Assessing Comprehensive Developmental School CounselingPrograms’ Implementation of the ASCA National Model Eric Heidel, PhD John Breckner, MA Jeannine Studer, EdD Joel Diambra, EdD Tennessee Counseling Association 2012 Conference Nashville, TN
Purpose of StudyCreate valid & reliable instrument toassess •Tasks professional school counselors perform congruent with a comprehensive, developmental school counseling program.
Instrumentation The School Counselor National Model Activity Scale (SCNMAS) – Examines work activities &ASCA National Model Cross-sectional design 17 items – Derived from five primary aspects of the ASCA School Counselor Competencies • (delivery, foundation, accountability, and themes) School Counseling Program Component Scale (SCPCS) – Hatch & Chen-Hayes, 2008
Instrumentation The following questions relate to the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the school counseling program in the school in which you currently work. If you are assigned to more than one school, choose the school where do you spend the majority of your time to answer the following questions 1 = Not at all; 2 = to some extent; 3 = neutral; 4 = to a large extent; 5 = completely
Example QuestionsThe Delivery System (Model before the 2012 revision) The Delivery Component addresses how the program will be implemented. Indicate whether or not your program includes the following elements that are integral to the Delivery System. This component includes the following four questions. The Guidance Curriculum consists of structured lessons designed to achieve identified competencies. Individual Student Planning consists of activities designed to assist the student establish personal goals and developing future plans. Responsive Services consists of activities to meet students’ immediate needs such as counseling, consultation, referral or peer mediation. Systems Support consists of obtaining professional development, collaboration, and engaging in activities to maintain the program.
Methodology—Psychometrics Data cleaning – Expectation Maximization Demographics and survey response Reliability – Cronbach’s alpha Factor analysis Validity – Convergent and Concurrent
Methodology—Data Collection SCNMAS and SCPCS put into online survey application ASCA listserv of 31,000 email addresses Email explaining nature of the study and informed consent along with link sent to listserv Download data after 2nd set of emails
Results Gender – 13.9% male and 86.1% female Race – 79.5% Caucasian, 7.7% African-American, 5.9% Hispanic, 1.6% Asian, .9% Native American, 1.6% Other, 2.8% Prefer not to answer Professional Experience – 30.3% one year or less, 35.6% two to seven years, and 34.1% eight or more years
Results Cronbach’s alpha (α) = .92 Three factors accounting for 60.23% of the variance – Management – α = .87, 44.36% of the variance – Delivery – α = .84, 9.54% of the variance – Themes – α = .84, 6.33% of the variance
Results Convergent validity – r = .25 between SCNMAS and SCPCS, p < .001, r2 = .06 Concurrent validity – Based on experience level – Less experience (0-1 years) vs. Moderate experience (2-7 years) vs. Most experience (7+ years) – One-way ANOVA, Bonferroni correction
Results SCNMAS Composite, p < .001 – Less vs. moderate, p < .001 – Less vs. most, p < .001 – Moderate vs. most, p = .028 Less Moderate Most 60.52(14.2) 58.13(12.8) 58.56(12.8)
Results Management, p < .001 – Less vs. moderate, p < .001 – Less vs. most, p < .001 – Moderate vs. most, p = .95 Less Moderate Most 25.74(8.2) 23.38(7.4) 23.42(7.4)
Results Delivery, p = .05 – Less vs. moderate, p = .47 – Less vs. most, p = .14 – Moderate vs. most, p = .01 Less Moderate Most 18.82(4.4) 18.75(4.0) 19.13(4.1)
Results Delivery, p = .93 Less Moderate Most 15.95(3.2) 15.99(3.2) 16.01(3.3)
Limitations Only one question was written in the foundation component that included beliefs, philosophies, mission statement, and program competencies. – “The Foundation Component includes beliefs and philosophy, a mission statement, and program competencies. Indicate whether or not your program includes these elements.”1 = Not at all; 2 = to some extent; 3 = neutral; 4 = to a large extent; 5 = completely
Implications SCNMAS – Valid and reliable – Has ability to differentiate between experience levels – Does an adequate job of assessing types of school counselor performance within a CDSC program
ImplicationsPracticing Professional SchoolCounselors Use as an evaluative tool Use in adapting or adjusting program foci Share with stakeholders
ImplicationsEducators and Researchers Used for tracking graduate student activities Used to revise curricular offerings to address areas school counseling program is not addressing Revised SCNMAS to include multiple questions in the Foundations component
ImplicationsSchool Counselor Trainees Can use instrument to track activities in clinical experiences Can use instrument to inform supervisor about a CDSC program Can bridge gap between traditional and CDSC programs.