Implications for Policy and Practice

User Generated

zrfgref2

Humanities

Description

Please read the attached article (below). Provide a 500-800 (2-3 pages-double spaced-not including cover page) article response. In your article response, you should provide a brief summary of the article, explain why/how the article is relevant to the field of counseling/psychometric services, indicate what new awareness you gained from the article and how it can be applied to your current or future career. Also, indicate what you like as well as what you did not like about the article or what points could have been clearer for you. This work should reflect that you are a graduate student. Make sure that you follow the rules of grammar including but not limited to spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, transitions, syntax etc.

Paper should be written in 12-font Times New Roman, double-spaced (no spacing-this is the AaBbCc tab at the top right in Word Document-Home). You should have a cover page with the following: Name, Course Number and Title, Title of Assignment, and University Name (center this information on the cover page).

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Received 09/14/12 Revised 10/29/12 Accepted 11/09/12 DOI: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00134.x Assessment Use by Counselors in the United States: Implications for Policy and Practice Christina Hamme Peterson, Gabriel I. Lomas, Edward S. Neukrug, and Matthew W. Bonner Although assessment use is a professional activity recognized by every major counseling organization, little is known about which assessments are used in counseling. In this study, 926 respondents from a random national sample of counselors reported their use of personality, projective, career, intelligence/cognitive, educational/achievement, clinical/behavioral, and environmental/interpersonal tests. Test rankings by frequency of use and comparisons by type of counselor and type of test are reported. Implications for policy and practice are discussed. Keywords: assessment instruments, counselors, testing, measurement The appropriate administration and interpretation of assessment instruments in all realms of counseling has been highlighted in no less than 13 documents and standards (Association for Assessment and Research in Counseling, 2013). In fact, assessment is one of eight common core curricular areas mandated by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP; 2009); is one of the main content areas assessed by the National Counselor Exam (National Board for Certified Counselors [NBCC], 2012b); and is highlighted in all counseling-related codes of ethics, including those of the American Counseling Association (ACA; 2005) and NBCC (2012a). In their Standards for Qualifications of Test Users, ACA (2003) identified that competence in testing is acquired through education, training, and experience and that master’slevel counselors with course work in assessment are qualified to use objective measures. They further argued that, with additional specialized training, counselors can administer projective tests, intelligence tests, and clinical diagnostic tests. Such tests are sometimes called Level C or advanced (American Psychological Association [APA], 1954; Turner, DeMers, Fox, & Reed, 2001). This argument is consistent with the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association, APA, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999), which stipulates that qualifications for assessment use should stem from experience, training, and credentials and should be in compliance with the code of ethics of the individual’s professional organization. Accordingly, test publishers typically require verification of a potential test user’s level of education, training, and credentials. Such practices have largely been recognized by ACA as acceptable (Naugle, 2009) and relatively consistent with guidelines set by APA (Turner et al., 2001). Despite the aforementioned standards that suggest that counselors should be able to give and interpret a wide range of assessment instruments, there are significant roadblocks to assessment use by counselors (Naugle, 2009; Watson & Sheperis, 2010.) Psychologists generally have considered only their training as suitable for the administration of some types of tests (Society for Personality Assessment, 2006; Turner et al., 2001), and some state licensure boards have attempted to define competency as synonymous with psychology licensure (Association of Test Publishers, 2007; Watson & Sheperis, 2010). Multiple states, including Alaska, Nebraska, Tennessee, and California, do not allow counselors to administer intelligence tests, whereas additional states (e.g., Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Tennessee, and Texas) do not allow counselors to use projective tests (California Association for Licensed Professional Clinical Counselors, n.d.; Licensed Professional Counselor Act, 1999; Naugle, 2009). In fact, a survey of U.S. states and Canadian provinces found that 67% of states and provinces had restrictions on the administration of psychological testing by nonpsychologists (Dattilio, Tresco, & Siegel, 2007). Unfortunately, the establishment of competency and the right to use tests has also been hampered by counselors and counselor educators themselves. For instance, a random sample of 641 counselors and counselor educators rated CACREP’s common core curricular area of assessment as one of the least beneficial of all eight CACREP core standards (McGlothlin & Davis, 2004). In addition, counseling students have expressed dismay and fear about assessment courses (Davis, Chang, & McGlothlin, 2005; Wood & D’Agostino, 2010), whereas counselor educators have expressed a lack of desire to teach such courses (Davis et al., 2005). Similarly, researchers suggest that practicing counselors do not view assessment as Christina Hamme Peterson, Department of Graduate Education, Leadership and Counseling, Rider University; Gabriel I. Lomas, Department of Education and Educational Psychology, Western Connecticut State University; Edward S. Neukrug and Matthew W. Bonner, Department of Counseling and Human Services, Old Dominion University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christina Hamme Peterson, Department of Graduate Education, Leadership and Counseling, Rider University, 2083 Lawrenceville Road, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 (e-mail: cpeterson@rider.edu). © 2014 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved. 90 Journal of Counseling & Development ■ January 2014 ■ Volume 92 Assessment Use by Counselors in the United States a main focus of counseling and feel inadequate and poorly trained in this area (Ekstrom, Elmore, Schafer, Trotter, & Webster, 2004; Fischer & Chambers, 2003; Mellin, Hunt, & Nichols, 2011; Villalba, Latus, & Hamilton, 2005). Despite these expressions of ambivalence toward assessment, many counselors reported involvement with assessment (Hood, 2001). Surveys of school counselors found assessment usage, including interpretation and synthesis with other sources of data in counseling, occurring as often as three times a week (Blacher, Murray-Ward, & Uellendahl, 2005) and by as many as 91% of respondents (Ekstrom et al., 2004). In this era of data-driven reform, high assessment use by counselors is not surprising. School counselors are increasingly being called to analyze standardized test scores to find areas of need and respond with appropriate interventions to address these concerns (American School Counselor Association, 2012). School counselors are also often involved in child study teams where the need to understand and interpret educational and psychological tests is critical. In addition, clinical mental health counselors are increasingly being asked to provide evidence of positive treatment outcomes (Marotta & Watts, 2007). Evidence provided by sound psychometrically based instruments can demonstrate to funding agencies, insurance companies, and others the effectiveness of client treatment (Studer, Oberman, & Womack, 2006). Of course, the use of assessment by counselors to increase student and client self-awareness and for case conceptualization is equally important (Neukrug & Fawcett, 2010; Rudy & Levinson, 2008). There is some evidence that clinical hypotheses from client interviews may be subject to confirmation bias, given that counselors seek additional information to confirm their working hypothesis but do not actively seek alternative explanations (Owen, 2008; Strohmer & Shivy, 1994). Objective measures can be one mechanism of countering such bias. Although research to understand the types of assessment instruments used by psychologists in a variety of specialty areas has been conducted (Archer, Buffington-Vollum, Stredny, & Handel, 2006; Demaray, Schaefer, & Delong, 2003; Hogan, 2005; McCloskey & Athanasiou, 2000; Shapiro & Heick, 2004; Watkins, Campbell, Nieberding, & Hallmark, 1995), there is little parallel research for counselors. Evidence suggests that school counselors frequently use assessments (Blacher et al., 2005; Ekstrom et al., 2004); however, studies have not identified the specific tools they use. Furthermore, although Juhnke, Vace, Curtis, Coll, and Paredes (2003) investigated assessment instruments used by addictions counselors and Hogan and Rengert (2008) looked at instruments counselors use in research, no broad-based investigation of counselor use of assessment instruments has occurred. Thus, to inform counselors and counselor educators about counselor assessment use, this study sought to determine (a) which tests are used most frequently by counselors overall and within counseling specialty areas, (b) which test categories (e.g., Journal of Counseling & Development ■ January 2014 ■ personality, projective, career) are the most heavily used, and (c) how usage of the test categories and of tests overall differs by type of counselor (school, clinical mental health, and all other counselors combined). Method Survey Development To build the survey, we developed a list of 174 commercial standardized tests by systematically examining assessment instruments identified in four textbooks frequently used by counselor educators (i.e., Drummond & Jones, 2010; Erford, 2007; Hood & Johnson, 2007; Neukrug & Fawcett, 2010) and three articles that surveyed psychologists’ and addictions counselors’ use of assessment instruments (i.e., Hogan, 2005; Hogan & Rengert, 2008; Juhnke et al., 2003). To reduce the length of the survey and increase response rate (Edwards et al., 2002), we organized the survey into seven test categories: personality, projective, career, intelligence/cognitive, educational/achievement, clinical/behavioral, and environmental/ interpersonal. Excluded were tests of specific aptitudes (e.g., Mechanical Aptitude Test, Meier Art Test) because the list of these was extensive and would have rendered the survey too long. Within each category, assessment instruments were sorted according to the number of sources in which they appeared. Instruments that were mentioned in four or more sources were retained, and the remaining instruments were retained if any author indicated that they were of high importance or if at least two authors indicated that they were of moderate importance. This resulted in a final list of 98 assessment instruments, including 14 in personality, 10 in projective, 12 in career, 20 in intelligence/cognitive, 15 in educational/achievement, 22 in clinical/behavioral, and five in environmental/interpersonal (see Table 1). For each assessment instrument, respondents were asked to rate frequency of use on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (frequently), with use being defined as “in any capacity, ranging from administering the test to simply reviewing the results.” A demographic section preceded the list of assessments and included questions about respondents’ professional background (including education, population served, type of counseling practice, and number of years practicing) and personal characteristics (including gender, age, and race/ethnicity). Participants and Procedure The survey was sent via e-mail to a sample of 5,000 national certified counselors randomly selected by NBCC. The study and its purpose were briefly described in the e-mail, and respondents were asked to click a link to SurveyMonkey in order to read the informed consent form, submit the informed consent, and complete the survey. All procedures were approved by the appropriate institutional review board. Of the initial sample, 268 responses were returned as nondeliverVolume 92 91 Peterson, Lomas, Neukrug, & Bonner Table 1 All Tests With Pooled Mean Usage Frequencies, Percentage of Counselors Who Use the Test, and Rankings by Combined Sample and Different Types of Counselors CMHCs % Rank M OCs % Rank 3.17 2.20 1.86 1.32 1.37 1.62 1.80 1.85 2.46 73 52 39 15 18 29 33 32 54 1 5 9 48 42 20 13 10 2 2.48 3.18 3.14 2.04 1.96 2.63 1.81 1.61 1.92 60 78 73 39 39 57 34 27 39 4 1 2 6 7 3 13 20 10 38 19 5 17 13 2.28 1.83 1.45 1.26 1.56 48 35 22 13 22 3 11 36 59 22 1.86 1.95 1.61 2.26 1.76 33 40 25 46 30 11 9 20 5 16 18 44 24 35 33 12 26 23 24 20 11 35 28 27 41 6 24 16 13 52 27 28 30 38 58 15 20 17 1.93 1.38 1.89 1.55 1.52 2.22 1.74 1.76 1.73 1.31 1.87 1.25 1.47 1.45 43 18 38 26 23 42 31 30 31 16 35 13 21 20 6 41 7 23 26 4 15 14 16 51 8 61 30 36 1.86 1.58 1.63 1.68 1.55 1.49 1.57 1.54 1.44 1.96 1.54 1.47 1.47 1.35 41 24 31 34 25 20 28 22 18 39 23 22 23 16 11 23 19 18 25 30 24 26 39 7 26 33 33 51 1.94 1.35 1.91 1.33 1.54 1.18 1.38 1.31 1.39 1.23 1.26 1.26 1.08 1.56 38 21 37 18 24 11 18 16 21 13 15 12 6 25 10 41 12 44 26 65 37 46 36 56 50 50 89 23 1.21 1.64 1.15 1.63 1.46 1.83 1.54 1.50 1.22 1.45 1.29 1.51 1.71 1.16 11 29 9 30 21 33 26 23 11 24 15 26 28 10 64 18 82 19 31 11 24 28 63 36 57 27 17 79 1.37 1.52 1.43 1.51 1.47 1.44 1.49 1.60 1.78 1.70 1.77 1.49 1.45 1.47 18 25 22 24 19 21 23 26 35 37 34 26 20 25 46 28 41 29 33 39 30 22 14 17 15 30 38 33 1.47 1.45 1.48 1.47 1.29 1.12 1.40 1.58 1.22 1.19 1.16 1.24 1.43 1.17 1.24 1.62 1.28 22 23 22 20 15 7 20 24 12 12 9 12 21 9 15 25 15 30 33 29 30 48 72 35 22 57 63 69 54 34 68 54 21 49 1.35 1.31 1.31 1.26 1.42 1.57 1.19 1.21 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.17 1.49 1.36 1.12 1.20 17 14 16 12 20 24 11 11 20 23 21 20 10 20 19 7 11 44 51 51 59 40 21 72 64 31 31 31 31 75 29 43 86 71 1.29 15 59 1.34 17 55 1.30 16 58 1.36 17 49 1.35 16 51 1.37 17 46 1.47 20 33 1.26 15 65 1.36 18 49 1.38 19 45 1.39 20 44 1.28 15 61 1.35 18 51 1.29 12 59 1.31 20 57 1.17 10 83 1.41 20 42 (Continued on next page) Rank M SCs % Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.95 1.95 2.10 2.85 2.85 1.92 2.44 2.52 1.55 43 41 47 55 56 38 49 50 26 8 8 7 1 1 11 4 3 24 10 11 12 13 14 1.36 1.67 2.23 1.74 1.89 17 28 44 30 36 15 15 17 18 19 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 26 28 1.35 2.18 1.55 1.80 1.89 1.25 1.53 1.49 1.47 1.36 1.21 1.86 1.64 1.74 29 30 31 32 32 34 35 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 45 47 47 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 55 57 57 59 All Test Beck Depression Inventorya Myers–Briggs Type Indicator b Strong Interest Inventoryc ACTd SAT/PSATd Self-Directed Searchc Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Childrene Conners’ Rating Scalesa Beck Anxiety Inventorya Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventorya Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scalee Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilitiese O*NET System and Career Exploration Toolsc Wide Range Achievement Testd Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)b Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievementd House-Tree-Person Testf Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scalee Wechsler Individual Achievement Testd Mini-Mental State Examinationa Human Figure Drawingf Child Behavior Checklista Children’s Depression Inventorya Values Scalec Symptom Checklist a Stanford Achievement Testd Attention Deficit Disorders Evaluation Scalea Behavior Assessment System for Childrena Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/Iowa Test of Educational Developmentd Beck Scale for Suicide Ideationa Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Batteryc MMPI–Adolescentb Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligencee Trauma Symptom Checklista Draw-a-Man/Draw-a-Womanf Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Testa Career Occupational Preference Systemc Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaireb Campbell Interest and Skill Surveyc Thematic Apperception Testf Michigan Alcoholism Screening Testa Kuder Career Searchc Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligencee Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scalese Kaufman Assessment Battery for Childrene Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test e Kinetic Drawing System for Family and Schoolf Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventorya Peabody Picture Vocabulary Testd Cognitive Abilities Test e Sentence Completion Seriesf Eating Disorder Inventorya Personality Assessment Inventoryb Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blankf Basic Achievement Skills Inventoryd Parenting Stress Indexg Rorschach Inkblot Testf Otis–Lennon School Ability Teste Differential Aptitude Testsc 92 M Journal of Counseling & Development ■ January 2014 ■ Volume 92 Assessment Use by Counselors in the United States Table 1 (Continued) All Tests With Pooled Mean Usage Frequencies, Percentage of Counselors Who Use the Test, and Rankings by Combined Sample and Different Types of Counselors All Test Wechsler Memory Scalee Marital Satisfaction Inventoryg Parent-Child Relationship Inventoryg Slosson Intelligence Teste State–Trait Anxiety Inventorya Test of Nonverbal Intelligencee Millon Adolescent Personality Inventoryb Millon Index of Personality Stylesb Career Maturity Inventoryc Kaufman Test of Educational Achievementd Children’s Apperception Test f Quality of Life Inventorya Harrington–O’Shea Career Decision-Making Systemc Family Environment Scaleg Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventoryb Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scaleb Family Assessment Measureg Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventorya Metropolitan Achievement Testd Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Teste California Psychological Inventoryb NEO Personality Inventoryb Kindergarten Readiness Testd Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scalea Trail Making Teste Halstead–Reitan Neuropsychological Test Batterye Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessmenta Eysenck Personality Questionnaireb Raven’s Progressive Matricese Tennessee Self-Concept Scaleb NEO Five Factor Inventoryb Jackson Vocational Interest Surveyc KeyMathd Luria–Nebraska Neuropsychological Batterye Forer Structured Sentence Completion Testf Gesell Developmental Observationd Devereux Scales of Mental Disordersa Boston Process Approache Metropolitan Readiness Testd Rank M SCs % Rank 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 67 67 70 71 1.21 1.03 1.11 1.36 1.06 1.34 1.14 1.12 1.18 1.33 1.20 1.07 11 3 7 17 4 18 9 9 11 14 12 6 58 96 74 38 94 43 70 72 65 44 62 91 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 1.19 1.09 1.18 1.21 1.05 1.09 1.25 10 7 10 11 4 8 12 79 80 81 81 83 84 85 1.10 1.09 1.13 1.31 1.11 1.08 1.10 86 87 87 89 90 90 90 93 94 94 96 97 98 1.11 1.09 1.11 1.10 1.09 1.10 1.21 1.07 1.07 1.09 1.02 1.02 1.09 Rank 1.34 1.28 1.27 1.24 1.35 1.20 1.25 1.25 1.41 1.21 1.20 1.28 17 13 12 12 17 12 12 15 21 11 11 14 55 61 64 70 51 76 66 66 42 73 76 61 92 51 61 64 48 48 92 1.37 1.24 1.21 1.21 1.25 1.18 1.19 19 12 14 12 13 11 11 46 70 73 73 66 81 79 9 11 12 6 11 10 7 79 75 64 90 64 74 86 1.25 1.24 1.15 1.08 1.13 1.17 1.20 12 18 11 6 9 9 12 66 70 85 94 88 83 76 10 10 6 9 10 6 4 7 8 4 8 5 3 72 79 90 83 75 92 95 89 85 95 83 95 98 1.11 1.15 1.19 1.15 1.11 1.18 1.09 1.13 1.06 1.10 1.07 1.08 1.03 6 11 8 11 9 10 5 8 4 6 4 5 2 90 85 79 85 90 81 93 88 97 92 96 94 98 Rank 1.31 1.54 1.44 1.21 1.34 1.21 1.33 1.34 1.12 1.17 1.29 1.31 15 24 19 10 17 10 16 18 7 9 16 16 51 24 39 64 45 64 47 45 86 75 57 51 63 82 65 58 95 82 52 1.09 1.31 1.25 1.21 1.32 1.32 1.09 6 15 14 12 16 15 6 6 7 9 16 7 6 7 78 82 71 46 74 89 78 1.16 1.17 1.21 1.10 1.21 1.18 1.12 7 5 6 6 5 6 14 6 5 6 3 3 5 74 82 74 78 82 78 58 91 91 82 97 97 82 1.19 1.16 1.10 1.14 1.17 1.09 1.07 1.11 1.13 1.07 1.14 1.07 1.04 1.41 0.39 Mh SD OCs % CMHCs % M 1.42 0.34 M 1.46 0.38 Note. All = all counselors combined; SCs = school counselors; CMHCs = clinical mental health counselors; OCs = other counselors; O*NET = Occupational Information Network. a Clinical/behavioral test. bPersonality test. cCareer test. dEducational/achievement test. eIntelligence/cognitive test. fProjective test. g Environmental/interpersonal test. hDifferences are not significant, F(2, 923) = 0.49, p > .05. able and an additional 19 were returned by participants who indicated that they were no longer practicing, for a final sample of 4,713. Following Edwards et al.’s (2002) findings on increasing survey response rates, we sent three follow-up e-mails to the sample over a 6-week interval. A total of 926 usable responses were returned, for a response rate of 19.6%. Demographics of respondents are presented in Table 2. Of the respondents, 68.1% were clinical mental health counselors; 17.0% were school counselors; and 14.9% were Journal of Counseling & Development ■ January 2014 ■ college counselors, rehabilitation counselors, career counselors, family/marriage counselors, counselor educators, or other (nonspecified) counselors. Because of lower numbers of respondents, the last six categories were combined into a single counselor category called “other,” leaving three categories of counselors (school, clinical mental health, and other) for all subsequent analyses. As is consistent with the field, women were heavily represented at 79.4%, and 82.6% of the respondents had a master’s degree as their highest deVolume 92 93 Peterson, Lomas, Neukrug, & Bonner Table 2 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Variable Gender Men Women Race/ethnicitya Hispanic African American/Black Asian Native American Caucasian/White Highest degree attained Master’s Master’s and additional graduate credits EdS/CAS Doctorate Type of counselor School Clinical mental health College Rehabilitation Career Family/marriage Counselor educator Other (nonspecified) Type of population servedb Preschool children Elementary school children Middle school children Adolescents Adults Families n Valid % 190 732 20.6 79.4 34 73 6 10 795 3.7 8.0 0.7 1.1 86.6 380 376 41 118 41.5 41.1 4.5 12.9 157 631 51 14 14 11 7 41 17.0 68.1 5.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 0.8 4.4 47 212 206 389 618 223 5.1 22.9 22.2 42.0 66.7 24.1 Note. N = 926. EdS = education specialist; CAS = certificate of advanced study. a Percentages do not total 100 because of rounding. bResponses do not total 100 because respondents could select all that apply. gree obtained. Respondents’ age ranged from 24 to 80 years, with an average of 47.4 years (SD = 13.07); number of years practicing ranged from .05, indicating that, overall, the three types of counselors were using tests at about the same frequency. Pooled mean usage frequency by category of test for the entire sample is provided in Table 3. Results of a repeated measures ANOVA indicated that frequency of use differed across the categories and that these differences were statistically significant with a small effect, F(4.07, 3761.25) = 45.85, p < .006, h2 = .05. Descriptive statistics in Table 3 demonstrate that, for the overall sample, usage of clinical/ behavioral tests was highest and usage of environmental/ interpersonal, educational/achievement, and intelligence/ cognitive tests was lowest. Results of one-way ANOVAs comparing different types of counselors on mean frequency of use in each test category are also presented in Table 3. Results were statistically significant for all test categories except for projective and intelligence/cognitive tests, suggesting that usage of tests within most categories Table 3 Pooled Mean Frequency of Use of Each Test Category by Different Types of Counselors and for All Counselors Combined Test Category Personality Projective Career Intelligence/ cognitive Educational/ achievement Clinical/ behavioral Environmental/ interpersonal School Counselors M SE Clinical Mental Health Counselors M SE Other Counselors M SE Univariate F b M Diff c 1.23 1.30 1.50 0.39 0.54 0.60 1.40 1.48 1.28 0.56 0.75 0.51 1.45 1.38 1.82 0.49 0.66 0.78 8.95d 4.83 52.46d 1.46 0.57 1.31 0.57 1.35 0.62 4.41 1.70 0.65 1.23 0.49 1.42 0.59 49.49d MH < O < S 1.36 0.44 1.70 0.70 1.48 0.65 20.90d 1.09 0.34 1.42 0.83 1.27 0.74 12.85d h2 S < MH, O .02 MH < S < O .10 All Counselorsa M SE 1.38 1.43 1.40 0.53 0.70 0.61 1.34 0.57 .10 1.34 0.56 S, O < MH .04 1.61 0.67 S < MH, O .03 1.34 0.76 Note. S = school counselors; MH = clinical mental health counselors; O = other counselors. a Results of a repeated measures analysis of variance. Differences between categories for all counselors combined were statistically significant, F(4.07, 3761.25) = 45.85, p < .006, η 2 = .05. bdfbetween, dfwithin = (2, 923). cGames–Howell post hoc comparisons (p < .05). d Significant at p < .006. Journal of Counseling & Development ■ January 2014 ■ Volume 92 95 Peterson, Lomas, Neukrug, & Bonner differs by type of counselor. Post hoc comparisons suggest that clinical mental health counselors use clinical/behavioral tests at higher rates than do school and other counselors, school counselors use career and educational/achievement tests at higher rates than do clinical mental health counselors, and school counselors use personality tests at lower rates than do clinical mental health and other counselors. Although these differences were statistically significant, the effect sizes were small to moderate (h2 = .02–.10). This suggests that use of certain test categories may differ by type of counselor but that all counselors use tests in all categories to a degree. Discussion Despite the political and legislative opposition described by Dattilio et al. (2007) and Naugle (2009), results of this study demonstrate that counselors are using assessments in their practice, with some of the more frequently used tests being the BDI, MBTI, SII, ACT Assessment, SAT/PSAT, Self-Directed Search, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Conners’ Rating Scales, BAI, and Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (see Table 1). In addition, counselors are using assessment instruments in patterns that are appropriate given the nature of their practice. For example, school counselors use career and educational/achievement assessments more frequently than do clinical mental health counselors and clinical mental health counselors use clinical/behavioral assessments more frequently than do school and other counselors. Although the use of projective tests by counselors is prohibited in some states and generally requires additional training if counselors are to administer them ethically (Licensed Professional Counselor Act, 1999; Naugle, 2009), these instruments were found to be used more frequently than intelligence/ cognitive and environmental/interpersonal tests. The sparse use of environmental/interpersonal tools may be due to their more systemic nature. The Marital Satisfaction Inventory, for example, can be used only with couples and is not useful for single individuals. However, such low usage may also be due to a failure on the part of counselor educators to cover such assessment instruments in their courses. In fact, although all other types of assessments were covered in several of the counseling assessment textbooks we reviewed, environmental/ interpersonal tests were covered in only one (Erford, 2007). It is interesting that clinical mental health counselors identified a number of Level C or advanced instruments, such as projective tests, as among their most commonly used tests. For example, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale were ranked within their top 15 assessments. Such instruments are identified by test publishers as requiring course work and/or experience that are generally beyond what is offered at the master’s level. Clinical mental health counselors’ high rankings of these tools suggest that despite the restrictions, counselors are using them. Given that use in our survey was defined as “in any 96 capacity, ranging from administering the test to simply reviewing the results,” it is possible that these counselors are merely reviewing the results of tools administered by psychologists or more advanced-level practitioners. Alternatively, clinical mental health counselors may be actively seeking advanced course work and supervision to meet administration qualifications. Whatever the case, these findings suggest that there may be a need to prepare counselors for tools that in the past many counselors had not used. Although the highest ranked tools in this study were used by the majority of respondents, average frequency of test use across all test categories was low. In fact, counselors reported average use as falling between rarely and never (see Table 3). In today’s climate of accountability, the use of objective measures is a critical component of counseling work (Neukrug & Fawcett, 2010; Rudy & Levinson, 2008). Many instruments can be useful tools to identify client concerns, create treatment plans, and quantify progress. However, these low frequency ratings indicate that counselors are not heavy users of psychological tests. Lack of usage may impede counselors’ ability to collect evidence of effective practice, which may make it more difficult for them to advocate for funding to sustain or enhance their services (Studer, Oberman, & Womack, 2006). Possible explanations as to why counselors are not using assessment instruments more frequently include legislative restrictions and a lack of interest in assessment by counselors and counselor educators (e.g. McGlothlin & Davis, 2004; Naugle, 2009; Wood & D’Agostino, 2010). However, other explanations may also include a lack of awareness about available assessments, test costs, or a lack of training and relatively little guidance from CACREP regarding which tests should be covered (Neukrug, Peterson, Bonner, & Lomas, 2013). The behaviors in assessment administration may also feel fundamentally different from the interpersonal interaction and connection that may have drawn counselors to the field in the first place, resulting in a reticence to use tools that may be seen as causing distance between counselor and client. Although CACREP’s 2009 Standards suggest that students should know “basic concepts of standardized and nonstandardized testing and other assessment techniques, including norm-referenced and criterion-referenced assessment, environmental assessment, performance assessment, individual and group test and inventory methods, psychological testing, and behavioral observations” (p. 13), there is little guidance for university faculty regarding which specific tests should be taught and in how much depth. With many faculty having little or no interest in assessment (Davis et al., 2005), this lack of direction may leave faculty who do teach testing unclear about which assessment instruments should be highlighted. The present study offers a first step in providing counselor educators knowledge regarding which instruments are commonly used by practitioners and may suggest instruments that students should learn. In addition, counselor education programs may want to consider whether training in a wider Journal of Counseling & Development ■ January 2014 ■ Volume 92 Assessment Use by Counselors in the United States range of assessment instruments might benefit counselors, especially in terms of how counselors can enhance their work with clients and how assessment instruments can be used for accountability purposes and to advocate for future funding of services. Additional research should also investigate other explanations for limited assessment use among counselors. If lack of knowledge about the wide range of instruments available is one cause, this study offers currently practicing counselors a vehicle to identify tests that may be of help in their own work. Counselors could explore the utility of a variety of the heavily used instruments identified herein and, when necessary, consider additional training to increase their confidence and skills in competently and ethically using instruments. Counselors who are qualified to use assessments might advocate for assessment use through work with their state counseling associations to remove current barriers faced by counselors. Limitations of the study include the low response rates from counselors in specialty areas other than clinical mental health counseling and school counseling. Although our findings provide a general overview of tests used by counselors, it would be helpful to gain more information from additional counselor specialty areas (e.g., career counselors, addictions counselors, couple and marriage counselors, rehabilitation counselors), because assessment use may vary with the population served. Second, because of concerns about the survey length, our list of assessment instruments was not exhaustive and some assessment categories, such as tests of mechanical aptitude, were not represented. Additional research should explore use of other tools and assessment categories not included herein. Finally, findings from this study reveal which instruments counselors are using in their practice. However, it is likely to be of significant value to determine how counselors are using these instruments. For example, the cohort of school counselor respondents indicated that the Woodcock–Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities is the fifth most commonly used assessment in their practice. However, how school counselors use the instrument is not known. Future studies on the use of assessment instruments by all counselors might address how they use instruments in practice and may focus on specific test categories. References American Counseling Association. (2003). Standards for qualifications of test users. Alexandria, VA: Author. American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA code of ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. American Psychological Association. (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Washington, DC: Author. Journal of Counseling & Development ■ January 2014 ■ American School Counselor Association. (2012). The ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling programs (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author. Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., & Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 84–94. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_07 Association for Assessment and Research in Counseling. (2013). Resources. Retrieved from http://aarc-counseling.org/resources Association of Test Publishers. (2007, Summer). Restricted test list repealed in Indiana. Test Publisher, 14, 1. Blacher, J. H., Murray-Ward, M., & Uellendahl, G. E. (2005). School counselors and student assessment. Professional School Counseling, 8, 337–343. California Association for Licensed Professional Clinical Counselors. (n.d.). FAQ: Scope of practice for LPCCs. Retrieved from http://calpcc.org/scope-of-practice-for-lpccs Collins, L. M., Schafer, J. L., & Kam, C. M. (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing-data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6, 330–351. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.330 Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). 2009 CACREP accreditation manual and application. Alexandria, VA: Author. Dattilio, F. M., Tresco, K. E., & Siegel, A. (2007). An empirical survey on psychological testing and the use of the term psychological: Turf battles or clinical necessity? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 682–689. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.6.682 Davis, K. M., Chang, C. Y., & McGlothlin, J. M. (2005). Teaching assessment and appraisal: Humanistic strategies and activities for counselor educators. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 44, 94–101. doi:10.1002/j.2164-490X.2005.tb00059.x Demaray, M. K., Schaefer, K., & Delong, L. K. (2003). Attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A national survey of training and current assessment practices in the schools. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 583–597. doi:10.1002/pits.10129 Drummond, R. J., & Jones, K. D. (2010). Assessment procedures for counselors and helping professionals (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Edwards, P., Roberts, I., Clarke, M., Diguiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Wentz, R., & Kwan, I. (2002). Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: Systematic review. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 324, 1183–1185. doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1183 Ekstrom, R. B., Elmore, P. B., Schafer, W. D., Trotter, T. V., & Webster, B. (2004). A survey of assessment and evaluation activities of school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 8, 24–30. Erford, B. (2007). Assessment for counselors. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Fischer, J. M., & Chambers, E. (2003). Multicultural counseling ethics and assessment competencies: Directions for counselor education programs. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 34, 17–21. Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530 Volume 92 97 Peterson, Lomas, Neukrug, & Bonner Hogan, T. P. (2005). Widely used psychological tests. In G. P. Koocher, J. C. Norcross, & S. S. Hill (Eds.), Psychologists’ desk reference (2nd ed., pp. 101–104). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hogan, T. P., & Rengert, C. (2008). Test usage in published research and the practice of counseling: A comparative review. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 41, 51–56. Hood, A. B. (2001). Revitalizing the assessment course in the counseling curriculum. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED457429) Hood, A. B., & Johnson, R. W. (2007). Assessment in counseling: A guide to the use of psychological assessment procedures. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Juhnke, G. A., Vace, N. A., Curtis, R. C., Coll, K. M., & Paredes, D. M. (2003). Assessment instruments used by addictions counselors. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 23, 66–72. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1874.2003.tb00171.x Licensed Professional Counselor Act, Texas Stat. §§ 503-001-003 (1999). Marotta, S. A., & Watts, R. E. (2007). An introduction to the best practices section in the Journal of Counseling & Development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 491–503. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2007.tb00617.x McCloskey, D., & Athanasiou, M. S. (2000). Assessment and intervention practices with second-language learners among school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 209–225. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(200005)37:33.3.CO;2-R McGlothlin, J. M., & Davis, T. E. (2004). Perceived benefit of CACREP (2001) core curriculum standards. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43, 274–285. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2004.tb01852.x Mellin, E. A., Hunt, B., & Nichols, L. M. (2011). Counselor professional identity: Findings and implications for counseling and interprofessional collaboration. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 140–147. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00071.x National Board for Certified Counselors. (2012a). Code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.nbcc.org/assets/ethics/nbcccodeofethics.pdf National Board for Certified Counselors. (2012b). NBCC examinations. Retrieved from http://www.nbcc.org/Exams Naugle, K. A. (2009). Counseling and testing: What counselors need to know about state laws on assessment and testing. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 42, 31–45. doi:10.1177/0748175609333561 Neukrug, E. S., & Fawcett, R. C. (2010). Essentials of testing and assessment: A practical guide for counselors, social workers, and psychologists. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Neukrug, E., Peterson, C. H., Bonner, M., & Lomas, G. I. (2013). A national survey of assessment instruments taught by counselor educators. Counselor Education and Supervision, 52, 207–221. Owen, J. (2008). The nature of confirmatory strategies in the initial assessment process. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 30, 362–374. Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 581–592. doi:10.1093/biomet/63.3.581 98 Rudy, H. L., & Levinson, E. M. (2008). Best practices in the multidisciplinary assessment for emotional disturbances: A primer for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 494–504. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00537.x Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 3–15. doi:10.1191/096228099671525676 Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147 Schafer, J. L., & Olsen, M. K. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data problems: A data analyst’s perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 545–571. doi:10.1207/ s15327906mbr3304_5 Shapiro, E. S., & Heick, P. F. (2004). School psychologist assessment practices in the evaluation of students referred for social/ behavioral/emotional problems. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 551–561. doi:10.1002/pits.10176 Society for Personality Assessment. (2006). Standards for education and training in psychological assessment: Position of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 355–357. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8703_17 Sterner, W. R. (2011). What is missing in counseling research? Reporting missing data. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 56–62. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00060.x Strohmer, D. C., & Shivy, V. A. (1994). Bias in counselor hypothesis testing: Testing the robustness of counselor confirmatory bias. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 191–197. doi:0.1002/j.1556-6676.1994.tb01735.x Studer, J. R., Oberman, A. H., & Womack, R. H. (2006). Producing evidence to show counseling effectiveness in schools. Professional School Counseling, 9, 385–391. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson. Turner, S. M., DeMers, S. T., Fox, H. R., & Reed, G. M. (2001). APA’s guidelines for test user qualifications: An executive summary. American Psychologist, 56, 1099–1113. doi:10.1037/0003066X.56.12.1099 Villalba, J. A., Latus, M., & Hamilton, S. (2005). School counselors’ knowledge of functional behavioral assessments. Behavioral Disorders, 30, 449–455. Watkins, C. E., Campbell, V. L., Nieberding, R., & Hallmark, R. (1995). Contemporary practice of psychological assessment by clinical psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 54–60. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.26.1.54 Watson, J. C., & Sheperis, C. J. (2010). Counselors and the right to test: Working toward professional parity. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Wood, C., & D’Agostino, J. V. (2010). Assessment in counseling: A tool for social justice work. In M. J. Ratts, R. L. Toporek, & J. A. Lewis (Eds.), ACA Advocacy Competencies: A social justice framework for counselors (pp. 151–159). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Journal of Counseling & Development ■ January 2014 ■ Volume 92
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE

Implications for Policy and Practice
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation

1

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE

2

There is very little insight regarding the various assessment instruments which can be
used by counselors. Assessment has proved to be a crucial process in counseling, but there are
several codes of ethics that dictates how the process should be conducted. The ability of a
counselor to do an assessment is dependent on the level of education, the extent of training and
the acquired experience (Peterson et al. 90). According to the American Counselling
Association, counselor’s who have attained Master’s Degree are permitted to conduct the
assessment. Research shows that counselors have been using assessment instruments such as
projective tests in their practice. However, some states have placed very stringent laws which...


Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags