• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Method
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 Appendices
 Biographical sketch






Title: Facilitative conditions and psychological type
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098310/00001
 Material Information
Title: Facilitative conditions and psychological type in intake interviews by professionals and paraprofessionals
Physical Description: vii, 92 leaves : ; 28cm.
Language: English
Creator: Galvin, Michael David, 1941-
Publication Date: 1975
Copyright Date: 1975
 Subjects
Subject: Typology (Psychology)   ( lcsh )
Personality assessment   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 70-73.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Michael David Galvin.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098310
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000164469
oclc - 02790315
notis - AAT0835

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 2 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page i-a
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
        Page v
    Abstract
        Page vi
        Page vii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Method
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Results
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
    Discussion
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
    References
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
    Appendices
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
    Biographical sketch
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
Full Text











FACILITATIVE CONDITIONS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE
IN INTAKE INTERVIEWS BY PROFESSIONALS AND PARAPROFESSIONALS



















By '"

MICHAEL DAVID GALVIN













A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1975











































UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
I 3 1 2 0 2 IIIIII84IIII29I1 291III291111111
3 1262 08552 8429













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude to those who lent their

support and assistance to this study. The chairperson of the

supervisory committee, Dr. Richard K. McGee, has been not only

teacher and advisor, but also counselor and friend. Martin Johnson

and Carl Wilson, researchers for Dr. McGee's Center for Crisis

Intervention Research, were of great help during the data

gathering phase of this study. To Dr. Mary H. McCaulley goes

credit for initiating and guiding my interest in the scientific

and clinical study of Jungian typology. Her laboratory, relying

heavily on Janet Allen's expertise, was invaluable in data.analysis.

Hy appreciation of Jung's work was broadened under the knowledgeable

direction of Dr. Marilyn Zweig. Drs. Harry Grater and Robert Ziller

also gave of their time and advice for which I am grateful. Finally,

thanks are due to my mother, Rose Galvin, for some typing and much

encouragement.










TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES . . . ... . . . . . .
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . .
II. METHOD . . . . . . . . .
III. RESULTS ... .... .. .. ... ... ....
IV. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . .. ..
APPENDICES


A. Release of Information . . . . .
B. A Scale for the Measurement of Empathic
Understanding . . . . . . . .
C. A Scale for the Measurement of Facilitative
Warmth . . . . . . . . .
D. A Scale for the Measurement of Facilitative
Genuineness . . . . . . . .
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . .


. . 74


1












LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. Subjects' Age by Group . . . . . . ... 20

2. Subjects' Sex by Group . . . . . . ... 20

3. Subjects' Marital Status by Group . . . ... 21

4. Subjects' Race by Group . . . . . .... 21

5. Subjects' Experience by Group . . . . .. 22

6. Ranges of Facilitative Conditions Scale . . .. .27

7. Comparison of Groups on Level of Em . . ... 28

8. Comparison of Groups on Level of Wm . . ... 28

9. Comparison of Groups on Level of Gn . . ... 29

10. Comparison of Groups on Level of Ttl . . ... 29

11. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Type Table for
Group I: Professional . . . . . .... 31

12. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Type Table for
Group II: Paraprofessional . . . . .... 32

13. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Type Table for
Total Sample . . . . . . . .... .33

14. Comparison of S & N on Em . . . . .... 34

15. Comparison of S & N on Ttl . . .. ..... 34

16. Distribution of the S & N Preferences . . ... 35

17. Comparison of T and F on Em . . . ... ... . 36

18. Comparison of T and F on Wm . . . . .... 37

19. Comparison of T and F on Ttl . . . . .... 37

20. Distribution of the T and F Preferences . ... .38










Table Page

21. Comparison of J & P on Em . . . . . . . 39

22. Comparison of J & P on Wmn . . . . . .... 39

23. Comparison of J & P on Ttl . . . . . . .. 39

24. Distribution of the J & P Preferences . . ... 40

25. Comparison of E & I on Em . . . . .... 41

26. Comparison of E & I on Gn . . . . .... 41

27. Distribution of the E & I Preferences . . ... 42

28. Pearson Correlations with Em . ... .. . . ... 43

29. Multiple Regression on Em . . . . . . . 44

30. Pearson Correlations with Em . . . . .... 44

31. Multiple Regression on Wm . . . . . ... 45

32. Pearson Correlations with Gn . . . . .... 45

33. Multiple Regression on Gn ... . . . .. ...... 46

34. Pearson Correlations with Ttl . . . . .... 47

35. Multiple Regression on Ttl . . . . . . 47












Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy




FACILITATIVE CONDITIONS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE
IN INTAKE INTERVIEWS BY PROFESSIONALS AND PARAPROFESSIONALS

By

Michael David Galvin

August, 1975

Chairman: Richard K. McGee
Major Department: Psychology

A sample of 21 professionals and 21 paraprofessionals was

compared on two sets of variables. The first was the Rogerian

facilitative conditions of empathic understanding, warmth, and

genuineness; the second was the Jungian bipolar dimensions of

psychological type: extraversion (E)-introversion (I), sensing(S)-

intuition (N), thinking (T)-feeling (F), and judgment (J)-percep-

tion (P). In addition, subjects on opposite ends of each of the

four dimensions were compared on the facilitative conditions.

The conditions were measured by ratings of tape recordings of the

initial five minutes of therapeutic intake interviews, and typo-

logical variables were measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

The professionals, from a metropolitan community mental health

center, saw clients face-to-face, while the paraprofessionals,

from a crisis intervention center in a smaller university city,










worked over the phone. Results of comparisons of the two groups

on the facilitative conditions were similar to those from the

majority of studies in the area--paraprofessionals generally

outperformed professionals. Paraprofessional scores on warmth,

genuineness, and total (a mean of the three conditions) were

significantly higher. Scores of both groups on empathic under-

standing were considerably lower than those for the other scales,.

with paraprofessional scores nonsignificantly higher. Although

many explanations for the lower levels of empathic understanding

scores were discussed, none was found satisfactory. It was pro-

posed, however, that had the scores been elevated, the difference

between groups would have been significant. Because of low reli-

abilities in ratings of genuineness, caution was advised in inter-

pretating results from that scale. No significant difference was

found in typological composition between the two groups. Subjects

of the E, N, F, and P preferences outnumbered those of the I, S,

T, and J preferences, in both groups and in the total sample, and

in fact 43% of subjects were of the ENFP psychological type. Of

the sample, 76% were of both the N and F preferences, and 95% were

intuitives. Finally, it was found that subjects from both sides

of each of the four typological dimensions performed similarly

on the facilitative conditions. Levels of facilitative conditions

and preferences in pyschological type in the sample were compared

to those found in other investigations,, and implications of the

findings for treatment were discussed.












CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Although the shortage of trained personnel in "mental

health" has long been recognized, and although the use of para-

professionals (nonprofessionals, lay therapists, volunteers) has

been advocated both as a solution to that problem (Joint Commission,

1961) and to the problem of a psychological gap between clinicians

and clients, it is only in the last few years that such personnel

have been employed in any numbers (Collins, 1971; Ewalt, 1967;

Grosser, Henry, & Kelly, 1969; Guerney, 1969; Sobey, 1970). With

this recent increase in the use of paraprofessionals--especially

in the area of suicide intervention (Heilig, Farberow, & Shneidman,

1968; McGee, 1974; McGee & Jennings, 1973)--research has followed

apace.

In one of the original studies with paraprofessionals, Rioch,

Elkes, Flint, Usdansky, Newman, and Silber (1963), in a two year

program, trained housewives specifically as "Mental Health Coun-

selors." Their training focused on practical psychotherapeutic

experience rather than theory, statistics, and the like. The

Counselors went on to employment in the field. Follow-up studies

(Golann, Breiter, & Magoon, 1966; Magoon & Golann, 1966) show

great satisfaction with these practitioners in their job settings.

Follow-up data are not available for the second group, trained


_ __ __









as counselors of parents of young children, but the physicians

with whom they worked were favorably impressed with the service

they rendered and expressed a desire for them to continue in the

child care clinics where they were placed (Rioch, 1967).

In another project typical of those involving training of

paraprofessionals, Holzberg (1963, 1967; Holzberg & Gewirtz,

1963) placed college students, with little training but with

weekly supervisory groups, in a mental hospital with the assign-

ment of visiting a selected group of patients. These "Companions"

were seen by supervisors, the hospital staff, and themselves as

valuable additions to the institution's therapeutic program. They

seemed, also, to gain in personal growth themselves from the

experience. Recent reports (Boylin, 1973) indicate that this pro-

gram has had continuing success into the present.

Paraprofessionals are also being used in many "higher" capa-

cities formerly thought to be the exclusive domain of the exten-

sively trained professional. licCaulley (1969) and her associates

selected, trained, and evaluated their "Psychological Assistants"

for activities to aid practicing clinical psychologists, such as

research, evaluation, and, at times, treatment. Their program con-

sisted of two years of didactic work combined with on-the-job

training in various hospital services. Impressions of staff,

participants themselves, and a team of outside evaluators were

that the Assistants competently performed many psychological

activities, thereby freeing staff for more specialized duties.


___










The therapeutic quality of these various types of nonpro-

fessionals has been demonstrated in a number of projects. A

review by Carkhuff (1968), investigating the Rogerian therapist-

offered conditions of empathy, warmth, and genuineness, yielded the

following conclusions about volunteer training programs:

There is extensive evidence to indicate
that lay persons can be trained to function
at minimally facilitative levels of condi-
tions related to constructive client change
over relatively short periods of time....
There is little evidence to indicate
that professional trainee products are being
trained to function effectively on any dimen-
sions related to constructive client change
over long periods of training....
Comparative statistics indicate the
greater effectiveness of lay and lower level
guidance training programs in eliciting con-
structive trainee change on those conditions
related to constructive client change... on
both identical and converted indexes, lay
trainees function at levels essentially as
high or higher (never lower), and engage
clients in counseling process movement at
levels as high or higher, than professional
trainees (p. 118).

The same author also reviewed studies of paraprofessional

therapeutic effectiveness using a wide variety of measures and

concluded:

It appears that lay persons can effect
significant constructive changes in the clients
whom they see. Extensive evidence indicates
that hospitalized neuropsychiatric patients...,
outpatient neuropsychiatric patients..., normals
situationally distressed or otherwise..., and
children..., demonstrate significant constructive
changes as a consequence of their contacts with
lay persons (p. 119). (Literature references omitted.)










Other reviews of studies using the variables of empathy,

warmth, and genuineness (Berenson & Carkhuff, 1967; Knickerbocker,

1972; and Truax & Carkhuff, 1967) yield similar conclusions.

The growing impression that nonprofessionals might be func-

tioning therapeutically as well as or better than their profes-

sional counterparts was substantiated by Durlak (1973) who writes:

There are 14 studies that have used
various experimental procedures to compare
directly the therapeutic effectiveness of
nonprofessional and professional personnel.
In seven of the 14 studies, lay therapists had
achieved significantly better therapeutic
results than professionals; in the other
seven studies, results for the two groups
were similar. In no study h'aE lay personnel
been found to be significantly inferior to pro-
fessional workers (pp. 301-302). (Author's italics.)

In addition, in a recent study, Biggerstaff, Bigelow, and

Lin (undated) indicate that, although roles do differ between

professional and paraprofessional therapists, the role differences

between them are in areas other than psychotherapy. So while it

seems both groups are, indeed, "doing therapy," the assumption

that professionals are superior to nonprofessionals in that func-

tion is no longer tenable, and, indeed, the contrary is indicated

in many cases (Knickerbocker, 1972; Knickerbocker & McGee, 1973).

This study set as one of its goals, therefore, to further

investigate the question of the relative clinical effectiveness

of professional and paraprofessional psychotherapists under well-

defined, but naturally occurring conditions, using as dependent


_____









variables the well established therapist-offered conditions or

facilitative conditions. These are the three relationship

variables: empathy, warmth, and genuineness. Stemming from

Rogers' (1957) system of therapy, these "process" variables are

among the most researched in psychotherapy.

The evidence in a growing number of studies (Carkhuff, 1968;

Luborsky, Auerback, Chandler, Cohen, & Bachrach, 1971; Truax &

Carkhuff, 1967) strongly indicates that therapists who exhibit

more of the facilitative conditions are significantly more helpful

in terms of client growth while those who provide low levels of

those conditions are actually harmful. While there is some objec-

tion to so optimistic an interpretation of the evidence (Meltzoff

& Kornreich, 1970), the strong relationship between the facili-

tative conditions and a great number of outcome criteria (e.g.,

therapist and client rating scales, therapist and client subjective

reports, psychological test data) suggests that the conditions are

indeed valid indices of therapist functioning, and they were

therefore selected for use in the present study.

In an overview of the program and personnel of a telephone

crisis service, McGee, Knickerbocker, Fowler, Jennings, Ansel,

Zelenka and Marcus (1972) present a methodology for evaluation of

the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in that program which is

easily adaptable to other similar services. Two of the instru-

ments which have been developed are the Technical Effectiveness










(TE) and Clinical Effectiveness (CE) Scales. The former is appli-

cable specifically to telephone suicide prevention and crisis in-

tervention. Showing interrater reliabilities of .90 to .99, it

is a measure of the extent to which a volunteer performs certain

tasks judged essential to the opening of a new case. These include

nine items such as "Can the caller be immediately recontacted?",

"Was it determined whether or not this is a suicide case?", and

"Did the volunteer develop a structured plan of action or help the

caller develop one?" (Fowler & McGee, 1973).

The CE Scale is composed of the scales developed from

Rogers' work by Truax and Carkhuff (1967) and refined by Lister

(1970) and measures the facilitative conditions. While TE is

believed to be one of the necessary conditions of good crisis

therapy, CE has been proposed as necessary and sufficient for

good psychotherapy in general (Rogers, 1957). This assertion

would be disputed by practitioners of other persuasions, but

the studies by Truax and Carkhuff (1967) and Carkhuff (1968)

cited above support the claim.

The Lister scales show interrater reliabilities of .82,

.83, and .82 on empathy, warmth, and genuineness, respectively.

They have been used in a variety of studies, and since they are

more differentiated than the Truax and Carkhuff scales and

therefore more readily teachable, they were selected for meas-

uring facilitative conditions in the present study.









Empathic understanding corresponds to what Rogers (1957)

calls empathy and what Truax and Carkhuff (1967) call accurate

empathy; facilitative warmth to what Rogers (1957) calls uncon-

ditional positive regard, Truax and Carkhuff (1967) call nonpos-

sessive warmth, and Carkhuff (1968) calls respect; and facili-

tative genuineness to Rogers' (1957) congruence or genuineness

and Truax and Carkhuff's (1967) genuineness.

According to Lister, in empathic understanding (Em),

The counselor accurately communicates
his perceptions of the client's own unique
view of the world. The counselor takes an
internal frame of reference and through per-
ceptual inference assists the client to con-
ceptualize more sharply the feelings or per-
sonal meanings which are unclearly defined
(1970a, p. 1).

In facilitative warmth (Wm),

The counselor communicates that he prizes
the client as a likable, worthwhile human being.
The counselor's "warmth" is expressed without
reservation or condition, i.e., it is free or
"unearned" by the client, and is expressed in-
dependent of the client's progress, growth, good
behavior or attitudes. In short, the counselor
communicates implicitly or explicitly: "I like
yu--periodt" (1970b, p. 1).

In facilitative genuineness (Gn),

The counselor is genuine, authentic, and
personally non-defensive in his relationship
with the client. He speaks openly rather than
defensively, spontaneously rather than cautious-
ly or deliberately. The counselor relates as
himself rather than as the embodiment of a pro-
fessional role stereotype (1970c, p.1).


_ __ _~___ ___ __._._









Since research cited above indicates that paraprofessionals

often surpass professionals in therapeutic effectiveness as meas-

ured by the facilitative conditions,1 the following hypotheses are

proposed:

Ha : Paraprofessionals will receive significantly higher

ratings than professionals in Em.

Hb : Paraprofessionals will receive significantly higher

ratings than professionals in Wm.

H1c Paraprofessionals will receive significantly higher

ratings than professionals in Gn.

Hid : Paraprofessionals will receive significantly higher

ratings than professionals in Total conditions (Ttl).

In addition to the investigation of facilitative conditions

in the two groups, this study also concerned itself with discovering

the relationships (if any) between the facilitative conditions

and therapist personality characteristics, and between experimental

group membership and therapist personality characteristics.

The search for personality characteristics of the effective

psychotherapist has met with few successes. In a review of over

a dozen studies of therapist personality and outcome, in which

they covered many variables such as self-confidence, passivity,

expressiveness, and hostility, Meltzoff and Kornreich (1970)


IFacilitative conditions are defined for this study.as Em,
Wm, Gn, and Ttl. Ttl is equal to Em+in+Gn.
3









concluded, "We know little about the personality of successful

therapists" (p. 309). Similar findings are reported in the

equally comprehensive review by Luborsky et al. (1971) who found

few therapist attributes related to outcome, and of these only

three could be considered personality characteristics: empathy

(which was potentiated when combined with warmth and genuineness),

attitude and interest patterns ("A-B" therapist differences), and

similarity to client. Higher similarity according to such measures

as the Rorschach, Kelly!s Role Construct Repertory Test, and the

Strong Vocational-Interest Blank were reported to be related to

better outcome.

One personality framework of long standing which has been

little researched in the area of psychotherapy, but which has face

validity for application to that phenomenon, is the theory of

Psychological Types developed by Jung (1923). Two instruments

have been developed to make possible tests of Jung's theory,

the Gray-Wheelwright Psychological Type Questionnaire (Gray &

Wheelwright, 1945, 1946) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI) 0lyers, 1962). The latter was chosen for this study

because of its greater psychometric sophistication and research.

The 1BTI indicates preferences for modes of perception and

judgment which, although often mentioned informally as charac-

teristics of effective therapists, have been little investigated.

These will be discussed and hypotheses generated about them after

a description of Jungian typological theory.









The MBTI was created to implement Jung's theory that many

differences in human behavior which appear random are "actually

quite orderly and consistent, being due to certain basic differ-

ences people prefer to use perception and judgment" 04yers, 1962,

p. 1). "Perception" is defined as the way of "becoming aware of

things, people, occurrences, or ideas." The two kinds of percep-

tion are sensing and intuition. "Judgment" refers to the process

of coming to conclusions about that which is perceived. Thinking

and feeling are the two kinds of judgment.

. In addition, the MBTI indicates a preference for the extra-

verted or the introverted attitude--in the Jungian sense of

orientation toward outer or inner worlds. A fourth scale, judging-

perception, indicates whether the subject prefers the judging

(thinking or feeling) or perceptive (sensing or intuition)

attitude in dealing with the outer world.

Although everyone exercises both of the complementary

functions in each dimension to some degree, the theory states

that there is a preference-probably inborn-for one or the

other process on each dimension.

A preference for extraversion (E) reflects an orientation

primarily to the outer world of people and things, resulting in

action-mindedness and sociability, while introversion (I) reflects

an orientation primarily to the inner world of concepts and ideas,

resulting in a faculty for concentrating, an attitude of intro-

spective reserve, and a reliance on subjective values.










The sensing (S) mode of perception involves becoming aware

of the world directly through the "five senses," while its

opposite, intuition (N), relies on the indirect mode of percep-

tion by way of unconscious interpretations and associations to

outside stimuli. The sensing person will tend to be realistic,

observant, practical, fun-loving, and good at remembering and

working with facts, while the intuitive person tends to be imag-

inative, creative, and good at seeing-implicit meanings and

relationships.

The thinking (T) mode of judgment involves decision by

means of an impersonal analysis whose goal is objective truth,

while feeling (F) depends on a personal subjective attractiveness

of alternatives. People with a preference for thinking are more

logical and business-like, while those with preference for feeling

tend to have greater interest in and expertise with people, ideals,

and emotional relationships.

Finally, the preference on the judging (J) versus perceiving

(P) dimension reflects whether a person relies primarily on

judging (T or F) or perceiving (S or N) process in his dealings

with the outer world, i.e., in the extraverted part of his life.

The judging person tends to be more decisive, orderly and system-

atic, while the perceptive one is spontaneous, curious, and open-

minded.

Some of the above variables, indicated by the MBTI, have face

validity for application to the field of psychotherapy, and there is









a small body of research to suggest they might be attributes of

successful therapists.

Intuition is cited as a valuable characteristic of psycho-

therapists in many discussions (Berne, 1966; Bugental, 1965;

Collins, 1971; Jung, 1972; Reich, 1949). It can be seen that such

a facility in unconsciously perceiving and processing minimal cues

(somatic communications, language nuances, etc.) and continually

formulating and testing hypotheses about them would be of value to

the therapist. The following hypotheses are therefore proposed:

H2a: Intuitives will score significantly higher than sensing

subjects on Em.

H2b: Intuitives will score significantly higher than sensing

subjects on Ttl.

It would be expected that persons comfortable with the

intuitive process would be attracted to therapy and "helping"

activities. The following is therefore hypothesized in spite of

the fact that sensing persons outnumber intuitives in the gen-

eral population:

H3a: Intuitives will outnumber sensing subjects in the

professional group.

H3b: Intuitives will outnumber sensing subjects in the

paraprofessional group.

Since feeling with its concern for values typically leads

to an "interest in people," it would seem more germaine to








13

therapy than "impersonal" thinking. Indeed, type tables2 show

the tendency of psychotherapists to fall in the 1F category.

The following hypotheses are therefore proposed:

H4a: Feeling subjects will score significantly higher

than sensing subjects on Em.

H4b: Feeling subjects will score significantly higher

than sensing subjects on Wm.

H4c: Feeling subjects will score significantly higher than
c
sensing subjects on Ttl.

It would also be expected that the more "personal" feeling

person would be attracted to such work with people as psycho-

therapy, and it is therefore hypothesized as follows:

H5 : Feeling subjects will outnumber thinking subjects

in the professional group.

H5b: Feeling subjects will outnumber thinking subjects

in the paraprofessional group.

Of course, the attributes of sensing and thinking (the comple-

ments of intuiting and feeling) also have their places at times

in therapy where, for example, the client needs an improved

orientation to practical reality (S) or to learn how to consider

the logical outcome of the course he is following (T). These

therapist behaviors are especially relevant in crisis inter-

vention where the therapeutic goal is for the client to gain

cognitive mastery over the reality of his problem.

ZUnpublished studies of psychotherapists, clinical psy--
chology graduate students, and a community mental health clinic
performed by Mary H. McCaulley and the author at the Univer-
sity of Florida Typology Laboratory.










The situation with judging-perceiving and extraversion-

introversion is less clear. As there is almost no literature

in the area, hypotheses are generated solely from the following

"armchair" reasoning dealing with the definitions of the

variables.

Although there are instances where the therapist must, as

an expert in human relations, become "judging" or decisive and

guide the client in a rather directive manner, the accepting

perceptive attitude seems important in all therapies. It would

seem that the perceptive orientation, which facilitates an

openness to experiencing the other's phenomenological world,

a non-critical acceptance of the other, and a willingness to

experience one's own being honestly, is more basic to the faci-

litative conditions than the evaluative and decision-making

judging orientation. The following hypotheses are therefore

proposed:

H6a: Perceptive subjects will score significantly higher

than judging subjects on Em.

H6b: Perceptive subjects will score significantly higher

than judging subjects on Wm.

H6c: Perceptive subjects will score significantly higher

than judging subjects on Ttl.

Again, since the perceptive orientation is hypothesized to

increase facility in therapy, it would seem that more percep-

tive types would be attracted to therapeutic endeavors than










would those with a preference for judging. The following is

therefore hypothesized:

H7a: Perceptive subjects will outnumber judging subjects in

the professional group.

H7b: Perceptive subjects will outnumber judging subjects in

the paraprofessional group.

STheoretically, it would seem that the introverted therapist

could be more in touch with the psychological world, while his

extraverted counterpart would more effectively communicate his

understandings of the .client. .In .theory, the introvert pos-

sesses more facility in understanding the inner world, and the

extravert is more likely to be attuned to people and events

outside himself (presumably .including .a client),.- Extraverts

alao possess more of a tendency to be open, disclosing thoughts

and feeling as they go along. The following hypotheses are

therefore proposed:

Hga: Introverts will score significantly higher than

extraverts on Em.

H8b: Extraverts will score significantly higher than

introverts on Gn.

Since extraverts outnumber introverts in the general popu-

lation, the following is hypothesized:

Hga: Extraverts will outnumber introverts in.the profes-
sional group.










Hqb: Extraverts will outnumber introverts in the parapro-

fessional group.

The hypotheses concerning typological makeup of the profes-

sional and paraprofessional groups are based on both theory and

data from other samples and are proposed with highest confidence.

The hypotheses relating type preferences to empathy, warmth,

and genuineness are based on theory only and are thus proposed

less confidently. Confidence levels become progessively lower

on the hypotheses that N and F subjects will score higher than

S and T ones on certain of the facilitative conditions; that

paraprofessionals will score higher than professionals on all

the facilitative conditions; and that P subjects will score

higher than J ones on certain of the facilitative conditions.

The following is accordingly proposed to test whether experi-

mental group membership or type contributes more to higher

functioning on the facilitative conditions. It is hypothesized

that type and group variables will rank as follows in contri-

bution to the facilitative conditions:

Hl0a: Em will correlate in decreasing order with N, F,

Paraprofessional, P, and I.

Hl0b: Wm will correlate in decreasing order with F, Para-

professional, and P.

Hl0c: Gn will correlate in decreasing order with Parapro-

fessional and E.

HlOd: Ttl will correlate in decreasing order with N, F,

Paraprofessional, and P.













CHAPTER II

METHOD

Subjects

An objection to many studies of psychotherapist functioning

is that they use students, residents, or neophyte practionners

as subjects, thereby limiting generalizability of results and

perhaps giving a biased view of the process of therapy as it

occurs in practice. The subjects in this project were, however,

persons involved in the day-to-day delivery of services on the

two levels examined.

The professional group (Group I) was composed of psychiatric

social workers (N=8), psychiatric nurses (N=5), psychologists

(N=6), and psychiatrists (N=2) working in the decentralized out-

patient clinics of the Comprehensive Community Mental Health

Center of Denver General Hospital. This group of twenty-one is

comprised of established clinicians, functioning daily as psycho-

therapists. They do intakes, and run individual, couples,

family, and group therapy. They consult to various agencies

and groups and are involved in educational efforts with both

the general public and their own staff. In addition, some mem-

bers of all disciplines are involved in part-time private practice.

Paraprofessional subjects (Group II) chosen were twenty-one

of the Clinical Associates of the Suicide and Crisis Intervention









Service (SCIS) of Gainesville, Florida (McGee, 1974). This

group provides a sample typical of centers in operation in

university communities. Specifically, there were four under-

graduates, three housewives, three graduate students in psycho-

logy, two graduates students in couselor education, a professor

of pathology, a professor of marketing, a clerk, a teacher, a

mortgage broker, a social worker, a sales clerk, a minister, the

personnel director of SCIS, an occupational therapist, a labora-

tory technician, and a tavern owner. This totals more than

twenty-one as persons in some occupations were also undergraduates.

It can be seen that some of the subjects in this group are profes-

sionals in training or professionals in occupations somewhat

similar to psychotherapy.

These volunteer telephone therapists receive, after a screen-

ing procedure, approximately twenty hours of theoretical and

practical training before being placed on a weekly (or more

frequent) three-hour duty shift. They also participate in an

on-going in-service training program. The telephone calls

handled by these paraprofessionals are from persons in all

manner of crises. The volunteers establish communication with

the caller, obtain necessary identifying information, identify

problem areas, formulate action plans, and generally offer

understanding, hope, and support. As a large number of mental

health paraprofessionals are involved in telephone therapy,

this group provides good representation for paraprofessionals

currently functioning in the delivery of mental health services.










The two agencies investigated in this study provide excel-

lent examples of settings in which the two classes of therapists

currently function. The Denver General Center provides the

five services required of a comprehensive center (in- and out-

patient therapy, partial hospitalization, twenty-four-hour

emergency service, and consultation and education). These

efforts are supported by specialty teams in such areas as school-

age children's-services and court consultation. The Gainesville

.Florida SCIS, which began operation in 1969, is directed by

:professionals in the field of community psychology and suici-

Sdology. It is well integrated into the community human services

Network, and includes as an adjunct to the twenty-four-hour

:.telephone service, a twenty-four-hour outreach team which travels

to persons:in extreme crisis to provide on-the-spot help (1cGee,

1974; Richard & McGee, 1973). Volunteers are eligible to serve

ton the outreach team after a period of experience and demon-

istrated competence.

-Subjects were matched as closely as possible on the variable

.of.age, sex, marital status, and race. Data for.these parameters

:are shown in Tables 1 through 4.










Table 1

Subjects' Age by Group



Group Mean Age SD t p


I 35.14 8.99 1.20 n.s.

II 32.14 7.01



Note. Two-tailed tests are used in this section as groups were
hypothesized to be similar in these variables.



Table 2

Subjects' Sex by Group




Group M F 0 X2 p


I 9 12 0.00 0.0 n.s.

II 9 12



No chi square was computed for the race comparison as too few

Blacks were included in the sample. This is representative of

the situation in practice where Blacks are found in neither

professional nor volunteer work in the same proportions as in

the general population. Lower educational opportunities and less

leisure time probably account for this difference.










Table 3

Subjects' Marital Status by Group


Group Single Married 0 X2 p


I 8 13 .15 .94 n.s.

II 5 16





Table 4

Subjects' Race by Group




Group White Black


I 20 1

II 21 0



It was not expected that it would be possible to match groups

in experience level and this was indeed the case as can be seen

on Table 5.

This, however, might be expected in a study of this type, for,

whereas professionals have been trained and begun practice in










Table 5

Subjects' Experience by Group


Group Mean Months SD t p


I 58.57 38.14 3.58 < .001

II 7.14 3.60



ever-increasing numbers for many decades, programs for recruit-

ment, training, and utilization of paraprofessionals are rela-

tively recent. In addition, paraprofessionals remain active in

the field for shorter periods of time than do professionals.

Procedure and Instruments

To measure levels of the facilitative conditions, tape re-

cordings, edited to insure anonymity, were made of subjects

in both groups. For the professional group, recordings of

adult intake interviews were collected. These were defined

as the client's first contact with the neighborhood clinic

where the interview was conducted. The definition excluded

"reintakes" which were classified by the Center as intakes, but

were actually reopenings of previous cases. After being

notified that recordings were being made as part. of a research

program, clients were asked to sign a release of information

(Appendix A) which was filed in the case folder.










For the paraprofessional group, recordings were collected

of initial telephone calls to the crisis center by adult

clients--again, the first contact by the caller with the

service. All incoming calls to the crisis lines at the SCIS are

recorded by automatic equipment and all initial client calls

are collected on master tapes. These tapes comprise the raw data

for this and other studies conducted by the Center for Crisis

Intervention Research (CCIR) of the University of Florida.

In order to standardize data collection, it was decided.to

select for rating a uniform phase of therapy in both groups.

The first through the fifth minute of the interview at the Denver

General Center and of the call to the SCIS were chosen for two

reasons. First, this is the phase studied in similar investiga-

tions (Knickerbocker, 1972). Second, this is the time when the

tone for the relationship is set, when therapist and client form

attitudes about each other, and when much overt information

exchange often occurs.

Tapes were rated on the Lister component system (1970, a, b, c)

by research assistants trained at the CCIR. The three therapist-

offered conditions, as conceptualized by Rogers and operationized

by Lister, are composed of "essential elements" which are rated

on eleven-, six-, four-, or three-point scales. For Empathic











Understanding (Appendix B) there are eight elements such as

"accurate perceptual inferences" and "counselor's voice appro-

priate to the feelings expressed by the client." The two ele-

ments of Facilitative Warmth (Appendix C) are "positive regard"

and "unconditionality of regard." And the five elements of

counselor response in Facilitative Genuineness (Appendix D)

include "undefensive openness" and "idiosyncratic style." Points on

rating scales of each element are defined so that the rater can

recognize the extent to which they are offered by the therapist.

The CCIR trained three-rater teams to rate each of the Lister

scales by rating sample criterion training tapes, and then by

rating tapes from similar studies until criterion reliabilities

of .96 for Em, .83 for Wn, .50 for Gn, and .87 for Ttl were

reached. Reliabilities were estimated by Ebel's (1951) formula

for intraclass correlations. Once reliable rating had thus been

established, one rater was selected from each rating team to rate

the tapes generated for this study. The correlations for the

individual rater with each of the other two raters of the team

were calculated. The mean of these two reliabilities was com-

puted, giving the reliability for each individual rater. The

individual reliabilities were .89 for Em, .61 for Wm, .25 for Gn,

and .69 for Ttl. The low reliabilities for genuineness are com-

mon across studies of this type (Truax, undated). Moreover, while

the raters for Em and Wm were graduate students, the rater for Gn









was an undergraduate research assistant. This may mean that

professional training enhances ability to make judgments of the

Lister Scales. The reliability for Gn in this study is, however,

lower that those reported in similar studies (Knickerbocker, 1972,

Truax, undated).

Subjects in the professional group were administered the IBTI

l4yers, 1962) on completion of the intake interview; paraprofes-

sional subjects were administered the test as part of the SCIS

training program.

The IBTI is a self-administering, 166-item, forced-choice,

paper-and-pencil inventory. An individual's type is determined

by his preference score on each of the four dimensions (extraver-

sion-introversion; sensing-intuition; thinking-feeling; judgment-

perception). He will be called extravertedd," for example, if

the sum of extraverted choices is greater than the sum of intro-

verted choices, and will be called "introverted" if the sum of

introverted choices exceeds the sum of extraverted choices.1 A

person, therefore, is assigned a preference score on each of the

four dimensions (e.g., E 11, N 27, F 25, J 5): his scores may

then be summarized by a four-letter code as, for example, ENFJ.

Thus, sixteen types are formed and each, depending of the inter-

action of its particular combination of four preferences, shares


1Actual preference scores are computed by tie-breaking
formulas which double the difference between the two scores
on a dimension, then either subtract or add one point (Iyers,
1962).







26


some attributes with other types and shows other attributes

uniquely its own. In addition to considering a complete type,

the qualities which result from combinations of any two (e.g., NF)

or three (e.g., EFP) preferences can be analyzed.

Research in the past has presented MBTI data in two ways-

first, looking at each type (e.g., ENFJ) separately, and second,

looking at each preference separately.













CHAPTER III

RESULTS

As in the majority of studies of this kind, the level for

statistical significance was set at p .05. One-tailed tests

were used with directional hypotheses.

As the scales selected for measuring the facilitative con-

ditions were of different sizes, their ranges are displayed in

Table 6 for comparisons.


Table 6

Ranges of Facilitative Conditions Scales




Em Wm Gn Ttl


Range 0- 33 0- 15 0- 28 0 26.3



Hypothesis One predicted that Group II paraprofessionalss)

would provide higher levels of the facilitative conditions than

Group I (professionals). In three of the four cases, the Hypothesis

was supported.

Specifically, Hia predicted higher ratings for Group II on Em.

As shown on Table 7, Group II did surpass Group I in Em, but to a










Table 7

Comparison of Groups on Level of Em


Group Mean SD t p


I 5.81 6.70 0.2396 n.s.

II 6.38 8.63



nonsignificant degree. H1 was, therefore, not confirmed.
a
Hlb predicted that Group II would be rated higher than

Group I on Wm. Table 8 shows that Hlb was supported.



Table 8

Comparison of Groups on Level of Wm




Group Mean SD t p


I 6.57 .2.62 2.9473 <.005

II 8.95 2.62



HI predicted that Group II would receive higher ratings

on Gn than Group I. Table 9 shows that Hl1 was confirmed.









Table 9

Comparison of Groups on Level of Gn


Group Mean SD t p


I 20.14 2.54 3.1698 <.005

II 23.10 3.43



The final hypothesis to test differences between Groups I and

II on the facilitative conditions was Hid, which predicted Group II

would receive higher ratings on Ttl than Group II. Table 10 shows


Comparison of


Table 10

Groups on Level of Ttl


Group Iean SD t p


I 10.84 3.06 1.8930 .05

II 12.81 3.65



that this hypothesis also was supported.

Group II was found, in all four ratings, to be-showing higher

levels of the facilitative conditions than Group I, with three

of the four (Wm, Gn, and Ttl) significant beyond the p(.05 level.










The remainder of the hypotheses involve HBTI type variables,

and the typological make-up of the subjects is therefore pre-

sented here. The conventional means for displaying distribution

of psychological types in a sample is the "type table." This

table is a four-by-four matrix, with introverts in the first

two rows, and extroverts on the bottom two, and judging types

in the top and bottom rows with perceptives in the inside two

rows. The first two columns show sensing types with the intu-

itives in the last two, and thinking types appear in the outside

two columns with feeling types in the two.inside columns.

Tables 11, 12, and 13 show the number and precent of subjects

in each type in the professional (Group I) and paraprofessional

(Group II) samples, and in the total subject sample.

It can be seen, .for example, that the great majority of

the subjects fall in the N side of the table, and moreover,

the-NF column alone includes 71.4% of Group I subjects, 81.0%

of Group II subjects--76.2% of all subjects. In this way, sub-

jects in the present study followed the trend discovered earlier

at the Typology Laboratory and mentioned above. These distri-

butions are discussed more fully below.

Hypotheses Two through Nine pertain to differences between

type preferences on the facilitative conditions and to distri-

butions of the type preferences in the two experimental groups

and the total sample. In general, no differences were found







Table 11


Myers-Briggs Type Indicator


SENSING TYPES


GROUP I: PROFESSIONAL
N = 21
INTUITIVE TYPES


lIthTHINKING withFEELING ith FEELING with THINKING
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
N = 0 N 1 N = 3 N 0
%= 0.0 %= 4.8 % 14.3 %= 0.0

IIIIlI IIIIIIIII
IIII

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
N =0 N = 0 N 0 N =2
%= 0.0 %: 0.0 %: 0.0 %= 9.5

IIIIIIIIII


ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
N 0 N 0 N = 9 N 0 0
%o 0.0 %= 0.0 %o42.9 % 0.0
IIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIII

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
N= 1 N = 0 N = 3 N = 2
%= 4.8 %: 0.0 % 14.3 % 9.5
IIIIl IIIIIIIII1 1IIIIIII1
IIII


NOTES: I = 1% of sample


N PERCENT
15 71.4


Type Table







Table 12
Myers-Brlggs Type Indicator

GROUP II: PARAPROFESSIONAL

N = 21


SENSING TYPES INTUITIVE TYPES
vithTHINKING ith FEEL with FEELING with THINKING
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
N= 1 N 0 N = 1 N =0
%= 4.8 %= 0.0 %= 4.8 % -0.0

IIIII IllII


ISTP
N 0
%= 0.0





ESTP
N 0
%= 0.0


ESTJ
N = 0
S0.0
%= 0.0


ISFP
N 0
% 0.0


ESFP
N 0
% 0.0


INFP
N = 5
% =23.8

1IlIIlIIII
IIIIIIIIII
IIII


ENFP
N = 9
% =42.9
IllIIIIIIIII

llIIIIIll
IIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIII
rin


4 ,4--a- I


ESFJ
N 0
% 0.0


ENFJ
N 2
%: 9.5

11111111I11


INTP
N = 1
N:1
%= 4.8

IIIII


ENTP
N 1
% 4.8
Hlli


ENTJ
N 1
% =4.8

mil


NOTES: I = 1% of sample


Type Table


N PERCENT

E 13 61.9
I 8 38.1

S 1 4.8
N 20 95.2

T 4 19.0
S 17 81.0

J 5 23.8
P 16 76.2

IJ 2 9.5
IP 6 28.6

EP 10 47.6
J 3 14.3

ST 1 4.8
SF 0 0.0

NF 17 81.0
T 3 14.3

SJ 1 4.8
SP 0 0.0

NP 16 76.2
NJ 4 19.0

TJ 2 9.5
TP 2 9.5

FP 14 66.7
FJ 3 14.3

IN 7 33.3
EN 13 61.9

IS 1 4.8
iES 0 0.0


-







Table 13
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

TOTAL SAMPLE
N = 42
SENSING TYPES INTUITIVE TYPES
withTHINKING wiithFEELING thFEELIN withTHINKNG
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
N 1 N 1 N = 4 N 0O
%= 2.4 %: 2.4 %: 9.5 %: 0.0

II II IIIIIIIIII



ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
N 0 N = 0 N : 5 N 3
%= 0.0 %. 0.0 %= 11.9 % = 7.1
IIIIIIIII IIIIIII
II


ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
N 0 N 0. N 18. N = 1
% = 0.0 % 0.0 0 :I2 9. %= 2.4
IIIIIIIIII III
IIIllIllI
IIIIIIII
III
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
N =1 N = 0 N = 5 N = 3
%= 2.4 %= 0.0 %: 11.9 %= 7.1
II 1II1llII I IIIIII
II


NOTES: I = 1% of sample


Type Table


N PERCENT

E 28 66.7
I 14 33.:3

S 3 7.1
N 39 92.9

T 9 21.4
F 33 78.6

J 15 .35.7.
P 27 64.3
IJ 6 14.3
IP 8 19.0

EP 19 45.2
EJ 9 21.4
ST 2 4.8
SF 1 2.4
NF 32 76.2
NT 7 16.7

sJ 3 7.1
SP 0 0.0
NP 27 64.3
NJ 12 28.6

TJ 5 11.9
TP 4 9.5
FP 23 54.8
FJ 10 23.8
IN 12 28.6
EN 27 64.3
IS 2 4.8
ES 2 2.4










between preferences on the facilitative conditions, but hypoth-

eses as: to the distributions of the preferences through the

sam 1.e were confirmed.

Hypotheses 2a and 2b predicted that intuitive types would

score higher than sensing types on Em and Ttl. As can be

seen on Tables 14 and 15, neither hypothesis was supported.



Table 14

Comparison of S & N on Em




Preference N Mean SD t p


S 3 6.67 8.33 .1329 n.s.

N 39 6.05 7.70





Table 15

Comparison of S & N on Ttl




Preference N Ilean SD t p


12.00

11.81


.0907 n.s.









As to distribution of these preferences in the sample,

Hypotheses 3a and 3b predicted that intuitives would outnumber

sensing subjects in the professional and paraprofessional groups.

Table 16 displays the number and percentage of subjects



Table 16

Distribution of the S & N Preferences




Group I Group II Total
S N S N S N


N 2 19 1 20 3 39

Percent 9.5% 90.5% 4.8% 95.2% 7.1% 92.9%

Mean Prefer-
ence Score 51.00 28.78 27.80 27.10 34.66 27.93



showing each preference in both groups and in the total sample,

as well as mean preference scores of subjects in each preference.

In addition, mean preference scores are presented to show what

proportion of the preferences are of subjects on each side of

the typological dimn nsion. It can be seen that subjects are

overwhelmingly of the intuitive preference, and both hypotheses

were therefore upheld.

It had been planned to compute a phi coefficient and chi

square to compare and describe the compositions of Groups I and II,


_ _






36


but the fact that there are so few subjects of the S pref-

erence would make the test less than strictly valid. In any

case, it is evident that the two groups are essentially similar.

The two S subjects in Group I scored higher on S than did

the lone S subject in Group II. Subjects of the S preference

in this study had generally higher S scores than the N scores

of the N subjects.

Hypotheses 4a through 4c predicted that feeling subjects

would score significantly higher than sensing ones on Em, Wn,

and Ttl. Tables 17, 18, and 19 show that these hypotheses were



Table 17

Comparison of T and F on Em




Preference N Mean SD t p


T 9 3.89 5.93 .9772 n.s.

F 33 6.70 8.01



not confirmed. This is in spite of the fact that the mean Em score

in the F group was almost twice that of the Em score in the T group.

It was the prediction of Hypotheses 5a and 5b that feeling

subjects would outnumber thinking ones in the two groups. Table 20









Table 18

Comparison of T and F on Wm


Preference N Mean SD t p


T 9 8.00 3.24 .2793 n.s.

F 33 7.70 2.80





Table 19

Comparison of T and F on Ttl




Preference N Mean SD t p


11.52

11.91


2.28

3.76


.2957 n.s.


shows that Hypotheses 5a and 5b were confirmed.

Once again, subject preferences were found to be as predicted

and the hypotheses were therefore confirmed.

Here, the number of T subjects was not quite high enough

to compute chi square, but the preferences do seem similarly









Table 20

Distribution of the T and F Preferences


Group I Group II Total
S N S N S .N


N 5 16 4 17 9 33

Percent 23.8% 76.2% 19.0% 81.0% 21.4% 78.6%

Mean Prefer-
ence Score 24.60 22.12 17.00 23.94 21.22 23.06



distributed between the two groups. The only notable difference

in preference score is a tendency for T subjects in Group II to

have lower scores than the F subjects in that group.

Perceptives were predicted by Hypotheses 6a through 6c to

score higher than judging subjects on Em, Wn and Ttl. Tables

21, 22 and 23 display the comparisons of these two preferences.

These hypotheses failed to find support; the perceptive types

were not rated higher in facilitative conditions than the

judging types.

Hypotheses 7a and 7b predicted that perceptive types would

outnumber judging types in both groups. Results are shown in

Table 24. Although perceptives barely do outnumber judging

subjects in Group I, the hypotheses were confirmed.









Table 21

Comparison of J & P on Em


Preference N Mean SD t p


J 15 7.27 9.64 .7367 n.s.

P 27 5.44 6.38





Table 22

Comparison of J & P on -Wm




Preference N Mean SD t p


J 15 7.27 2.79 .8355 n.s.

P 27 -8.04 2.90





Table 23

Comparison of J & P on Ttl




Preference N Mean SD t p


J 15 11.93 4.18 .1487 n.s.

P 27 11.77 3.10










Table 24

Distribution of the J & P Preferences


Group I Group II Total
J P J P J P


N 10 11 5 16 15 27

Percent 47.6% 52.4% 23.8% 76.2% 35.7% 64.3%

Mean Prefer-
ence Score 23.00 29.90 25.00 24.50 23.66 26..70



There is no significant difference in distribution between

the two groups as the phi coefficient is .24 and the chi square

is 2.41. Examination of the mean preference scores shows that

the preferences for J were about as high as those for P.

The final set of hypotheses to examine individual typolog-

ical dimensions concerned the introversion-extraversion dimen-

sion, and predicted that while introverts would receive higher

scores on Em (H8a), extraverts would score higher on Gn (H8b).

Tables 25 and 26 show that neither of these hypotheses were

upheld. It is therefore found that none of the hypotheses.

relating typological dimensions to therapeutic functioning were

confirmed.


-










Table 25

Comparison of E & I on Em


Preference Mean SD t p


E 6.43 7.19 .3959 n.s.

I 5.43 9.71





Table 26

Comparison of E & I on Gn




Preference Mean SD t p


E 21.64 3.26 .0717 n.s.

I 21.57 3.61



Hypotheses 9a and 9b predicted that extraverts would out-

number introverts in both groups. Table 27 demonstrates that

these hypotheses were supported. It is therefore found that all

hypotheses concerning typological make-up of the sample were

confirmed.

The phi coefficient of .10 and the chi square of .42 demon-

strate that the distribution of preferences between the two










Table 27

Distribution of the E & I Preferences


Group I Group II Total
E I E I E I


N 15 6 13 8 28 14

Percent 71.4% 28.6% 61.9% 38.1% 66.7% 33.3%

Mean Prefer-
ence Score 23.80 10.67 18.84 13.75 21.50 12.42



groups is similar. It can be noted that in both groups and in

the total sample the preference for E is more marked than the

preference for I.

Hypothesis Ten predicted the order in which type variables

and professional-paraprofessional group membership would contri-

bute to the four facilitative conditions. The most consistent

finding was a high contribution from paraprofessional group

membership.

Hypothesis Ten was tested in two ways. First, Pearson

product-moment correlations and their significance levels were

calculated for each of the conditions and the variables in

question and were rank ordered. Second, stepwise multiple

regression analyses were run for each of the four conditions.










It was the prediction of H10a that Em would correlate in

decreasing order with N, F, Paraprofessional, P, and I. Table 28



Table 28

Pearson Correlations with Em




TF El JP SN Group


r .253 -.144 -.065 .047 .038

p .053 .182 .342 .384 .406



Note. Correlations for type are with continuous scores; therefore
positive correlations mean correlations with I, N, F, and P,.while
negative ones mean correlations with E, S, T, and J. Positive
correlations with Group mean correlations with Paraprofessional,
and negative with Professional.

shows that the order in which the variables ranked was F, E, J, N,

and Paraprofessional. Although none of the correlations reached

significance, the relationship between TF and EI2 was at p=.053.

Table 29 shows that when contributions of other variables are

considered, TF remains as the most related to Em, and is now

significant. Also, the relationships for other variables are

slightly altered. Host noteworthy is the reversals in position

between El and JP, and between SN and Group. Only one of the F

levels was significant in the multiple regression, and the value

for SN was too low for that variable to be included in the com-

putation. The hypothesis is rejected; relationships found were

far from those predicted.










Table 29

Multiple Regression on Em


Step Variable R R2 Beta SE F
Entered


1 TF .252 .064 .323 7.482 3.458*
2a JP .318 .101 -.224 7.424 1.691
3 El .336 .113 -.124 7.471 .592
4 Group .341 .116 .056 7.559 .123



aStep at which SE decreases to lowest value
*p <.025

Tables 30 and 31 present the results of the tests of H10b which




Table 30

Pearson Correlations with Wm




Group El JP SN TF


r .422 .217 .159 .104 -.032

p .003 .084 .158 .256 .422



predicted the order of variables would be F, Paraprofessional,

and P. It can be seen that Group was the only variable significantly









Table 31

Multiple Regression on Wm


Step Variable R R2 Beta SE F


1 Group .422 .178 .387 2.618 6.518*
2a EI .444 .197 .146 2.586 .911
3 JP .460 .211 .122 2.631 .418
4 TF .474 .224 -.158 2.644 .832
5 SN .480 .231 .106 2.670 .290



aSte at which SE decreases to lowest value
*p (.001

related to Wm in both the simple and-miultiple correlations. In

neither analysis was the order found as predicted and the hypothesis

is therefore rejected.

The prediction of H10c was that paraprofessional status and

E would be related to Gn in that order. It can be seen on

Tables 32 and 33 that, whereas Group was, as predicted, first in


Table 32

Pearson Correlations with Gn


Group SN JP TF El


r .448 -.197 -.044 .032 .028

p .001 .105 .392 .421 .421










Table 33

Multiple Regression on Gn


Step Variable R R2 Beta SE F


1 Group .448 .201 .475 3.018 10.435**
2a SN .504 .254 -.325 2.953 2.887*
3 EI .516 .266 -.105 2.968 .497
4 TF .525 .009 .107 2.988 .410
5 JP .525 .276 .034 3.028 .034



aStep at which SD decreases to lowest value
p<.05
** p (.001

order in both tables, there was a very small contribution from I

(a positive correlation with EI) rather than from E and the

hypothesis is therefore rejected. The relationship between N at

Gn became significant in the multiple correlation. Again, in

combination with the other variables, the contribution from Group

continued to be significant.

Finally, HlOd predicted that N, F, Paraprofessional, and

P would be related in that order to Ttl. Tables 34 and 35

display the fact that Group was again most highly correlated with

the condition, but in this instance the relationship reached

significance only in the multiple regression. However, the

variables were ranked quite differently from the prediction and

this hypothesis is also not confirmed.









Table 34

Pearson Correlations with Ttl


Group TF El JP SN


r .287 .187 -.037 -.018 -.000

p .033 .118 .407 .455 .500





Table 35

Multiple Regression on Ttl




Step Variable R R2 Beta SE F
Entered


1 Group .287 .082 .299 3.369 3.456*
2a TF .326 .106 .229 3.367 1.560
3 JP .353 .125 -.118 3.375 .347
4 El .361 .130 -.084 3.410 .270
5 SN .366 .134 -.079 3.450 .141



aStep at which SE decreases to lowest value
p .025

It is therefore found that the relationship between the type

variables and the facilitative conditions was generally random.

Paraprofessional status, however, was the variable most highly

correlated with all facilitative conditions except Em, and was

often the only variable to reach significance.














Chapter IV

DISCUSSION

Experimentally, this study was concerned with four issues:

The first was the question of whether professionals or

paraprofessionals were more therapeutically effective in an

intake situation and was tested by Hypothesis One.

The second issue was whether persons with a preference on

one side of the typological dimension were more therapeutically

effective than those on the other side and was tested by Hypoth-

eses Two, Four, Six, and Eight.

Third was whether subjects were of.the types predicted by

theory to be attracted to counseling and was tested by Hypotheses

Three, Five, Seven, and Nine.

The final issue was whether the personality variables or

professional/paraprofessional group membership contributed more

to therapeutic effectiveness, and was tested by Hypothesis Ten.

Our first, and most confidently proposed hypothesis, H1,

predicted that paraprofessionals would demonstrate significantly

higher levels of the facilitative conditions than would profes-

sionals. Paraprofessionals in crisis telephone intakes showed

higher levels than professionals in face-to-face intakes in

facilitative warmth, genuineness, and total conditions, but the









superiority of paraprofessionals on empathic understanding failed

to reach significance.

As was noted earlier, some of the paraprofessional group

in this study consisted of professionals-in-training and profes-

sionals in fields related to psychotherapy or mental health.

Some of these subjects were older and males, and were included

due to the need to match older, male subjects in the professional

_sample. It is not uncommon, however, to find such personnel

on the staff of a volunteer program, especially in communities

with institutions of higher learning. Some may volunteer as

a way of broadening their existing skills, some as a way of

exploring the field to decide whether or not to enter profes-

sional training themselves.

In any case, in their roles as members of a volunteer staff

they would be likely to acquire a cognitive and affective set-

an orientation toward their clients and their work--which makes

their behavior similar to that of their co-volunteers and dif-

ferent from that of the professional in the mental health center.

They would therefore function more according to the training and

philosophy absorbed at the center than in line with their training

or functioning in other capacities. It is considered that it is

this difference in set which is tested in this study, rather than

a difference between practitioners with full professional training

and those with none at all.










Since the professional group conducted face-to-face inter-

views while the paraprofessionals worked on the telephone, it

is a possibility that the present findings are an artifact of

this difference. However, as previously mentioned, the pre-

ponderance of evidence shows paraprofessionals equal or super-

ior to professionals in therapeutic functioning.

Moreover, while the relative anonymity of a relationship

by telephone is in some ways an advantage of telephone work

(Williams & Douds, 1973), it would seem that it would be more

difficult to offer the facilitative conditions in such a context

than in one where client and therapist are together in the

room. In the latter situation the therapist would be able to

respond not only to the client's voice, but also would be in

touch with visual cues and thereby be able to more accurately

assess the client's emotional state on a moment-to-moment basis.

If there were any effect, therefore, from the different ways in

which the two groups engaged their client, it would seem that

the paraprofessional group's superiority on three of the four

measures was in spite of this effect, rather than attributable

to it.

A small sample of a wide variety of people who function as

volunteer paraprofessionals in a telephone crisis center has

been therefore shown to be superior on most of the facilitative

conditions to a sample of professionals from varying disciplines

in a mental health center.










The current study therefore follows a well developed trend

in the literature (Durlak, 1973) demonstrating in an increasingly

convincing fashion the therapeutic effectiveness of paraprofes-

sional personnel. It would now seem that the time is at hand

for progressing to a delineation of areas in which these practi-

tioners can best be used, rather than continuing to concentrate

on the evaluation of their competence. None of the advocates

of the use of paraprofessionals propose that they replace pro-

fessionals in every aspect of functioning. There will always

be such areas as program planning, direction, and evaluation

where the need is for professional staff. Rather, the question

now is, "in what capacities will we use these persons who have

proven their effectiveness in providing therapeutic services to

a wide variety of clients?"

Evidence suggests that, to be offering minimally facilitative

levels of a condition, a therapist must be functioning at the

midpoint of the scale measuring that condition (Truax & Carkhuff,

1967). Given that Em is a 34-point scale (including zero), Wm a

16-point scale, Gn a 29-point scale, and Ttl a 26.3-point scale,

inspection of Tables 7 through 10 reveal that Group I was above

the midpoint on Gn and slightly below it on Wm and Ttl, while

Group II was above the midpoint on Wm and Gn, and at the midpoint

on Ttl. Both groups fell far below the midpoint on Em. It seems,

therefore, that, except for the dimension of Em, a client could

expect to be encountered in at least a minimally facilitative









manner by the paraprofessionals in this study. The effect of

the professionals would not be conducive to client growth and

might even be considered harmful.

Although the literature generally finds levels of empathy

to be slightly lower than levels of the other two conditions

(Carkhuff & Berenson, 1967; Truax, undated), the discrepancy

between levels of Em and of the other two conditions was far

greater in this study than has been previously found.

How then to account for the fact that therapists functioning

near the midpoints of most scales are rated as showing such low

levels of Em?

The point might be made that it was the nature of the session

as intakes which accounts for the difference, since the focus

during the first few minutes of the interview might be on under-

standing of a data-gathering type rather than of an empathic

type. That is, the therapist would be more concerned, at the

very first, with getting an accurate objective picture of the

situation in which the client finds himself, more than with

the client's own unique perceptions of and reactions to the

situation.

However, other studies have investigated this phase of ther-

apy and found empathy being offered at about the same levels

as the other conditions (Knickerbocker, 1972). The fact that

the interviews under consideration were intakes does not seem

to explain the low levels of empathy demonstrated by subjects

in this study.










It would be an easy matter to account for the low levels

of Em were the rater reliabilities for this scale low. However,

the reliability on Em was not only acceptable, it was the highest

of the four reliabilities found in this study. In addition,

the rater was trained on standardized tapes, so the probability

is not that there was an artificially low level agreed upon

among the raters, but rather that the ratings were valid as

well as reliable. In this issue, therefore, is not to be found

an explanation.

It might also be argued that it was contribution from the

professionals-in-training and the professionals in fields related

to counseling in the paraprofessional group which brought down

the mean score for that group.

Two considerations weigh against this explanation. First and

most telling is that an examination of raw scores for these

subjects versus the true lay volunteers' shows them to be

essentially the same. It therefore seems that, at least in

levels of Em offered, the fact of operating in the paraprofes-

sional set and setting mentioned earlier is powerful enough to

induce all persons functioning within it to function similarly.

The second consideration is the logical one that if the pro-

fessional-in-training and in related occupations had lowered the

mean for Em, it might be expected that the same effect would have

been observed for the other facilitative conditions--as it was not.










Another possible explanation to be explored is the fact

that, as can be noted in Appendices B through D, should a

therapist be given a score of zero on the first element

in each of the three rating scales for the facilitative

conditions, the rater is to disregard all remaining ele-

ments and give zero as the total rating for the sample.

An examination of the raw data shows that, whereas no ratings

of zero were made for any subject on either Wm or Gn, there

were nine subjects in the professional group and ten of the.

paraprofessionals to be rated zero on Em. It would seem,

therefore, that subjects encounter more difficulty in pro-

viding facilitative levels of the first element of Em, "an

internal frame of reference," than with the first elements

of Wm, "positive re~,rd," or of Gn, "undefensive openness."

This finding seems to be particular to the present study,

however, for others using these scales have found the levels

of Em, although again slightly lower than those of the other

scales, to be essentially similar to those found for the

other conditions.

Nor did the fact that the professionals were in a face-

to-face situation while the paraprofessionals operated over

the telephone seem to contribute to the levels of Em found.

First, their levels were statistically similarly low; and










second, other studies (Carkhuff & Berenson, 1967; Knickerbocker,

1972) show that Em scores are similar whether rated from phone

or in-person contact.

All plausible explanations of the low levels of empathy

found in both groups in this study have been found inadequate

to satisfactorily account for the phenomenon. At present,

therefore, the only remaining recourse is to conclude that,

for unknown reasons, the subject population is composed of

persons who on the one hand provide levels of warmth, genu-

ineness, and total conditions near the midpoints of the

scale, while providing very low levels of empathy. This

finding has the advantage of explaining two other inconsistent

phenomena in the study.

First of all, it was found that whereas the paraprofes-

sional group was significantly higher than the professional

one on Wm, Gn, and Ttl, the difference on Em failed to reach

significance. Secondly, whereas paraprofessional group member-

ship was both significantly correlated with higher levels of

Wm, Gn, and Ttl and was also the variable entered on the first

step of the multiple regression analyses for Em, Gn, and Ttl,

the simple correlation between Group (a positive correlation

with Group meaning a correlation with paraprofessional states)

and Em was among the lowest of the correlations with Em and










Group was entered on the next to the last step of the multiple

regression on Em.

Now it seems that both these findings could be accounted

for by the fact that the Em scores for both groups were so

low. For had the scores been higher for both groups, it is

suspected that the difference in scores between the two groups

would become significant, thereby bringing the finding for Em

in line with that for the three other conditions. Similarly,

had the level of Em been higher, there would be a higher simple

correlation between Group and Em and Group would weigh more

heavily in the multiple regression. It is not believed that

the low levels of Em had any bearing on the finding that there

was no significant difference between subjects of the different

preferences in levels of Em offered. This is because neither

was there a difference between any two preferences on any other

of the conditions.

In any case, the present finding was of low levels of em-

pathic understanding for both groups with the paraprofessional

group scoring nonsignificantly higher. Since no tenable explan-

ation for the finding is evident, it is suggested that a simple

replication of this design would be the most fruitful initial

direction for further research. The expectation is that such

an investigation would indeed discover higher and significantly

different levels of Em in the two groups.










As concerns the issue of the relationship between the Jungian)

psychological variables and the Rogerian "process" variables of

therapy, hypothetical inferences were made to the effect that

intuition, feeling, perceiving, and, in varying manners, extra-

version and introversion, would be valuable attributes of the

psychotherapist. It was found, however, that there were no

significant relationships between any of the preferences and

the facilitative conditions.

Not only were no significant relationships found for the

type dimensions, in fact both of the relationships hypothesized

for SN (though with only three S subjects), one of the three

for TF, two of the three for JP, and one of the two for El pre-

sented nonsignificant trends in the direction opposite to that

predicted.

A low level of confidence was held in the predictions for

El as there is little suggestion in the literature as to whether

either of these two attitudes might be of more value in the

therapy process. The rejection of these hypotheses is therefore

met with little surprise.

Some confidence was, however, invested in those hypotheses

predicting a relationship between the intuiting, feeling, and

perceiving processes and the facilitative conditions.

Perhaps partially accountable for the failure to find these

variables significantly related to the facilitative conditions









is the possibility that intuition, feeling, and a perceiving

attitude are indeed helpful in therapy, but not in that central

part of the process of therapy measured by the facilitative con-

ditions. For, although Rogers (1957) maintains that the facili-

tative conditions are the necessary and sufficient conditions

for positive therapeutic change, later theorists (Carkhuff &

Berenson, 1967) state that empathy, warmth, and genuineness are

merely among the "core conditions" or "primary factors."

Sometimes included are such factors as concreteness, confron-

tation, and self-disclosure, accounting for from 20% to 50%

of the variance in outcome. Other conditions are said to be

required for effective work with difference types of clients,

problems, and settings. Some of these "secondary factors" are

such phenomena as psychodynamic approaches, behavioristic condi-

tioning procedures, nondirective counseling procedures, and

educational and vocational counseling. It may be that intuition,.

feeling and perception play a more significant role in these

secondary factors than in the primary ones measured in this study.

Another possible explanation for the failure of this study

to find a relationship between the intuitive, feeling, and per-

ceptive types and the facilitative conditions is that the N, F,

and P scales of the MBTI may be measuring something other than

exactly the "intuition," "personal warmth," and "accepting non-

critical attitude" of the intuiting, feeling, and perceiving










persons mentioned in the literature as attributes of effective

psychotherapists. This explanation is not proposed with great

assurance, however, for an examination of items of the N, F, and

P scales from an "armchair" point of view indicates that the

1IBTI is measuring those qualities which this study intended to

investigate.

Finally, it can be considered that the attributes of sensing,

thinking, and judging (opposite to intuition, feeling, and per-

ception respectively are, when appropriately employed, important

enough in therapy to outweigh the value of their complements.

That is, the realistic, observing qualities of the sensing

therapist, the logical analysis of the thinking one, and the

judging therapist's organized decisiveness would seem to be

of value at various points in the therapeutic process. At

this point, it seems that this is the most likely reason that

no difference in therapeutic effectiveness was found between

the opposite preferences.

It is also possible that the intake process is one point

where these more objective qualities are helpful. Whether or

not this is the reason for the failure to find differences

between preferences on the facilitative conditions could be

ascertained by comparing the preferences on the conditions in

late phases of therapy. Because the effects in present results

are so small and equivocal, however, it is expected that even










in later phases of therapy there would be no significant

superiority of the N, F, and P preferences over S, T, and J.

When such an investigation is carried out, it is suggested

that equal numbers of subjects of each preference be tested on

the facilitative conditions. This is because.there may be some

effect of strength of preference which interacts with preference

itself. With unequal numbers of subjects of each preference it

is difficult to separate out this effect.

Some evidence for this is offered by the present study:

First, although it was hypothesized that intuitives would surpass

sensing subjects, such was not found to be the case. However,

sensing scores of the few sensing subjects in the study were

much higher than the intuition scores of the intuitives.

Second, whereas no significant difference on empathy was found

when thinking and feeling subjects were divided into two groups

for the t test, when the Pearson correlation was run, strength

of preference was taken into account and the significance level

was .053. These findings might indicate that sensing, thinking,

and judging indeed can be as valuable to the therapist as their

complements, but only when present in greater or lesser strength.

As some of the hypotheses of the present investigation dealt

with the distribution of types among the two groups, a random

sample of subjects was obtained. In order to properly investi-

gate the contribution of strength of preference to clinical










functioning, however, it is proposed that future research choose

equal numbers of all preferences under investigation. In this

way, the quality of therapists not of the predominant N and F

preferences, especially, can be examined, perhaps with the result

of determining how they employ the property of sensing and

thinking to best advantage in the process of therapy.

In any case, it is suggested that further research be under-

taken before these variables (especially intuition, the prefer-

ence of 93% of subjects) be rejected as valuable attributes.of

the effective therapist.

Lacking contradictory evidence, however, it must be the

conclusion of the present investigation that therapists of all

eight preferences can function equally well in the intake

phase of psychotherapy.

A third set of hypotheses concerned the typological

make-up of the two experimental groups.

The first prediction was that intuitives would outnumber

sensing subjects and it was very strongly supported. In fact,

over 90% of subjects were of the intuitive preference. This

is especially remarknale since about 75% of the population is

of the sens'tig preference. Strong support was also found for

the prediction that feeling subjects would outnumber thinking

ones. Here 79% of subjects were of the predicted preference.










In the general population there are about equal numbers of persons

of the T and F preferences. This preference dimension, unlike the

other three, varies with sex: males are predominantly of the T

preference and females of the F. Subjects her.' were equally dis-

tributed between the sexes, however, and the present finding is

not due to a larger number of female subjects.

Although there was no statistical difference in the typo-

logical make-ups of the two groups, in the cases of both the

SN and TF dimensions, there was a tendency for the paraprofes-

sional group to contain more subjects of the predicted preference

than the professional group.

This study therefore replicates surveys mentioned above

which also found therapists to be predominantly of the NF

preferences. Examination of the type tables shows that 71%

of the professionals and 81% of the paraprofessionals are of

the NF preferences--76% of the total sample. This is a far higher

proportion than would be found in the general population.

The prediction that perceptives would outnumber judging

subjects was also confirmed. Here again it was found that,

although there was no statistical difference in the distribution

of preferences between the two groups, the tendency for subjects

in the paraprofessional group to be of the predicted preference

was more marked than in the professional group.










Finally, it was predicted since neither extraverts nor

introverts would be predicted by theory to be more inclined

to choose to work as therapists and counselors, and since extra-

verts outnumber introverts in the general population by about

three to one, that extraverts would also outnumber introverts

in the present study. The prediction was confirmed, and here

again there was no statistical difference in distribution of

the two preferences between experimental groups.

Not only were E, N, F, and P the most popular preferences,

but also it can be seen from the type tables that in both the

professional and paraprofessional groups the most frequent type

was ENFP, with 43% of subjects in each group showing that type.

It was found that strength of preference was about equal for

the TF and JP dimensions; that is, preference scores for T were

about as high as those for F and similarly for J and P. The

scores themselves were within the range of the norms presented

by Myers (1962), except for those of the perceptives in the para-

professional group who had a higher mean P score than any of

the groups presented by Myers.

The extraverted group was within the range of norms but the

introverts had a lower mean I score than any of the Myers

groups. The introverts attracted to counseling activities

therefore report a much smaller preference for introversion than

the extraverts report for extraversion. Further research with










larger numbers of subjects is indicated here, but it is possible

that those who are "too much" into the internal world are either

not interested enough or adept enough to enter and stay in the

counseling situation.

The mean preference scores for N are within the range pre-

sented by Myers, while the mean score for S is much above any of

the norms. This is especially true of the professional group

where one of the subjects showed the highest preference score

in the study. Although again more investigation of higher

numbers is needed (there were only three S subjects). In this

case it might be that, whereas intuition is usually the "pre-

ference of choice" on the SN dimension, if the preference for

S is more extreme, a person may function equally as well.

It is therefore found that, although subjects were, in

line with predictions, predominantly of the N, F, and P prefer-

ences, those relatively few S, T, and J subjects seem to have

learned to use the positive qualities of their preferences in

a way which enables them to be as effective therapeutically as

their more numerous N, F, and P colleagues.

Part of the process of psychological growth, according to

Jung and Myers, is to learn first to utilize effectively the

advantages and.to control possible drawback of one's own type.

Later, the fully functioning person will recognize and cultivate

the assets of the complementary preferences. Since it has been


_I~










shown here that (at least certain) persons of all type preferences

function similarly in the intake phase of therapy, it follows

that attributes of all the type preferences may be valuable to

the therapist. Psychotherapists should therefore be no less

involved than others in this project of learning about and

effectively utilizing all aspects of psychological type.

It seems then that whether or not intuition, feeling, and

perception are desirable attributes of the therapist, they are

indeed found in the majority of therapists. Since they differ

in type from the general population-whose members tend to be

of the ESF type for women and EST type for men-therapists might

well be alerted and sensitive to possible differences in type

between them and their clients and the possible effects of these

differences.

The preceding statement is made because different clients

may respond differently to therapists of different psychological

types: many types of therapists may be needed, rather than a

few types being optimally effective with all those seeking

help. In this matter, there is.some research with Jungian

variables which is relevant.

Investigations by Mendelsohn (1966) and Mendelsohn and

Geller (1963, 1965, 1967) show that counseling is short when

therapist-client si-ilarity on MBTI dimensions is low, but

of variable length when similarity is high. Moreover, those










clients who are similar to their therapists are more likely to

fail an appointment early in therapy, but, should they then

return, duration is highly likely to be longer. It might be

of some benefit, therefore, to match therapists and clients on

type and/or alert one or both of the possibility and implications

of an appointment failure early in treatment.

In general, however, studies relating therapist-client

similarity and length of treatment to outcome have been incon-

clusive (Meltzoff & Kornreich, 1970) and consequently any manip-

ulation of typological variables in therapy itself or in selec-

tion or training of the -apists should be considered experimental.

The final issue was whether experimental group membership

or psychological type was more related to high functioning'on the

facilitative conditions. The most consistent finding here was

that the largest contribution was from Group (paraprofessional

group membership)--this was the case with three of the four con-

ditions in both single and multiple correlations. The relation-

ships between type variables and the conditions were never

significant in the Pearson correlation, although F narrowly

failed to be significantly related to Em. In the multiple

regression analysis, a significant relationship was found

between N and Gn. In general, relationships between the

various preferences were inconsistent, and never according to

prediction. These results corroborate the findings from t










tests reported above where paraprofessional group membership

was significantly related to higher functioning on Wm, Gn,

and Ttl, whereas type variables failed to reach significance

in any of the ten cases tested.

It seems, therefore, that generally speaking, paraprofes-

sional status is significantly more related to high functioning

in the intake phase of psychotherapy than is psychological

type. The higher functioning of the paraprofessional group seems

to constitute a sufficiently powerful effect to override contri-

butions from type to higher functioning. It is obvious, again,

that the high functioning of persons operating in a paraprofes-

sional setting is a factor demanding close attention in planning

and implementing programs of therapeutic intervention.

As noted earlier, a significant difference was found between

groups on experience levels, though they were equally matched

on a variety of other variables. It was also mentioned, however,

that this is a reflection of the situation as it exists in actual

practice since professionals in general have, at this point in

time, been in the field longer than paraprofessionals. More

exacting research may be conducted in the future when a suffi-

cient number of experienced paraprofessionals are available,

but such comparisons are currently impossible to carry out,

considering the relatively short time most paraprofessional

programs have been in operation.










Recent comprehensive reviews (Luborsky et al., 1971;

Meltzoff & Kornreich, 1970) did find that experience was

related to outcome of therapy. But, contrary to the present

results, these reviewers found experience positively correlated

with therapist functioning. The studies reviewed by these

authors, however, used as subjects professional practitioners

and professional trainees. And, as discussed in the Introduction

and reconfirmed in this study, the preponderance of evidence

shows paraprofessionals superior in therapeutic functioning to

professionals. It seems, therefore, that higher levels of

experience are related to higher levels of functioning in pro-

fessional therapists, but that there is something in the nature

of paraprofessional-professional group membership to nullify

and/or reverse the usual tendency of experience to increase

effectiveness. This is not to say that the newest paraprofes-

sionals are the most therapeutically effective nor that the

professionals in the field longest are the least. Rather, the

significant difference in experience levels is seen as merely

a function of the comparatively recent emergence of the role

of the paraprofessional and the shorter time paraprofessionals

remain active in the field.

A final consideration is the fact that a low rater reli-

ability was obtained for the Gn scale. Most findings for the







69


scale in this study are consistent with those for the Wm and

Ttl scales and in those from similar studies and this would

seen to lend some support to the scale's reliability. However,

conclusions currently drawn relating to the scale should be

regarded as tentative pending confirmation from further investi-

tation in the area.


~













REFERENCES


Berenson, B. B. & Carkhu!f, R. R. (Eds.) Sources of gain in
counseling and psychotherapy. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1967.

Berne, E. Principles of group treatment. New York: Grove, 1966.

Biggerstaff, M. A., Bigelow, D. A., & Lin, S. An empirical study
of the role of the paraprofessional in a community mental
health center. Unpublished manuscript, Mental Health Systems
Evaluation Project, Denver General Hospital Mental Health
Center, undated.

Boylin, E. R. The companion program: Students as helpers.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1973, 10,
242-244.

Bugental, J. F. T. The search for authenticity. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1965.

Carkhuff, R. R. Differential functioning of lay and professional
helpers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 15, 115-126.

Carkhuff, R. R. & Berenson, B. G. Beyond counseling and therapy,
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967.

Collins, J. A. The paraprofessional: I. Manpower issues in the
mental health field. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 1971,
22, 362-367.

Durlak, J. A. Myths concerning the nonprofessional therapist.
Professional Psychology, 1973, 4, 300-304.

Ebel, R. L. Estimation of the reliability of raters. Psychometrika,
1951, 17, 407-424.

Ewalt, P. C. (ed.) Mental health volunteers. Springfield: Charles C
Thomas, 1967.

Fowler, D. E. & McGee, R. K. Assessing the performance of telephone
crisis workers: The development of a technical effectiveness
scale. In: D. Lester & G. Brockopp (Eds.), Crisis intervention
and counseling by telephone. Springfield, ll,: Charles C
Thomas, 1973.










Golann, S., Breiter, D., & Magoon, T. H. A filmed interview applied
to the evaluation of mental health counselors. Psychotherapy,
1966, 3, 21-24.

Gray, H. & Wheelwright, J. B. Jung's psychological types, including
the four functions. Journal of General Psychology, 1945, 33,
265-284.

Gray H. & Wheelwright, J. B. Jung's psychological types, their
frequency and occurrence. Journal of General Psychology, 1946,
34, 3-17.

Grosser, C., Henry, W. E., & Kelly, J. B. (Eds.) Nonprofessionals in
the human services. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.

Guerney, B. B. (Ed.) Psychotherapeutic agents: New roles for
nonprofessionals, parents and teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston, 1969.

Heilig, S. M., Farberow, N. L., Litman, R. E., & Shneidman, E. S.
The role of nonprofessional volunteers in a suicide prevention
center. Community Mental Health Journal, 1968, 4, 287-295.

Holzberg, J. D. The companion program: Implementing the manpower
recommendation of the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and
Health. American Psychologist, 1963, 18, 224-226.

Holzberg, J. D. College students as companions to the mentally ill.
In: E. L. Cowen, E. A. Gardner, & M. Zax (Eds.), Emergent
approaches to mental health problems. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1967.

Holzberg, J. D., & Gewirtz, H. A method of altering attitudes toward
mental illness. Psychiatric Quarterly Supplement, 1963, 37,
56-61.

Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health. Action for mental
health: Final report of the joint commission on mental illness
and health. New York: Wiley, 1961.

Jung, C. G. Psychological yyt-s. London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul,
1923.

Jung, C. G. On the nature of dreams, Collected works. Vol. 8. The
structure and dynamics of the psyche. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1972.

Knickerbocker, D. A. Lay volunteer and professional trainee therapeutic
functioning and outcomes in suicide and crisis intervention
service. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1972.










Knickerbocker, D. A., &.IcGee, R. K. Clinical effectiveness of non-
professional and professional telephone workers in a crisis
intervention center. In: D. Lester and G. Brockopp (Eds.),
Crisis intervention and counseling by telephone. Springfield,
Ill.: Charles C Thomas, 1973.

Lister, J. L. A scale for the measurement of empathic understanding
Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, 1970. (a)

Lister, J. L. A scale for the measurement of facilitative genuineness.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, 1970. (b)

Lister, J. L. A scale for the measurement of facilitative warmth.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, 1970. (c)

Luborsky, L., Auerback, A. H., Chandler, M., Cohen, H., & Bachrach, J. H.
Factors influencing the outcome of psychotherapy: A review of
quantitative research. Psychological .Bulletin. 1971, 75, 145-185.

Magoon,. T. M., & Golann, S. C. Nontraditionally trained women as mental
health counselors/psychotherapists. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 1966, 44, 788-793.

McCaulley, M. H. A study and demonstration of the training and utili-
zation of psychological assistants in different clinical settings.
Final report of Contract No. PH 108-66-209. Gainesville, Florida:
University of Florida, 1969.

McGee, R. K. Crisis intervention in the community. Baltimore:
University Park Press, 1974.

McGee, R..K., & Jennings, B. Ascending to "lower levels": The case
for nonprofessional crisis workers. In: D. Lester & G. Brockopp
(Eds.), Crisis intervention and counseling by telephone.
.Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas, 1973.

McGee, R. K., Knickerbocker, D. A., Fowler, D. E., Jennings, B.,
Ansel, E. L., Zelenka, M. H. & Marcus, S. Evaluation of crisis
intervention programs and personnel: A summary and critique.
Life-Threateniin. Behavior 1972, 2, 168-182.

Meltzoff, J., & Kornreich, I. Research in psychotherapy. New York:
Atherton, 1970.

Mendelsohn. G. A. Effects of client personality and client-counselor
similarity on the duration of counseling: A replication and
extension. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 13, 228-234.









Ilendelsohn, G. A., & Geller, It. H. Effects of counselor-client
similarity on the outcome of counseling. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1963, 10, 71-77.

IIendelsohn, G. A., & Geller, M. II. Structure of client attitudes
toward counseling and their relation to client-counselor
similarity. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29,
63-72.

Mlendelsohn, G. A., & Geller, TI. H. Similarity, missed sessions, and
early termination. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 14,
210-215.

Myers, I. B. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Princeton: Educational
Testing Service, 1962.

Reich, W. Character-analysis. New York:- Farrar, Straus & Giroux,
1949.

Richard, W. G., & McGee, R. K. Care team: An answer to need for
suicide prevention center outreach program. In: D. Lester &
G. Brockopp (Eds.), Crisis intervention and counseling by tele-
phone. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas, 1973.

Rioch, 1I. L. Changing concepts in the training of therapists. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 30, 290-292.

Rioch, M. L., Elkes, C., Flint, A. A., Usdansky, B. S., Newman, R. G.,
& Silber, E. National Institute of Mental Health pilot study
in training mental health counselors. American Journal of
Orthopsychiotry, 1963, 33, 678-689.

Rogers, C. R. The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic
personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21,
95-103.

Sobey, R. The nonprofessional revolution in mental health. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1970.

Truax, C. B. Toward a tentative measure of the central therapeutic
ingredients. ARR&TC #190, Arkansas Rehabilitation Research and
Training Center and University of Arkansas, undated.

Truax, C. B., & Carkhuff, R. R. Toward effective.counseling and psycho-
therapy: Training and practice. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.

Williams, T. & Douds, J. The unique contribution of telephone therapy.
In: D. Lester & G. Brockopp (Eds.), Crisis intervention and
counseling by telephone. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C thomas,
1973.













APPENDIX A


Release of Information



I hereby grant permission for release to the Center of Crisis

Intervention Research of the University of Florida at Gainesville,

Florida, of the recording of my intake interview on

I understand the recording will be studied and returned by the

Center with no permanent record of it being made and without

release of any information contained in it to any persons outside

the Center.






Signature





Date













APPENDIX B


A Scale for the Measurement of Empathic Understanding

James L. Lister


Definition

The counselor accurately communicates his perceptions of the
client's own unique view of the world. The counselor takes an
internal frame of reference and through perceptual inference
assists the client to conceptualize more sharply the feelings or
personal meanings which are unclearly defined.

Essential Elements of Counselor Response

1. An internal frame of reference. The counselor attempts
to understand the world as it is perceived or experienced by the
client. His responses clearly communicate "This is what I am
able to understand about how things seem to you."

2. Perceptual inference. The counselor senses the feelings
or meanings which are unclearly communicated by the client or of
which the client himself is only dimly aware. The counselor en-
gages in a process of trial-and-error approximation, through his
own words, of the understandings, feelings, or meanings which are
implicit in the client's statements or in the manner in which he
speaks. The counselor definitely goes beyond the literal, surface
statements of the client in his efforts to articulate the more
personal meanings which the client is implying are present.

3. Accurate perceptual inferences. The counselor's inferences
of the client's feelings and personal meanings are highly accurate
as evidenced by their effectiveness in aiding the client to state
his feelings more clearly and to engage more deeply in the explor-
ation of personal meanings.

4. Immediacy. The counselor responds to the client's feelings
in such a way that it is clear that they are the feelings that
are immediately present. While the client may be talking about his
past or future, the only perceptions accessible to the counselor
are those which the client expresses in the moment.










5, Emphasis on personal perceptions. The counselor responds
selectively to those implied feelings which are most intimately
related to the "self" of the client. Thus, the counselor chooses
to respond to those elements of the client's communication which
are most idiosyncratic, most essential to this psychological.integ-
rity, and which are most difficult for the client to admit to
clear awareness.

6. Counselor's use of "fresh words" in stating his inference
about the client's inner world. The counselor responds in words
which are different from those used at the moment by the client,
but they are not inappropriate for the client. Thus, the words
and phrases voiced by the counselor are in essentially the same
vein as those of the client and are the words he himself might
use if he were at the moment able to state what is unclear, im-
plicit, or "next."

7. Counselor's voice appropriate to the feelings expressed
by the client. The counselor's manner, in particular his voice,
is consistent with the client's feelings and perceptions. In this
manner the counselor conveys that he grasps deeply the meanings.
of the client and that he appreciates and respects the other
person who is attempting to share a portion of this world with him.

8. The counselor's "pointing" toward continued and more per
sonal exploration of feelings and perceptions. The counselor con-
veys to the client his conviction that the essence of the counseling
or psychotherapy process is the further expression and conceptual-
ization of vaguely felt, personal meanings. In pointing toward more
personal, idiosyncratic perceptions, the counselor communicates as
well his willingness to be with the client in this process and to
assist him in grasping and experiencing elusive perceptions and
feelings.

Using the Scale

This preliminary version of the scale for measuring empathic
understanding is designed primarily for use with recorded samples
of counselor-client interaction, either individual or group. While this
scale, like its predecessors developed by Truax and Carkhuff, can
probably be used reliably with written protocols of counseling
interaction or with written counselor responses to simulated client
statements, many of the subtle nuances present in audio and/or
video recordings may well be lost, most notably the components which
are evidenced through counselor voice qualities.

The foregoing elements of empathic understanding are to be
scored separately based on the system below. The weighting system
is designed to reflect the relative importance of each of the com-
ponents in comprising the more-or-less unitary construct, empathic










understanding. Thus, it is essential that the counselor take the
internal frame of reference in order to provide the additional com-
ponents. The scoring weights follow:

Elements of Empai:hic Understanding Maximum Score Value

1. Internal frame of reference 5 points

2. Use of perceptual inference 5 points

3. Accurate perceptual inferences 5 points

4. Immediacy 5 points

5. Emphasis on personal perceptions 5 points

6. Use of "fresh words" 3 points

7. Appropriate voice 3 points

8. Pointing 2 points

33 points

By answering each of the following questions about a sample
of counselor-client interaction, a score is obtained for each of
the eight components and a total score representing the sum of the
component scores.

1. Internal frame of reference. To what extent does the
counselor try to perceive the world as it appears to a client?.

a. To a great extent. The counselor actively
tries to grasp the client's perception
of persons, things, and events. Exclusive
use of internal frame of reference (more
than two-thirds of all counselor responses). 5 points

b. Frequent use of internal frame of refer-
ence (one-third to two-thirds of counselor
responses). 3-4 points

c. Occasional use of internal frame of refer-
ence (less than one-third of counselor
responses). 1-2 points

d. The counselor avoids reference to the
client's perceptions or feelings. The
counselor's response to the client's ex-
.pressions are in terms of how things
arj, what the counselor thinks or feels,
or about how others think and feel. 0 points











SCORING NOTES:

1. This element is to be scored only on the frequency of the
counselor's efforts to assume an internal frame of reference in
responding to the client. His effectiveness in achieving an
internal frame of reference should be reflected in scores assigned
to the remaining seven elements.

2. If this element is scored 0, disregard all remaining
elements and give 0 as the total rating for the sample.



2. Use of perceptual inference. To what extent does the
counselor engage in a process of inferences to arrive at meanings
and perceptions which are not sharply differentiated in the
awareness of the client.

a. There is ample evidence of the counselor's
efforts to infer the deeper, more personal
significance of the client's statements. 3-5 points

b. There is slight to moderate evidence of
the counselor's use of inference. 1-2 points

c. The counselor does not attempt to infer
client feelings or meanings beyond those
explicitly stated by the client. 0 points



SCORING NOTE:

If this element is scored 0, score the following element,
"accurate perceptual inferences," 0 also.


3. Accurate perceptual inference. The counselor's efforts to
infer and state the feelings and meanings implicit in the client's
statements are accurate to a high degree.

a. Yes. The counselor's high level of accuracy
is evidenced by the client's "picking-up-
and-going-farther" responses to the coun-
selor's inferential statements. 3-5 points

b. The accuracy of the counselor's inferences
are negligible, but do not disrupt the
client's self-exploration. 1-2 points


c. There are serious inaccuracies in the
counselor's inferential statements, as










evidenced by their disruption of the
client's exploration of feelings and
meanings. 0 points

4. Immediacy. Does the counselor respond to the client's
feelings in such a way that he highlights their immediacy?

a. Yes. There is ample evidence that the
counselor's focus is on the immediate now
of feelings or perceptions, even when the
client is speaking about events in the
past or future. The counselor makes
explicit references to immediacy, such
as, "as you remember now what he said
to you, you're starting to feel...." 3-5 points

b. There is slight to moderate evidence
of the counselor's emphasis on immediacy
of feelings. 1-2 points

c. The counselor makes no effort to put
feelings on an immediate basis when he
has an opportunity. He may tend instead
to respond to feelings, but use a verb
tense other than present. 0 points

5. Emphasis on personal perceptions. Does the counselor select
for explorations those implied feelings which are most central to
the "self" of the client or those which appear to be most imbued
with personal significance for the client?

a. Yes. There is evidence of the counselor's
selection of perceptions which are highly
relevant to the self of the client, and
the counselor responds to them in terms
which affirm that they are the unique
feelings of that individual at that
point in time, that no other person
feels or has felt just quite the same. 3-5 points

b. There is slight to moderate evidence
that the counselor selects the more
personal feelings or perceptions. 1-2 points

c. The counselor responds indiscriminately
to client verbalization or selects those
least personal. 0 points










6. Use of "fresh words." Does the counselor choose fresh
words in stating those client feelings and meanings which he is
attempting to help the client to conceptualize?

a. There is clear evidence of counselor's
effort to use new words which are very
possibly the words the client himself
would choose if he were able to express
the feelings which the counselor assists
him in putting into words. 2-3 points

b. There is slight evidence of the coun-
selor's effort to use fresh words in
formulating his statements. 1 point

c. The counselor uses the client's own
words, restating without adding meaning,
mirroring, echoing, or "parroting" the
client's statements in a mechanical
fashion. 0 points

7. Appropriate voice. Is the counselor's voice appropriate
to the feelings being expressed by the client?

a. Yes. There is a discernible quality in
the counselor's voice which conveys a
recognition of the personal nature of
the client's perceptions, and, while
the counselor remains a separate person,
his voice communicates a close atten-
tiveness with marked appreciation of
those aspects of the client's world
he is privileged to share. 2-3 points

b. There is no marked inconsistency between
counselor's voice and the feelings
expressed by the client. 1 point

c. There is marked discrepancy between
counselor's voice and the expression
of the client. 0 points

8. Pointing. The counselor communicates that he and the client
are moving toward a deeper and fuller exploration of feelings,
meanings, and perceptions.

a. To a significant degree. There is
clear evidence that the counselor
communicates to the client that the
clarification and exploration of






81



meaning is the stock in trade of
counseling and that more of this is
to come. 1-2 points

b. No. The counselor allows the impres-
sion to be formed by the client that
exploration of feelings may be occa-
sional, may occur only at certain
stages of counseling, or even that
they are accidental. 0 points


_ 1













APPENDIX C


A Scale for the Measurement of Facilitative Warmth

James L. Lister


Definition

The counselor communicates that he prizes the client as a likeable,
worthwhile human being. The counselor's "warmth" is expressed without
reservation or condition, i.e., it is free or "unearned" by the client,
and is expressed independent of the client's progress, growth, good
behavior oQ attitudes. In short, the counselor communicates impli-
citly or explicitly "I like you--period!"

Essential Elements of Counselor Response

1. Positive regard. The counselor experiences and communicates
a deep, personal liking for the client. He lets him know that he,
the counselor, finds the client to be a worthwhile, likeable person.
The counselor's positive regard is expressed in such a manner that
it is understood that the counselor finds this other person likeable
and wort ihile, in contrast I the communication of a more abstract,
impersonal respect for all c,-.ents or for all of mankind.

2. Unconditionality of regard. The counselor's expressions of
regard for the client are in no way abridged by the client's feelings
toward the counselor. In short, there is nothing whatsoever that
the client must do or be in order to merit the counselor's positive
regard.

Using the Scale

This preliminary version of the scale for measuring facilitative
warmth is designed primarily for use with recorded samples of coun-
selor-client interaction, either individual or group. While this
scale, like its predecessors developed by Truax and Carkhuff, can
possibly be used reliably with written protocols of counseling
interaction or with written counselor responses to simulated client
statements, many of the subtle nuances present in audio and/or
video recordings may well be lost, most notably the components which
are evidenced through counselor voice qualities.










The foregoing elements of facilitative warmth are to be scored
separately according to the following guidelines. The weighting
system is constructed so that the element of positive regard is
given the highest value. Unless there is some evidence, however
sligbit of the counselor's positive regard for the client, the
entire ::.ale is scored zero without further consideration. The
scoring weights follow:

Elements of Facilitative Warmth Maximum Score Value

1. Positive regard 10 points

2. Unconditionality of regard 5 points
15 points

By answering each of the following questions about a sample of
counselor-client interaction, a score is obtained for each of the
eight components and a total score representing the sum of the
component scores.

1. Positive regard. To what extent does the counselor com-
municate that he really likes, enjoys, appreciates, or values this
person who he is attempting to aid?

a. To a very great extent. The counselor
makes it clear that he likes this client
a great deal. The counselor's warmth
is expressed in such a way that it is
unmistakably expressed toward the
client to construe the counselor as
a warm person, generally; rather the
client experiences the counselor's
warmth elicited by him. 9-10 points

b. The counselor communicates a high
degree of positive regard for the
client; however, the counselor's
warmth is expressed more as his
personal characteristic than as
his response to the client. In
short, the client could feel, "He's
like this with everyone he talks
with." 6-8 points

c. There is moderate positive regard
expressed by the counselor. While
there is implicit or explicit evi-
dence that the counselor does regard
the client in a positive manner,










this level is distinguished from
the previous one in terms of (1)
level of regard and (2) impersonality
of regard. Thus, the level of regard
expre-sed is approximately equivalent
to that expressed in business or polite
social interactions, and the regard is
clearly more toward "clients" than
toward the individual with whom the
counselor is talking. 3-5 points

d. The counselor is indifferent to the
client in terms of positive regard.
There is no evidence of liking or
disliking the client, either as a
person or as a class of persons.
In summary, the counselor either
does not experience or successfully
masks all positive or negative feelings
toward the client. 1-2 points

e. There is clear evidence of the coun-
selor's negative regard or dislike for
the client. 0 points



Scoring Note: If this element is scored 0, disregard the second
element, unconditionality of regard.


2. Unconditionality of regard. To what extent is the counselor's
warmth toward the client unqualified or unconditioned?

a. To a very great extent. It is clearly
evident that the counselor's warmth toward
the client is unreserved, with "no strings
attached." There is no implicit or explicit
evidence of the counselor's effort to con-
trol or influence the client's behavior
or attitudes; suggestions or alternatives,
when presented, are genuine options for
the client. 4-5 points

b. There is evidence of possessiveness or
conditionality of the counselor's warmth
in that the counselor subtly indicates
that the client should think, feel, or
act in some particular way in order to
be valued by the counselor. This level







85


is distinguished from the previous one
by the counselor's failure to communi-
cate clearly that he is in no way eval-
uative toward the client. 2-3 points

c. There is much evidence of conditionality
of the counselor's warmth. The coun-
selor indicates that insofar as malor
aspects of the client's feelings and
behavior are concerned, the counselor's
warmth toward the client is dependent
upon the client's thinking, feeling,
or acting in "correct" ways. 1 point

d. Any counselor warmth expressed toward
the client is conditional. There is
no evidence that there are any areas of
the client's thoughts, feelings, or
actions which are not subject to eval-
uative scrutiny by the counselor. 0 points












APPENDIX D


A Scale for the Measurement of Facilitative Genuineness

James L. Lister


Definition

The counselor is genuine, authentic, and personally non-defensive
in his relationship with the client. He speaks openly rather than
defensively, spontaneously rather than cautiously or deliberately.
The counselor relates as himself rather than as the embodiment of a
professional role stereotype.

Essential Elements of Counselor Response

1. Undefensive openess. The counselor is fully receptive to
the communication of the client and exhibits no evidence of threat
or discomfort in his relationship with the client.

2. Spontaneity. The counselor unhesitatingly responds to the
client without censoring or editing his communication. The coun-
selor's responses grow out of the immediacy of the relationship.

3. Honesty. The counselor's statements to the client are
true. That is, the counselor communicates his honest, personal
perceptions. The client is not "put on," and the counselor makes
no effort to be obscure about.the nature of his efforts to help
the client; rather, he makes an open effort to "let the client in
on" hi. hypotheses and procedures.

4. Relaxed voice. The counselor's voice is not strained or
"false." There is high congruence between the counselor's voice
and the content of his communication.

5. Idiosyncratic style. The counselor's "style" of interaction,
while perhaps identifiable as belonging to a particular "school" or
orientation, is indelibly stamped with the counselor's own person-
ality. Thus, the counselor speaks in a way that is his rather than
as if the responses came from a textbook.

Using the Scale

This preliminary version of the scale for measuring facilita-
tive genuineness is designed primarily for use with recorded samples
of counselor-client interaction, either individual or group. While









this scale, like its predecessors developed by Truax and Carkhuff,
can possibly be used reliably with written protocols of counseling
interaction or with written counselor responses to simulated client
statements, many of the subtle nuances present in audio and/or video
recordings may well be lost, most notably the components which are
evidenced through counselor voice qualities.

The foregoing elements of facilitative genuineness are to be
scored separately based on the system outlined below. The weighting
system is designed to reflect the relative importance of each of
the components in comprising the more-or-less unitary construct,
facilitative genuineness. The scoring weights follow:

Elements of Facilitative Genuineness Maximum S::ore Value

1. Undefensive Openness 10 points

2. Spontaneity 5 points

3. Honesty 5 points

4. Relaxed Voice 5 points

5. Idiosyncratic Style 3 points

28 points

By answering each of the following questions about a sample
of counselor-client interaction, a score is obtained for each of
the five components and a total score representing the sum of
the component scores.

1. Undefensive openness. To what extent is the counselor open
and undefensive in his relationship with the client?

a. To a great extent. The counselor's psycho-
logical security and comfort in the rela-
tionship are independent of the client's
communications. The counselor has no need
to be "on guard," careful, or protective
of himself or of his professional role
or status. 10 points

b. There is some evidence that the counselor,
while generally open and receptive to the
client, is insecure and defensive in
certain respects. 7-9 points

c. The counselor's openness or undefensive
receptivity is narrowly restricted to
certain aspects of the client's communi-
cation. 4-6 points










d. The counselor is defensive and insecure
in the relationship but makes no explicit
effort to deny his discomfort. 1-3 points

e. The counselor gives explicit evidence of
insecurity in the relationship but attempts
to hide his discomfort from the client.
He "protests" too much. 0 points



Scoring Note: If this element is scored 0, disregard all remaining
elements and give 0 as the total rating for the sample.


2. Spontaneity. To what extent does the counselor respond
spontaneously in the relationship?

a. There is ample evidence that the coun-
selor's responses are immediate and
uncensored. While the counselor may
at times hesitate in respondi:: to
the client, he does so because he
knows what he wants to say but-is
groping for the best way to phrase
it. 4-5 points

b. The counselor's spontaneity is limited
to certain aspects of the relationship,
usually tangential, superficial areas.
Also, the counselor may exhibit no
spontaneity and make no effort to
do so. 1-3 points

c. The counselor not only lacks spon-
taneity, but attempts to fake it. 0 points

3. Honesty. To what extent does the counselor honestly com-
municate his personal, subjective perceptions?

a. There is ample evidence that the coun-
selor's responses are an expression of
his deep personal conviction. In short,
the counselor believes everything he
says to the client. 4-5 points

b. There is some evidence that, while
generally honest, the counselor "hedges"
a bit, particularly in those areas
where he feels his honest perceptions
would hurt the client or impair the
relationship. 1-3 points











c. There is explicit evidence that the
counselor makes numerous statements
which contradict his perceptions. The
counselor may be telling the client
what he thinks the client expects of
him; he may attempt to camouflage: the
.real purpose of his questions; or he may
assume a role which he feels necessary
to elicit certain feelings from the
client. 0 points

4. Relaxed voice. To what extent does the counselor's voice
indicate freedom from discomfort in the relationship and a con-
sistency between what the counselor perceives and what he says?

a. To a great extent. The counselor's
voice appears uniformly consistent
with his feelings and perceptions. 4-5 points

b. There is evidence of some inconsist-
ency between the counselor's voice
and feelings, but the counselor
appears generally congruent in most
of his verablization. 1-3 points

c. The counselor's voice is unmistakably
incongruent with his inner experience.
Tension or discomfort is present to a
marked degree. 0 points

5. Idiosyncratic style. To what extent is the counselor's
verbal response style of interaction free from stereotyped, formal,
or "textbook" phrases?

a. Completely. The counselor's style is
unmistakably personal. The counselor's
theory or techniques, which may be
identifiable, are essentially inde-
pendent of the counselor's verbal
style. The counselor's words and
phrases are uniquely his own. 3 points

b. While the counselor's style is to
some extent formal or stereotyped,
the counselor's personal style is
present to a significant degree. 1-2 points







90


c. There is no evidence of the person
of the counselor. His style is a
studied replica of the "expert."
His style, while generally appro-
priate, clearly does not fit him. 0 points












BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Michael David Galvin was born October 21, 1941, in Columbia,

Missouri. In 1959, he graduated from El Camino High School in

Sacramento, California. He spent the following year in France,

and the next in attendance at the University of Toulouse campus

at Madrid and at the University of Madrid where he received the

Diploma in Spanish studies in May, 1961. He enrolled in the

University of California at Davis in September, 1961, and trans-

ferr d the following year to the Berkeley campus where he received

the Bachelor of Arts degree in Linguistics in January, 1965.

Following graduation, he was a social worker in Humboldt

County, California, until February, 1966. He was then drafted

and served in Alaska until January, 1968. From September, 1967,

until June, 1968, he studied at the University of Alaska. In

September, 1968, he enrolled in the Graduate School of the Uni-

versity of Florida. He was awarded a United States Public Health

traineeship in clinical psychology for the year 1968-1969, and

from then until June, 1971, was research assistant for the Center

for Crisis Intervention Research of the University of Florida and

also participant in the clinical program of the Suicide and Crisis

Intervention Service of Gainesville, Florida. In January, 1970,







92


he received the MIaster of Arts degree in Psychology, and in June,

1971; began his internship with the Comprehensive Community Mental

Health Cec-er of Denver Geineral Hospital. From July, 1972, until

the present, he has been clinical psychologist with the Pikes Peak

Family Counseling and Mental Health Center in Colorado Springs,

where his duties include teaching the training course for vol-

unteers and coordinating their activities in service delivery.

He is Director of the Pikes Peak Area Transactional Analysis

Seminar and is an Associate Member of the American Psychological

Association.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs