Psychology Journal, 2011 Vol. 8, No. I pp.

2-10

ISSN: 1931-5694 www.psychologicalpiihlishing.com 2011 Psychological Publishing

A Preliminary Factor Analytic Investigation of Beginning Counseling Students Worries

Karin Jordan*
The University of Akron

William E. Kelly
Robert Morris University *Karin Jordan: Department of Counseling: University of Akron: 302 Buchtel Common: Akron, OH 44325.
ABSTRACT - The puipose of the present investigation was to quantitatively examine the structure of Level 1 counselors' (beginning counseling students in their initial clinical practicum/intemship) wordes. Fifty-one Level 1 counselors completed the newly developed Beginning Practicum Common Worry Scale. The analyses in this preliminary study indicate that the worries of counseling students near the beginning of their supervised clinical training can quantitatively be classified in three worry categodes: (1) competence, (2) supervision, and (3) preparation.

was afraid that my client would not like me. What if I push too hard or not hard enough and they wouldn 7 come back? My supervisor might think that I am not ready to .see clients. I have so many questions, but I do not want to come across as incomptent. My peers took like they know what they do. I bet 1 am the only one that feels this way. Journal entry of a beginning-counseling student, 2004-

In recent years there has been an increasing interest in the development of the counselor (Bernard & Goodyear, 1998; Bernard & Goodyear, 2009; Borders, 1989; Fong, Bonders, Ethington, & Pitts, 1997; Hatcher & Lassiter, 2005; Jordan & Kelly, 2004; Manners, Durkin, & Nesdalc, 2004; Neufeldt, 1999; Skovholt & Ronnestad, 1992). Since the 1950s models of counselor development have been proliferated (Ard, 1973; Blocher, 1983; Chandler, Alexander, & Heaton, 2005; Fleming, 1953; Fdedman & Kaslow, 1986; Grater, 1985; Herroid, 1989; Hill, Charles & Reed, 1981; Hogan, 1964; Hess, 1987; Jablon, 1987; Manners et al., 2004; Sias & Lambie, 2008; Lambie, 2007; Littrell, LeeBordcn & Lorenz, 1979; Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982; Stoltenberg, 1981; Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987; Yogev, 1982). Researchers have provided some evidence of counselor development (Borders, 1989; Heppner & Rochlke, 1984; Hill, Charles, & Reed, 1981; Worthington, 1987), but not until Skovholt and Ronnestad (1992a) empidcal study with 100 counselors did a picture of counselor development over their professional lifespan emerge (Neufeldt, Iversen & Juntunen, 1995).

Psychology Journal, 2011, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 2-10

Out of the many counselor developmental models that exist today, for the purpose of this paper, focus is given to the Integrated Developmental Model (IDM) developed by Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987). The IDM was constructed out of the models and work of Hogan (1964), Stoltenberg (1981), and Loganhill et al (1982). According to the IDM, counselors move through three levels of development; (A) Level 1 counselors are believed to be self focused, generally having difficulty attending to their clients' needs. (B) Level 2 counselors generally over- accommodate the client(s), and over-assimilate, focusing pdmarily on their own perceptions, and (C) Level 3 counselors are able to balance accommodation and assimilation more effectively (Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987). Focusing speciflcally on Level 1 counselors, they are believed to lack self-awareness, theodes and skills, as a result of their limited experience (Stoltenberg, 1981). Despite their generally high level of motivation, they also tend to worry about their lack of knowledge, especially when the realization sets in that his/her actions are not inconsequential as they work with real clients with real hurt and suffering. They are alert to the fact that they no longer are practicing counseling skills in the safety of the classroom, but actually inctioning as beginning counselors, with many expectations and responsibilities placed upon them by themselves and by others (e.g. client[s], supervisor)" (Jordan & Kelly, 2004, p. 101). A classic developmental challenge that Level 1 counselors are faced with is the domain of worry (Jordan & Kelly, 2004; Pipes & Davenport, 1990). Given that it is commonly expedenced by beginning counselors, it is surpdsing that not more references are made to Level 1 counselor worries. Worry, according to Borkovac (1985), can best be defined as a process, rather than an event or state of being, dudng which a stream of negative and relative uncontrolled thoughts and images that take on a life of its own. According to one framework of worry, three core underlying beliefs are charactedstic of worry: (1) everything is potentially dangerous, (2) one should worry to find a solution to problems and (3) the individual is inadequate or helpless to solve problems (Kelly & Kelly, 2007; Kelly & Miller, 1999). Davey and Levy (1998) reported that worries are generally rooted in feelings of decreased secudty and self-esteem. Level 1 counselor generally report feeling insecure in their role of counselor and their selfefficacy in their ability to function as a counselor is generally low, as they try to juggle theodes, techniques, ethical and legal guidelines, as well as supervision (often on and off campus, and sometimes with different expectations and evaluations). Level 1 counselors' worries are based on several issues: reality (e.g. that they work with real clients with real issues), misinformation (e.g. of functioning already competently and knowledgably), lack of information (e.g. about what is expected of a Level 1 counselor), lack of skills (e.g. limited assessment skills, limited clinical skills), lack of knowledge (e.g. theoretical application, code of ethics, state statues) and personal needs (e.g. to be liked, to feel good about oneself) (Pipes & Davenport, 1990). Research has found that those who worry tend to believe worrying is important and beneficial when faced with a difficulty (Kelly & Kelly, 2007). Those who worry also tend to have a cognitive style that is perseverative about both worry and non-worry-related topics; that is, they continue worrying several iterations after those who worry less often have ceased their worry (Davey & Levy, 1998). Frequent worrying has been associated

PsychologyJaiiiml.20\\,\o].,No.

l.pp.2-10

with a decreased ability to maintain attention (Borkovec, Robinson, Pruzinsky & DePree, 1983), which could be problematic when in a counseling role. Research also indicates that worry can be triggered by neutrally (not ony negatively) valenced stimuli, especially for individuals with more severe wony (Reinecke, Becker, Hoyer, & Rinck, 2010). Given the persistent and distracting nature of worry, it is important that supervisors are aware of what Level 1 counselor worries are so that they can address them and help the Level 1 counselor to reach satisfactory conclusions and maintain focus on their clients. For the purpose of this paper. Level 1 counselors were identified as beginning counseling students in their initial clinical practicum/intemship. The goal of the present preliminary investigation was to quantitatively examine the structure of Level 1 counselor's worries, and build upon the study conducted by Jordan and Kelly (2004). The underlying premise for this investigation is that worries of Level 1 counselors can serve as a hindrance to growth, dsk-taking, and moving forward. They can also serve as reminders of the importance of following ethical and legal guidelines, and seeking supervisors' assistance (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009). It is important that supervisors (onand off-campus) be aware of these wordes so that they can be addressed early and be of assistance in problem solving and developing satisfactory solutions. Method Participants and Procedure After obtaining infomied consent, 51 graduate students (40 females, 11 males) enrolled in beginning practicum courses at a university in the Westem United States were administered a demographics survey and the instrument described below. The average age of the sample was 36.6 years {SD = 10.7), ranging from 24-60. The majodty of participants were White/Caucasian (44). Other ethnicities reported were Asian Amedcan (2) and "Other" (3). Two participants did not identify their ethnicities. Degrees sought by participants included general/agency counseling (29 participants), marriage and family therapy (17), and school counseling (5). Most participants (67%) reported having no previous clinical experience. Among those reporting previous clinical expedence, 22% reported less than one year of expedence, 4% reported expedence of 1-2 years, 2% reported 3-5 years expedence, and 2% reported 6-10 years. A fmal 4% of participants reported 11 or more years of experience. Instrument Items were developed based on the data collected by Jordan and Kelly (2004), who asked 23 graduate students (4 males, 19 females) enrolled in beginning counseling practicum courses to respond to the following stimulus question: "In the space provided below, please tell us things you worry about in your counseling practicum." Worry was not defmed and examples of worry were not provided. Participants in Jordan and Kelly's study reported a total of 109 womes. For development of the instrument for the current study, the statements of all reported worries provided in Jordan and Kelly's (2004) research were examined by the authors. Duplicated statements were omitted. Statements which were very similar, or exact, were rejected and only one examplar retained. Further, any ambiguous statements were either cladfied or omitted. This process resuhed in a fmal selection of 39 items (typically the

Ps>cAo/ogyycima/,20ll,Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 2-10

exact statements provided by participants in the previously described study), which were then ordered randomly. Participants were provided the following instructions: "Below are a series of worries that beginning counselors might have. Using the scale provided, please cirele the response that best describes how much you WORRY about eaeh ofthe following counselingrelated issues. There are no right or wrong answers." The scale provided was a Likert-type, with responses ranging from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 5 = "strongly agree." Table 1

Items Loading on the Three Retained Factors

Item

Loading

Factor 1 - "Competence" That I might not do the right thing for my client. About being able to form a good working relationship/alliance with clients. About being effective in helping my clients to do the work they need to do. That I will not know what to say or do in sessions. That 1 will be unethical due to my lack of knowledge. That I will not be effective with my clients. .67 .65 .78 .76 .67 .81

Factor 2 - "Supervision" That I might not get along with my supervisor. About whether the atmosphere at my practicum site will be welcoming. That my supervisor might not be very supportive. That I might not fit in at my practicum site. About not receiving enough supervision. .63 .87 .77 .94 .56

Factor 3 - "Preparation" That my clients will not like me. About writing case notes. That clients will terminate prematurely because I could not help them. About knowing enough about the different counseling theories. About whether I am being well prepared for practicing independently. .60 .76 .52 .51 .50

Psychology Journal. 2011, Vol. 8, No. I, pp. 2-10

Table 2 Internal Consistencies, Means, and Standard Deviations of Factors

SD

alpha

Total Scale Factor 1 (Competence) Factor 2 (Supervision) Factor 3 (Preparation)

44.51 17.14 12.53 14.84

10.57 5.12 4.31 4.30

.89 .89 .88 .81

Results To analyze the data, a pdncipal components factor analysis with a vadmax rotation was conducted. The analysis yielded 12 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 and accounting for 80.9% of the variance in responses. A scree test (Cattell, 1966) was used to determine the optimal number of factors to extract. The resuhant plot indicated that three factors contdbuted enough unique variance to be extracted meaningfully. Factor 1 accounted for 13.1% of the vadance. Factor 2 accounted for 10.9% of the vadance, and Factor 3 accounted for 7.9% of the variance. The scree plot is presented in Figure 1. In attempts to account for the small sample, a conservative factor loading criteda of at least .50 was used for selecting items for each of the three retained factors (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). Using this selection cdteda, 16 items were retained. Six items loaded on Factor I. These items referred pdmarily to worries about not being competent. Thus, we termed this factor "Competence." Factor 2 was represented by five items referring to worries about supervision and field placement. We, therefore, named this factor "Supervision." Factor 3 was more difficult to interpret. It included five items referring to concerns that clients would not perceive the student favorably and not being adequately prepared, presumably by their training program. We tenned this factor "Preparation" under the interpretation that perhaps worries that they would not be perceived favorably by clients in this factor was partially resultant from a lack of preparation in their training or their own mental preparation. Items loading on the three retained factors are presented in Table 1. Responses to the 16 retained items were then summed to produce a total scale score and separate scores for each of the three factors. Table 2 presents the internal consistency leliabihty (coefficient alpha), means, and standard deviations of the scale and its factors. As seen in the table, the total scale mean was slightly higher than the expected mid-point of scores (the expected mid-point would be 32 based on a possible score range of 16-80).

PsychologyJoumal.20\\,Vo\.S,Uo.

l.pp.2-10

Although slightly higher than expected, the distdbution of the total scale score was within normal limits (skewness = -.57). The coefficient alphas demonstrated generally good reliability, indicating consistent responses among items and that items were relatively homogenous, i.e., measuring the same construct (Anastasi, 1988). Figure 1 Scree Plot of Eigenvalues in Factor Analysis of Item Responses

Scree Plot

3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39

Component Number

Finally, the relationships between total worry scale scores and the demographic data collected in this study were analyzed. There was a significant difference between the sexes, with females (M= 46.4) scodng higher than males (A/= 37.6), t (49) = -2.51, p< .05. There were no significant differences in worry scores between students seeking different degrees, F (2, 48) = .08, p = 92. Pearson correlations, however, revealed a significant relationship between worry scores and age, r = -.33, p < .05, and worry scores and years of previous clinical expedence (dummy coded, i.e., no expedence = 0), r = .44, p < .01. Thus, males, older students, and those with previous clinical expedence reported less worry. Differences in worry scores were not analyzed by race due to the low number of non-White participants. Discussion The analyses in this study indicate that the worries of counseling students near the beginning of their supervised clinical training can quantitatively be classified into three

Psychology Journal, 2011, Vol. 8. No. 1, pp. 2-10

categories. Based on item content, we termed these worry categodes competence, supervision, and preparation. While this number of factors is fewer than the qualitatively dedved categodes dedved by Jordan and Kelly (2004), they are not inconsistent. The factors derived in this study reflect some of the more common categories of wordes described by Jordan and Kelly. Many of Jordan and Kelly's factors either collapsed in the present analysis into one factor (i.e., effectiveness and training issues) or were not statistically substantial enough to warrant inclusion. Indeed, several of the categodes derived by Jordan and Kelly included fewer than 5% of the total responses, percentages that perhaps are not sufficient for quantitative interpretation. This study, however, does not discount the qualitative results of Jordan and Kelly, but rather supplements it by extracting perhaps the most common, or most perceived important, wordes of counseling students. The final scale reported in this study can be used using a variety of methods. For instance, the scale itself has adequate psychometdc properties to either use the separate factors or use a total scale score. Researchers or supervisors wishing to specifically understand the worries of their students might wish to use the separate factors. However, those wishing only to determine the extent to which students worry might wish to use the total scale score. Practicum instioictors might find the scale usef\il to determine the needs of each class and provide additional emphasis on students' concerns. Researchers might find the scale useful in determining which supervision approaches and developmental levels of students are related to vadous worries. This study has several noteworthy limitations, which limit its generalizability. The pdmary limitation was that of a small sample size. While minor corrections were made in attempts to account for the small sample (i.e., using a higher factor loading in item selection), caution should be used when generalizing the results of this study to other populations. Despite the small sample, the relative strength of the extracted factors and internal consistencies of the scales provides some evidence that the data was able to yield some meaningful results. For instance, the scales were interpretable, had good factorial validity, and reliability. Nevertheless, future research with larger, more diverse samples is needed to replicate and extend these findings. References Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6"^ ed). New York: Macmillan Publishing. Ard, B.N. (1973). Providing clinical supervision for marriage counselors: A model for supervisor and supervisee. The Family Coordinator, 22, 91-97. Bernard, J.M. & Goodyear, R.K. (1998). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (2"'' ed.). Necdham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bernard, J.M. & Goodyear, R.K. (2009). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (4"" ed). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Blocher, D.H. (1983). Toward a cognitive developmental approach to counseling supervision. Counseling Psychologist, 11, 27- 34. Borders, L.D. (1989). Developmental cognitions of first practicum supervisees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 163-169. Borkovec, T.D. (1985). What's the use of worrying? Psychology Today, 19, 59-64. Borkovec, T.D., Robinson, E., Pruzinsky, T., & DePree, J.A. (1983). Preliminaiy

Psychology Journal, 2011, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 2-10

exploration of worry: Some charcatedstics and processes. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 21, 9-\6. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research. I, 245-276. Chandler, H. M., Alexander, C. N., & Heaton, D. P. (2005). The Transcendental Meditation Program and postconventional self-development: A 10-year longitudinal study. Journal of Sociai Behavior and Personahty, 17, 93-121. Davey, G.C.L. & Levy, S. (1998). Catastrophic worrying: Personal inadequacy and a perseverance iterative style as features of the catastrophizing process. Journal af Abnormal Psychology, 107, 576-586. Fleming, J. (1953). The role of supervision in psychiatric training. Bulietin of the Menninger Clinic, 17, 157-159. Fong, M.L., Bonders, L.D., Ethington, CA. & Pitts, J.H. (1997). Becoming a counselor: A longitudinal study of student cognitive development. Counselor Education and Supervision, 37, 100-114. Fdedman, D. & Kaslow, N.J. (1986). The development of professional identity in psychotherapists: Six stages in the supervision process. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.), Supervision and training: Models, dilemmas, and challenges (pp. 29-49). New York: Haworth. Grater, H.A. (1985). Stages in psychotherapy supervision: From therapy skills to skilled therapist. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 605-610. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hachter, R. L., & Lassiter, K. D. (2005). Report on practicum competencies. Retdeved September 1, 2005, from www.adptc.org/nublie files/CCTCPracticumCompetencies ChartRevFeb2005.doc Hcppner, P.P. & Rochlke, H.J. (1984). Differences among supervisees at different levels of training: Implications for a developmental model of supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 76-90. Herroid, D.J. (1989). A model of the process of becoming a masler counselor. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Minneapolies, MN: University of Minnesota. Hess, A.K. (1987). Psychotherapy supervision: Stages, Buber and the theory of relationship. Pra/e5ioa//'.s->'c/io/ogy.- Theory, Research and Practice, 18, 251-259. Hill, C.E., Chades D. & Reed, K.G. (1981). A longitudinal analysis of counseling skills dudng doctoral training in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 428-436. Hogan, R.A. (1964). Issues and approaches in supervision. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1, 139-141. Jablon, M. (1987). Psychotherapists' perceptions of their development and supervision. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, SECB, 4302. Jordan, K. & Kelly, W.E. (2004). Beginning Practicum Students' Worries: A Qualitative Investigation. Counseling and Clinical Psychology Journal. 1, 100-105. Kelly, W.E., & Kelly, K.E. (2007). A Tale of two shoulds: The relationship between worry, beliefs one should find a dght solution, and beliefs one should worry to solve prohlems. North American Journal af Psychology, 9, 103-110.

10

Psycholog]'Journal. 2011. Vol. 8. No. 1, pp. 2-10

Kelly, W. E., & Miller, M. J. (1999). A discussion of worry with suggestions for counselors. Counseling and Values, 44, 55-66. Lambie, G. W. (2005). Child abuse and neglect: A practical guide for professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 8,249-258. Lambie, G. W. (2007). The contribution of ego development level to burnout in school counselors: Implications for professional school counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 82-88. Littrell, J.M., Lee-Borden, N. & Lorenz, J. (1979). A developmental framework for counseling supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 19, 129-136. Loganbill, C, Hardy, E. & Delworth, U. (1982). Supervision: A conceptual model. The Counseling Psychologist, 10, 8-42. Manners, J., Durkin, K., & Nesdale, A. (2004).Promoting advanced ego development among aduhs. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 19-27. Neufeldt, S.A. (1999). Supervision strategies for the first practicum. (2"'' ed.). Alexandria, IL: American Counseling Association. Neufeldt, S.A., Iversen, J.N. & Juntunen, C.L. (1995). Supervision strategies for the first practicum. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Pipes, R.B. & Davenport, D.S. (1990). Introduction to psychotherapy; Common clinical wisdom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Reinecke, A., Becker, E.S., Hoyer, J., & Rinck, M. (2010). Generalized implicit fear associations in Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 27, 252-259. Sias, S. M., & Lambie, G. W. (2008). An integrative social-cognitive developmental model of supervision for substance abuse counselors-in-training. Journal of Teaching in the Addictions, 7, 51-1 A. Skovholt, T.M. & Ronnestad, M.H. (1992). The evolving professional self Stages and themes in therapist and counselor development. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Stoltenberg, C. (1981). Approaching supervision from a developmental perspective: The counselor complexity model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 59-65. Stoltenberg, C. & Delworth, U. (1987). Supervising counselors and therapists; A developmental approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass. Worthington, E.L. (1987). Changes in supervision as counselors and supervisors gain experience: A review. Professional Psychology; Research and Practice, 18, 189-208. Yogev, S. (1982). An eclectic model of supervision: A developmental sequence for beginning psychotherapy students. Professional Psychology, 13, 236-243.

Copyright of Psychology Journal is the property of Psychological Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.