing of a
concept with a scale), the di
rection of his association and
its intensity on a seven-step
scale. The crux of the method,
of course, lies in selecting
the sample of descriptive polar
terms. Ideally, the sample
should be as representative as
possible of all the ways in
which meaningful judgments can
vary, and yet be small enough
in size to be efficient in
practice...(1957, p. 20).
Stability. The VI factor is an un
rotated square root factor from the
Thesaurus study reported in Osgood,
Suci, & Tannenbaum (1957)* It is a
factor which defies consistent inten
pretation.
APPENDIX G
106
SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL
107
Please fill out this questionnaire completely.
Name: Date
:
Course: Instructor:
Degree
Objective:
The purpose of this questionnaire is to measure
the meaning of concepts used in counseling.
Please make your judgment on the basis of what
these concepts mean to you.
Check the scales according to the example shown
below.
cToSelv Quite neu~ quite
related olose tral 01038
very
closely
related
sensitive insensitive
deep
— ---
shallow
1. VIDEOTAPE
sensitive insensitive
meaningful meaningless
successful unsuccessful
rational intuitive
deep shallow
aggressive defensive
fast slow
constrained free
good bad
intentional unintentional
strong weak
active passive
interesting boring
2. LEAST LIKE SELF
sensitive insensitive
meaningful meaningless
successful unsuccessful
108
rational _______________________________ intuitive
^ e e p ________ _______ ________ shallow
. defensive
aggressive ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
___ ___ slow
constrained __ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ free
good ___ __ ___ had
intentional “ “ H H _____________ unintentional
strong_____________________________ __ ___ weak
active HI H HI HI HI Passive
interesting __ __ ___ __ ___ ___ ___ boring
5# COUNSELOR
sensitive_________________________ ___ ___ insensitive
meaningful I Z I I ____________ meaningless
successful _________________ _______ ___ unsuccessful
rational __ ___ ___ intuitive
^ e e p ________ ________ _______ shallow
defensive
aggressive __ ___ ___ ___ __ __ __
£as^ . __ ___ ___ slow
constrained __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ free
___ ___ bad
intentional “ II ~ HI __ unintentional
strong_______ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ weak
passive
active __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ^
interesting __ ___ ___ __ __ __ ___ boring
PRACTICUM
sensitive _______________________________ insensitive
meaningful ________________________________meaningless
successful __ _________ ____ _________ ____ unsuccessful
r a t i o n a l _______________________________ intuitive
d e e p _______ ________ ________ shallow
aggressive________________________ ___ ___ defensive
^as^ _ ___ ___ ___ slow
constrained -- free
109
good ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ bad
intentional ___ ___ ___ __ __ ___ ___ unintentional]
strong ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ weak
active ___ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ___ passive
interesting ___ ___ ___ __ __ ___ __ boring
5.
IDEAL SELF
sensitive ___ ___ insensitive
- , ___ meaningless
meaningful ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
successful________________________ __ ___ unsuccessful
rational ___ ___ intuitive
^eep ___ ___ shallow
defensive
aggressive ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ __
__ ___ slow
£ 2 ?©©
constrained ___ __ __ ___ ___ ___ ___
g00(^ ___ __ ___ bad
. . . . t -unintentional]
intentional ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ __
strong ___ ___ weak
active_________________________________ ___ passive
interesting ___ ___ __ ___ __ ___ ___ boring
5# RISKING
sensitive______________________________ ___ insensitive
_ , meaningless
meaningful ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ ___
uccessful ___ unsuccessful
rational ___ __ intuitive
^eep ___ ___ shallow
defensive
___ ___ slow
£3?6 6
constrained ___ ___ __ ___ __ ___ ___
___ __ bad
intentional____________________________ ___-unintentional]
strong_____________________________ ___ __ weak
^ ve__________________________________ ___ passive
. . boring
interesting ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ ___
110
SUPERVISION
insensitive
sensitive ---- ---- ---- meaningless
meaningful --- ------- - unsuccessful
successful ---- ---- --- intuitive
rational ---- ---- --- shallow
deep-------------- ---- ---- ---- defensive
aggressive --- ---- ---- ---- slow
fast ” ___ free
constrained ---- --- - ---- ---
good-------------- --- ---- --- unintentional!
intentional ---- --- - ---- weak
strong------- ---- --- - ---- passive
active------- ---- —— ____ boring
interesting ___ ___ _ ____ ___ ____
CLIENT
8.
insensitive
sensitive --- ■ ___ meaningless
meaningful ---- ■ ■ ■ unsuccessful
successful --- _— ---- intuitive
rational ---- _— - shallow
deep ---- ---- ---- --- defensive
aggressive . ‘ ______ slow
fast---------- ---- — — free
constrained ---- ---- ---- ---- ^ a(i
good unintentional!
intentional --- - weak
strong " ___ passive
active------- --- - --- - ---- boring
interesting ---- ~
GROTJP.-ORITIQUE
insensitive
sensitive ---- ---- ---- meaningless
meaningful --- - — unsuccessful
successful — "
Ill
rational _______________________________ intuitive
^eep ___ ___ ___ shallow
defensive
aggressive ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
constrained ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ free
____had
intentional ~ H H H ______________ unintentional!
st^ng_____________________________ ___ ___ weak
active ___ __ passive
interesting __ __ ___ ___ __ ___ __ boring
10. ^
sensitive_________________________ ___ ___ insensitive
meaningful ~ H — — — ------- meaningless
successful________________________________unsuccessful
rational ________________________________ intuitive
^eep ___ ___ shallow
„ • „ defensive
aggressive __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
constrained ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ ___
intentional H H H H __________ unintentional!
strong ___ ___ ___ weak
active Z Z Z Z _____________ passive
interesting -- -- --- --- --- --- --- boring
n> PEERS
sensitive__________________________ ___ ___ insensitive
meaningful ~ IZ H H H --------- meaningless
successful______________________________ unsuccessful
rational _______________________________ intuitive
^eep ___ ___ shallow
. defensive
aggressive ___ ___ __ __ __ __ ___
£as_ k __ __ ___ slow
constrained---------------- ----- ---- -- free
112
good
bad
intentional
strong
active
interesting
12.
THERAPY
sensitive
meaningful
successful
rational
deep
aggressive
fast
constrained
good
intentional
strong
active
interesting __ ___
-------- -----
___ __ boring
13. OBSERVATION
sensitive
meaningful
successful
rational ___ ___
__ ___ intuitive
deep
aggressive
fast
constrained
good
bad
intentional
strong ___
__ ___ we«ak
active
interesting
113
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, B. A. "A Semantic Differential Investigation of
Significant Attitudinal Factors Related to Three
Levels of Academic Achievement of Seventh Grade Stu
dents." Dissertation Abstracts International. 27
(1967), 4I2CI:------------------------------
Alger, J., Hogan, P. "The Use of Videotape Recordings in
Conjoint Marital Therapy." The American Journal of
Psychiatry. 123 (1967), 1425-29.
Anastasi, Anne. Psychological Testing. New York: MacMil
lan, 1958.
Arbuckle, D. S. "Counseling Effectiveness and Related Is
sues." Journal of Counseling Psychology. 15 (1968),
430-35.
Backman, C. V., Secord, P. P., and Pierce, J. R. "Resis
tance to Change in the Self Concept as a Function of
Consensus among Significant Others." Sociometry. 26
(1963), 102-11.
Benne, H. D. "History of the T-Group in the Laboratory
Setting." T-Groups Theory and Laboratory Method. Ed.
L. B. Bradford, J. P. d-ibbs and H. D. Benne. Hew
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.
Beymer, L. "Implications of Simulation, Videotape Recor
ding, Analysis Systems and Research for Counselor
Education." Educational Technology. 9 (1969), 56-57.
Blocker, D. H. "Counselor Education: Facilitating the
Development of a Helping Person." Counseling Theo
ries and Counselor Education. Ed. C. A. Parker.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968.
Boyd, H. S., Sisney, V. V. "Immediate Self-Image Confron
tation and Changes in Self-concept." Journal of Con
sulting Psychology. 31 (1967), 291.
Coleman I. Personality Dynamics and Effective Behavior.
Chicago: &cott and Foreman, I960.
Dixon, W. J. "BMD Biomedical Computer Programs." Univer
sity of California Publications in Automatic Computa
tions No. 2. Berkeley and iLos Angeles: University o£
California Press, 1968.
114
115
Eisenberg, S., Delaney, D. J. "Using Video Simulation of
Counseling for Training Counselors." Journal of
Counseling Psychology. 13 (1970), 15-19^
English, H. B., English, A. C. A Comprehensive Dictionary
of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms, New
York: Longmans, Green, 1958.
English, W. R., Jelenevsky, S. "Counselor Behavior as
Judged Under Audio, Visual, and Audiovisual Communi
cation Conditions." Journal of Counseling Psycholo-
£2, 18(6) (1971), 509^13:
Frankel, M. "Effects of Videotape Modeling and Self-con
frontation Techniques on Microcounseling Behavior."
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18(5) (1971), 4-65-
57T:---------------------------
Galinsky, M. D., Past, I. "Vocational Choice as a Pocus
of the Identity Search." Journal of Counseling Psy
chology. 13 (1966), 89-92.
Gergen, K. J. "Effects of Interaction Goals and Person
ality Feedback on the Presentation of Self." Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1 (1965)« 4-13-
Haigh, G. W. "Psychotherapy in Interpersonal Encounter."
Challenges of Humanistic Psychology. Ed. J. P. T.
Bugental. New York: McGraw-Nill Book Company, 1967.
Hatfield, A. B. "Experimental Study of the Self-concept
of Student Teacher." Journal of Educational Re
search. 55 (1961), 87-89.
Homans, G. C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, and World, 1950.
Ivey, A. E., Normington, C. J., Miller, C. D., Morrill, W.
H., Haase, R. P. "Microcounseling and Attending Be
havior: An Approach to Prepracticum Counselor Train
ing." Journal of Counseling Psychology Monograph
Supplement. 15 (1968). 1-12.
Jenkins, J. L., and Russell, W. A. "An Atlas of Semantic
Profiles for 360 Words." American Journal of Psych-
ology, 17 (1958), 989-92.
Kagan, N., Greenberg, S. S., & Bower, S. "Dimensions of
Empathic Judgement of Clients by Counselors." Jour
nal of Counseling Psychology, 16 (1969), 303-307^
116
Kagan, N., Krathwohl, D., et al. Studies in Human Inter
action: Interpersonal Proces3"Ttecall Stimulated by
Videotape! £5-26, College of Education, Michigan
State tJniversity: Education Publication Services,
1967.
Kagan, N., Krathwohl, B., & Miller, R. "Stimulated Recall
in Therapy Using Video Tape: A Case Study." Journal
of Counseling Psychology. 10 (1963), 237-43.
Kagan, N., & Schauble, P. G. "Affect Simulation in Inter
personal Process Recall." Journal of Counseling Psy
chology. 16 (1969), 309-13.
Kagan, N., Schauble, P. G., & Pierce, R. M. Accelerating
Client Progress in Counseling and Psychotherapy
through Interpersonal Process Recall. Unpublished
Manuscript, 1970.
Kubic, L. S. "Some Aspects of the Significance to Psycho
analysis of the Exposure of a Patient to the Tele
vised Audiovisual Reproduction of his Activities."
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 148 (1969),
361-309.
Landeman, T., Jane, D. "AV Media, Yes, Depersonalization,
No." Audiovisual Instruction. 8 (1963), 24-28.
Markey, M. J., Fredrickson, R. H., Johnson, R. V/., Julius,
M. A. "Influence of Playback Techniques on Counselor
Performance." Counselor Education and Supervision.
9 (1970), 178-82.
Martin, D. G., Garda, G. M. "Method of Self-evaluation
for Counselor Education." Piscussion Papers. Ark
ansas Rehabilitation Research and Training”"Uenter,
University of Arkansas, 1 (1969), 19.
McClain, E. W. "A Program for Increasing Counselor Self
Understanding." Counselor Education and Supervision.
8 (1969), 296-301.
Miller, N. L. "The Effects of Video Tape Procedures on
Counselor Trainees Responses." Dissertation Ab
stracts International. 35 (1971), 183-A.
Nielsen, G. "Studies in Self-confrontation: Viewing a
Sound Motion Picture of Self and Another Person in
a Stressful Dydactic Interaction." Journal of Ab
normal and Social Psychology. 65 (1962J, 75-&8.
117
Niland, T. M., Duling, I., Allen, V., Panther, E. "Stu
dent Counselors' Perceptions of Videotaping." Coun
selor Education and Supervision. 11(2) (1971)* 97-
101.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., and Tannenbaum, P. H. The
Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1957.
Patterson, C. H. "Comments on Client Satisfaction, Coun
selors, and the Counseling Process." Personnel and
Guidance Journal. 38 (1959), 25.
Patterson, C. H. "The Counseling Practicum: An Ethical
Issue." Counselor Education and Supervision. 7
(1968), 322-24. •
Pederson, M. G. "Accelerating Client Therapeutic Growth
via Videotape." Dissertation Abstracts International.
30 (1969), 2969A.
Poling, E. G. "Video Tape Recordings in Counseling Prac
ticum: I - Environmental Considerations." Counselor
Education and Supervision. 7 (1968), 348-55^ Ca)
Poling, E. G. "Video Tape Recordings in Counseling Prac
ticum: II - Environmental Considerations." Counselor
Education and Supervision. 8(1) (1968), 33-38. (b)
Quinn, G. N. "The Effects of Videotaped Model Reinforce
ment of Confrontation Techniques in Counseling."
Dissertation Abstracts International. 35 (1971),
Resnickoff, A., Kagan, N., Schauble, P. G. "Acceleration
of Psychotherapy through Stimulated Videotape Re
call." American Journal of Psychotherapy. 25(1)
(1970), 162-11.
Roberts, R., Renzoglia, G. "The Influence of Tape Recor
dings on Counseling." Journal of Counseling Psych
ology. 12 (1965), 10-15.
Robinson, Margaret B. Effects of Videotape Feedback ver
sus Discussion Session Feedback on Group Interaction,
Self Awareness and Behavioral Change among Group Psy
chotherapy. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Uni
versity of Southern California, 1968.
Rogers, A. H. "Videotape Feedback in Group Psychotherapy."
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5
(1968), 37-59.------------------------------
118
Rosenthal, 0. A. A Semantic Differential Investigation of
Critical Factors Related to Achievement and Under-
achievement of High School Students. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation. University of Southern
California, 1965.
Ryan, C. W. "Video Aids in Practicum Supervision." Coun
selor Education and Supervision. 8 (1969), 125-29.
Sharpiro, J. G. "Agreement between Channels of Communi
cation in Interviews." Journal of Consulting Psych
ology, 30 (1966), 232-36.
Stoller, F. H. "Group Psychotherapy on Television."
American Psychologist. 22 (1967), 158-62.
Tanney, M. F., Gelso, C. J. "Effect of Recording on Cli
ents." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19(4)
(1972), 349-50.
Truax, Charles B. "An Approach to Counselor Education."
Counselor Education & Supervision, 10(3) (1970), 198-
Truax, C. B., Carkhuff, R. R. Toward Effective Counseling;
Training and Practice. Chicago: Aldine Publishing
Company, 1967.
Walz, G. P., & Johnston, J. A. "Counselors Look at Them
selves on Videotape." Journal of Counseling Psych
ology, 10 (1963), 232-36:
Ward, R. G., Kagan, N., Krathwohl, D. R. "An Attempt to
Measure and Facilitate Counselor Effectiveness."
Counselor Education and Supervision. 11(4) (1972).
75-81.
Whitaker, D. S., and Lieberman, M. A. Psychotherapy and
Group Process. New York: Atherton Press, 1964.
Wolberg, L. R. The Technique of Psychotherapy. New York:
Atherton Press, 1964.
Yenawine, Gardner D., & Arbuckle, Dugald S. "Study of the
Use of Videotape and Audiotape: A Technique in Coun
selor Education." Journal of Counseling Psychology,
18 (1971), 1-6. -------------------

Asset Metadata

Creator Torrez, Mary Ellen (author)

Core Title Differential Effects Of Videotape Feedback On Counselor Trainee'S Self-Concept

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

School School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education, Guidance and Counseling

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

Tag Education, Guidance and Counseling,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format dissertations (aat)

Language English

Advisor Schrader, Don R. (committee chair), Carnes, Earl F. (committee member), Fox, Frank H. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-758862

Unique identifier UC11363559

Identifier 7400947.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-758862 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7400947

Dmrecord 758862

Document Type Dissertation

Format dissertations (aat)

Rights Torrez, Mary Ellen

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

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses