Group Title: study of the effects of counseling practicum supervisor offered facilitative conditions on supervisee self-exploration
Title: A Study of the effects of counseling practicum supervisor offered facilitative conditions on supervisee self-exploration
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098385/00001
 Material Information
Title: A Study of the effects of counseling practicum supervisor offered facilitative conditions on supervisee self-exploration
Physical Description: xi, 90 leaves. : illus. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Lennon, William James, 1940-
Publication Date: 1972
Copyright Date: 1972
 Subjects
Subject: Student counselors -- Training of   ( lcsh )
Counseling   ( lcsh )
Counselor Education thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 65-72.
General Note: Manuscript copy.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098385
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 - 000869152
notis - AEG6174
oclc - 014248480

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 2 MBs ) ( PDF )


Full Text















A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF
COUNSELING PRACTICUM SUPERVISOR OFFERED FACILITATIVE
CONDITIONS ON SUPERVISEE SELF-EXPLORATION




By


William James Lennon, Jr.


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
1972


















IN LOVE TO MY PARENTS

The late William James Lennon and Rita Evelyn Grady Lennon
whose love of their son has made it possible for him
to love others


























-_ .









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


This study and what it culminates is first

and foremost a function of the untiring and unquestion-

ing love, faith, acceptance, and sacrifice of my beloved

wife, Geraldine. Also, this study is built upon the

support of many other helping persons. My special thanks

are expressed to Robert O. Stripling, Chairman of my

Supervisory Committee, for his constructive criticisms

and for making himself available when most needed.

My appreciation is extended to other members

of my Supervisory Committee, Dr. Ben Barger who shared

his wisdom and Dr. Bruce Thomason who gave encouragement.

In particular, I would like to thank Dr. William Ware

and Mr. Darryl Downing for the help they gave me in

analyzing the experiment.

A special debt of gratitude is also acknowledged

to the following persons for their invaluable contri-

butionsi to Dr. Harry Grater and Dr. Paul Schauble who

acted as supervisors; to Mrs. Cindy Dewey and Dr. Lynwood

Small who served as raters; to Dr. James Lister for his

support and numerous constructive criticisms; to the

counseling students who unselfishly gave of their time

to serve as superviseesl and to Mrs. Muriel Lee and

Mrs. Maybeth Phillips who acted as proctors.

iii









In addition, I wish to acknowledge the

sacrifices made by my dear children, William (Billy),

Rita Lorene, and Geraldine Kathleen; by my loving and

inspirational mother, Rita Grady Lennon; and my father

and mother-in-law, Buford and Lemer Schnittker. I also

wish to recognize the help of my dear Aunt Anna Lennon

and my Aunt and Uncle, Joe and May Cruise. Finally,

I wish to thank all those many loving, accepting,

and genuine friends and clients whom I haven't acknowledged

by name but who can carry in their hearts the knowledge

that they have touched my life.










TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ iii

LIST OF TABLES. ................................. vi

ABSTRACT..... ..... ............. .......... .... viii

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM................... 1

Importance of Supervision.............. 2
Purpose of Study...................... 5

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................. 8

Conceptual Considerations.............. 8
Research Evidence....................... 12

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF STUDY AND RESULTS............... 27

Hypothesis ..... ..... ........ ...... .. 27
Subjects...... I..... ..... ....... ..... 28
Supervisors ............................ 31
Selection and Preparation of Raters.... 33
Experimental Treatment................ 35
Data Collection and Analysis........... 38
Summary ...................... ........ 56

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS..... 57

Summary.... . ...................... 57
Conclusions............................ 61
Implications...................... ..... 63

BIBLIOGRAPHY............. 4 ..... ........... .... 65

APPENDICES.......................................... 73

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......a.......... ........ 89

V










LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Mean Ratings of Supervisee Counseling
Excerpts........ .......... .................. 30

2 Mean Ratings of Supervisor Counseling
Excerpts...... ..... . .. . . . . ...... .. 32

3 Rater Reliability Ratings for Empathy
Analysis of Variance on Ratings for
Empathy.......................... .. ..... ... 40

4 Rater Reliability Ratings for Respect

Analysis of Variance on Ratings for
Respect.......... .... .. ............ ... ..... 41

5 Rater Reliability Ratings for Genuineness
Analysis of Variance on Ratings for
Genuineness................................ 42

6 Rater Reliability Ratings for Depth
of Self-Exploration

Analysis of Variance on Ratings for
Depth of Self-Exploration .................. 43

7 Analysis of Variance on Empathy Scores...... 46
8 Analysis of Variance on Respect Scores...... 47

9 Analysis of Variance on Genuineness
Scores...................... .... ........... 48

10 Analysis of Variance on Depth of
Self-Exploration Scores... .................. 49

11 Means for Phases, Order, and Segments

Means for Main Effects .................. ... 50

12 Tukey's Multiple Comparison on Levels
of Empathy Offered by Supervisor A......... 52








LIST OF TABLES--Continued


Table Page

13 Tukey's Multiple Comparison on Levels
of Empathy Offered by Supervisor B...... 52

14 Tukey's Multiple Comparison on Levels
of Respect Offered by Supervisor A ...... 53

15 Tukey's Multiple Comparison on Levels
of Respect Offered by Supervisor B....... 53

16 Tukey's Multiple Comparison on Levels
of Genuineness Offered by Supervisor A... 55

17 Tukey's Multiple Comparison on Levels
of Genuineness Offered by Supervisor B... 55









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

A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF
COUNSELING PRACTICUM SUPERVISOR OFFERED FACILITATIVE
CONDITIONS ON SUPERVISEE SELF-EXPLORATION


By

William James Lennon, Jr.

August, 1972


Chairman: Dr. Robert 0. Stripling
Major Departmentz Counselor Education

This study was designed to investigate the

following question What effect does practicum supervisor

offered levels of empathy, respect, and genuineness have

on the depth of self-exploration of practicum students?

In order to answer this question certain conditions were

established. Specifically, two practicum supervisors,

during controlled supervisory sessions, offered, on a pre-

determined sequence, to their supervisees high and low

levels of empathy and respect. After it was determined

that the high and low levels of offered conditions did, in

fact, differ significantly (p Z.05) the following null

hypothesis was tested:

There will be no significant difference in
supervise levels of self-exploration under
conditions of high and low levels of super-
visor offered respect and empathy.


viii







The subjects were four graduate students in the

counselor education program at the University of Florida

who were currently offering, in counseling, an average

level of accurate empathy, respect, and genuineness below

3.0, as measured by the Carkhuff Scales. Two practicum
supervisors were selected from members of the faculty of

the University of Florida who were offering, in counseling,

levels of respect, accurate empathy, and genuineness above

3.0.
Two experienced raters were instructed to evaluate

the effects of the experimental treatment by rating audio

tapes of supervisor offered levels of facilitative conditions

and supervisee levels of depth of self-exploration during

supervisory periods I, II, and III.
The data were analyzed by using a four-way cross

classification analysis of variance. The same analysis

was performed on each of the four dependent variables,

empathy, respect, genuineness, and depth of self-exploration.

The analyses of the data for the empathy, respect, genuine-

ness, and self-exploration scores showed that only the

interaction between phases and order was significant

(p Z.01).
Tukey's multiple comparison procedure was used

to test whether there was any difference between the

first, middle, and last third of the supervisory sessions

with regard to empathy scores, respect scores, and








genuineness scores. The results of the comparison showed

that high levels differed significantly (p /.05) from low
levels in every variable, but that no difference was

detected between the two high levels or the two low levels.

These tests revealed two findings first, that both super-

visors were able to provide high and low levels of empathy

and respect which differed significantly (p /.05), second,

that both supervisors were unsuccessful in the attempt

to maintain their normal levels of genuineness while offer-

ing differing levels of empathy and respect.
Supervisee levels of self-exploration under low

and high conditions were compared using a simple t-test

and were found to be significantly different (p L.001).
The results of the comparisons revealed that high levels

of supervisor offered respect and empathy facilitated

deeper levels of supervisee self-exploration than did
low supervisor offered conditions. Therefore, the null

hypothesis was rejected.
The major implication is that practicum super-

visor offered facilitative conditions have a significant

effect on supervisee self-exploration in the natural

setting of practicum supervision. This study also implies
that, without prior preparation, supervisors functioning,
in counseling, above a 3.0 level of facilitative conditions

are able to offer high and low levels of respect and
empathy which differ significantly (p /.01). In addition,








this study suggests that; without prior preparation,

supervisors are unable to maintain their normally high

levels of genuineness when offering different levels of

respect and empathy. Finally, this study implies that

practicum students functioning, in counseling, below a

3.0 level of facilitative conditions may be unable to
sense the differential offering of high and low

supervisor levels of respect, empathy, and genuineness.













CHAPTER I


STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM


The practicum experience is that dimension of

the counselor education program charged with the task of

developing the student's basic repertoire of counseling

skills. It is perceived as an opportunity for the

counselor candidate to integrate his or her knowledge of

counseling theory into a unique way of professional being.

Theoretical constructs acquired through scholarly study

are expected to be translated into health-engendering

interpersonal skills.
Practicum supervision provides a unique academic

experience to enhance one's growth as a counselor through,

in part, the process of self-exploration. Blane (1968)

has stated, "The practicum has taken on such a central role

in counselor education that supervision has emerged as

one of the most critical phases in the preparation of
counselors."

The raison d'etre of the supervised.counseling

experience is derived from the fact that counseling

and/or psychotherapy, according to some educators

(Colby, 1964; Ekstein and Wallerstein, 19581 Kelz, 1966),








2

is, in part, an art which requires an apprenticeship

if its skills are to be learned. Blane (1968) noted

that the very "...existence of an apprenticeship implies

that some amount of learning is passed from master to

apprentice via a shared experience."

Importance of Supervision

The importance of facilitative practicum

supervisory experiences has long been recognized as

essential for the education of effective psychological

counselors. As early as 1961, the American Personnel and

Guidance Association issued a policy statement recommending

that supervised practice consume approximately one-fourth

of the total counselor education program. In a revised

statement (APGA, 1967) supervised experiences are viewed

as "an integral part of the total counselor education

program." Moreover, the Committee on Counselor Effective-

ness of the Association for Counselor Education and

Supervision has identified supervision as one of the

most critical factors in the education of effective

counselors (ACES, 1969).
Further acknowledgement, by professional

organizations, of the importance of supervised counseling

experiences is evident in the report by Hoch, Ross, and

Windy (1966) on the proceedings of the Conference on the

Professional Preparation of Clinical Psychologists,

which states.









With near unanimity the Conference
reaffirmed the principle that in order
to qualify as acceptable, a clinical
psychology training program must include
a pre-doctoral clinical internship of
at least one year....

Supervision has repeatedly been identified

by counselor educators as an important core dimension

of the practicum experience (Heimann, 19651 Munger and

Cash, 19631 Peters and Hansen, 1963, Walz and Roeber,

1962). Bryn (1962) has stated, for example, that

supervision of practicum student counseling behavior, so

that the fledgling counselor can learn from his experiences,

is essential to effective counselor education. Moreover,

Hall and Warren (1956), in a monograph summarizing the

Charlottsville Conference on Rehabilitation Counselor

Training, stated,

In addition to his academic training,
the education of the rehabilitation
counselor should include participation in
a systematic program of supervised practice.
Such practice is, in some respects, the
most important phase of the training
program. Without it, the trainee may be
partially or totally incapable of assuming
his expected role of conducting an
effective counseling relationship.

Not only counselor educators but also students

perceive practicum and supervision as a vital aspect of

counselor education. Surveying a group of 50 student

counselors, Harmon and Arnold (1960) found that between

one-fourth and one-third mentioned more supervised

counseling experience as a suggestion for improvement


1









of counselor education programs. In a similar view,

two years after the termination of a National Defense

Education Act Institute, students identified the counsel-

ing practicum as the most meaningful experience they had

encountered (Munger, Brown, and Needham, 1964). Blane

(1968) summed up the feelings of many student counselors

when he wrote
...of all the areas contributing to the
preparation of counselors, one area--
practicum experience and supervision--
appears to be of most concern to students,
as well as most helpful to them.

Research, also, is beginning to suggest the

importance the supervisory experiences play in the

education of counselors and therapists. Evidence indi-

cates that the level of facilitative conditions offered

by a counselor is related to constructive client thera-

peutic process movement and outcomes. Counselors who

offer the highest levels of empathy positive regard, and

genuineness, to name but a few dimensions, have clients

who explore themselves most deeply and demonstrate the

greatest amount of constructive personality change

(Carkhuff and Berenson, 19671 Truax and Carkhuff, 1965).
Drawing upon the findings of Truax and Carkhuff,

Pierce and Schauble (1970) found that interns at a

college counseling center made significant gains in the

facilitative core only when they had individual super-

visors who were themselves offering high levels of empathy,








5

positive regard, and genuineness. Where subjects had

supervisors who were low on these dimensions they did

not gain. In this case "...individual supervisors were

found to have a potent shaping influence on supervisee

behavior."
Numerous articles have been written relative

to supervision; however, research regarding this topic

is sparse (Hansen and Warner, 1971). Lister (1966b)

has stated
Rigorous evaluative research is needed
in counselor education. We know some of
the changes candidates undergo during
preparation programs, but we have not
clearly identified the causes of such
changes. This need is particularly acute
for supervision. Needed are clear
statements--even if conflicting--of
desired outcomes of supervision. Ulti-
mately, process outcome research is needed
to isolate the supervisory variables which
are antecedent conditions of desirable
candidate behavior.

Hansen and Barker (1964) appeared to speak for

many counselor educators, when they stated, "The real

task ahead for research is to specify further the

separate types of supervisor behavior and evaluate their

relevance to counselor education."

Purpose of Study

In view of the importance of supervision and

the need for the further investigation of "...supervisory

variables which are antecedent conditions of desirable









counselor candidate behavior..." this study was

designed to investigate the following questions

(1) can practicum supervisor offered levels of empathy

and respect be varied experimentally, and (2) what effect

does practicum supervisor offered levels of empathy,

respect, and genuineness have on the depth of self-

exploration of practicum students? That such a study can

contribute to the understanding of practicum supervision

is derived from the assumption that self-exploration,

and consequent self-awareness are essential processes in

the development of effective counselors. The importance

of these processes is manifest in the psychoanalytical

concept of transference and counter-transference. Just

as clients transfer onto their counselors feelings that

they hold toward significant others in their lives, so

counselors can mistakenly transfer onto their clients

feelings that they hold toward their significant others.

Through the process of self-exploration, which

research suggests is facilitated by high level functioning

helpers,' the counselor candidate is enabled to resolve

effectively the counter-transference relationship.

Through deep self-exploration, he achieves a more accurate

self-awareness of the intrapersonal dynamics which

transpire within him due to his interactions with clients.

Hence;, the student counselor is better able to








7

discriminate perceptions that he has of his clients

which are a function of his accurate understandings.

Furthermore, because of implications which can

be drawn from counseling research, this study was

expected to contribute to a deeper understanding of

practicum supervision. Truax and Carkhuff (1965)

successfully manipulated the level of facilitative

conditions offered by a counselor and found patient depth

of self-exploration to be a function of these conditions.

Since the essence of practicum supervision is the

human relationship experience, the same conditions

which facilitated depth of self-exploration in counseling

should also facilitate depth of self-exploration in

practicum supervision.

In view of the fact that the common denominator

of both counseling and supervision is the human relation-

ship experience, the findings of Truax and Carkhuff (1965)

suggest, first, that supervisor offered levels of empathy

and respect are subject to experimental manipulation

(holding supervisor offered genuineness constant), and

second" that such a manipulation will demonstrate

supervisee depth of self-exploration to be a function

of these conditions.-


~_












CHAPTER II


REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


Supervised counseling practicum has become

recognized as central to the preparation of counselors.

While a number of professional articles have been

written relative to supervision, research on the subject

is sparse. Nevertheless, through a review of the

literature and research on supervision, and related

topics, the necessary conceptual and research under-

standings have been drawn to provide the assumptions and

rationale upon which the present study is based. The

review of the literature focuses upon two areas, (1) the

conceptual considerations of supervision, and (2) empirical

research on supervision.

Conceptual Considerations

Birk (1970) states that "reported research

data are generally inadequate to provide needed knowledge

about some of the central issues in supervision."
References to this situation have been made in commentaries

by Cash and Munger (1966), Hosford (1969), and Patterson

(1964) who have focused attention on the need for









extensive research in supervision. The conceptual

support provided the supervisory process (Heimann, 19651
Kell and Mueller, 19661 Munger and Cash, 19631 Peters
and Hansen, 1963) appears highly incongruent with the

lack of research on the topic.
"Some theoretical considerations of supervision

have hypothesized the merits of one orientation over

the merits of another" (Birk, 1970). Hathaway (1968)

reports that there are many articles in the literature
concerned with supervision that, for all practical

purposes, debate the question of what supervision is, or
should be. The most common issue for disagreement

revolves around whether supervision should be essentially
a "didactic" or an "experiential" experience. Implicit
in the use of the didactic model is an emphasis upon
cognitive learning. Mazer and Engle (1968) take a

position strongly supporting the efficacy of a cognitive
emphasis they clearly assert that the cognitive approach
is the preferred approach to counselor preparation.
Similarly, Clark (1965) has stated preference for a

pedagogical approach to supervision, describing super-
vision essentially as "...a teaching situation in an

academic setting."
A second dimension of the didactic orientation

is its emphasis on "shaping" the philosophical and
behavioral repertoire of the counselor candidate in







10
accord with the supervisor's belief system. While not

as overtly stated as by Krasner (1962), Krumboltz (1967)
also appears to support the shaping of counselor candi-

dates' responses in accordance with the theoretical

beliefs of the supervisor.
On the other hand, while the adherents to
an experiential approach do not dismiss the cognitive

dimension of supervision (Altucherr 1967! Lister, 1966aj

Sanderson, 1954), they consider it secondary to the

more critical factor of the emotional experience.
According to Altucher (1967), "significant supervision

learning takes place in situations where one's feelings
are engaged." Lister (1966a) has emphasized the importance

of counselor's awareness of their immediate experiencing.
Gysbers, when he emphasized the centrality of "trust"
within the supervisory experience (1963) and supported

the exploration of a supervisee's "need system" (1964),
placed the same importance on feelings. Likewise, Kell

and Mueller (1966) articulated the belief that one of
the means a counselor educator can utilize to facilitate
counselor growth is "by helping the counselor to
differentiate his own feelings and conflicts from those
of the client."
In support of the experiential approach, Hoch,
Ross, and Windy (1966) have written








11
There is need for encouraging and assist-
ing each student to develop awareness of
his own personality and behavior, his effects
upon others, ability to suspend judgment,
tolerance for error (by self and others),
and similar characteristics. Psychotherapy;
sensitivity training, clinical supervision,
and role playing are among the means to
these ends.

Ekstein and Wallerstein (1958) acknowledged

a concerned cognizance of the conflicts, needs, and

past learning which supervisor and supervisee bring to

the supervisory session.

The possibility that such individual
differences lead to differential outcomes
is exemplified in their observation that
some counselors deny all that the super-
visor suggests in an attempt to ward off
the impact of the supervisor while other
supervisees show complete submission and
complete acquiescence to supervisor
suggestions (Birk; 1970).
Several years later, Ekstein (1964) introduced a super-

visory model in which the focus for the supervisee was

learning rather than psychotherapy.

Rogers (1957) has urged that the counselor

candidate be encouraged to develop his own orientation to

counseling or therapy out of his unique experience. A

number of authorities (Clark, 1965; Gysbers and Johnston,

1965; Patterson, 1964, Rogers, 19611 Walz, 19631 Walz,
Roeber, and Gysbers, 1963) argue that this "experience"
in counselor preparation should be in the context of

supervisor offered conditions of empathic understanding,

unconditional positive regard, and genuineness, which







12

Rogers (1962) believes are the necessary and sufficient

conditions for helping relationships in general. Within

such a non-threatening supervisory atmosphere, it is

believed' the counselor candidate will experience safety

and freedom, thereby facilitating openness to experience

and willingness to experiment.
An apparent rapproachment among the foregoing

divergent schools of thought has been drawn by

Patterson (1966)1
The question of whether supervision is
teaching or therapy has been a focus of
attention, together with the problem of the
influence of evaluation as a threat which
interferes with the learning of the stu-
dent. The consensus seems to be that
supervision is not therapy, though it should
be therapeutic in that supervision is
accepting and minimizes the inevitable
threat that must accompany evaluation.

Research Evidence

The foregoing positions were primarily conceptual

and generally lack support based upon empirical findings.

This section,' however, will review research studies

concerned with supervision.
The necessary and sufficient conditions for

effective helping relationships presented by Rogers

(1962) have been reconceptualized to form the basis for
what Truax and Carkhuff (1967) define as the facilitative

conditions of accurate empathy, non-possessive warmth
or respect, genuineness, and depth of self-exploration.









The research of these investigators has focused

primarily, on the effect of the foregoing therapeutic
conditions on counseling outcomes and counselor education
effectiveness. Additionally, they have been concerned

with the integration of therapeutic conditions and didactic
processes into a holistic supervisory model (Berenson,

Carkhuff, and Myrus, 19661 Carkhuff, Kratochvil, and Friel,

19681 Carkhuff and Truax, 1965; Truax and Carkhuff, 1967;
Truax, Carkhuff.; and Douds, 1964).
While a variety of other conceptualizations
regarding supervision and counselor preparation have
been investigated (Knowles and Barr, 19681 Walz, Roeber,

and Gysbers, 1963), the ideas of Truax and Carkhuff seem
to have been described most completely and studied

most thoroughly
The investigations of Truax and Carkhuff have
aroused significant concern, even defensiveness, regarding

the supervisory process in counselor preparations For

instance:' Truax and Carkhuff (1967) determined that lay
personnel' as well as graduate students,' could be
"trained" within a period of about 100 hours to offer
levels of facilitative conditions close to those offered
by experienced counselors. Carkhuff, Kratochvil, and
Friel (1968) found that "non-clinical trainees" could

communicate and discriminate levels of the therapeutic
conditions with significantly more effectiveness than







14

"clinical trainees," and that there was a non-significant

decline in the levels of facilitative conditions among
"clinical trainees" as their preparation progressed.

Truax-, Carkhuff, and Douds (1964) have concluded that

a more objective and valid system for the evaluation

of student counseling behavior would be to utilize

someone other than the supervisee"s supervisor for

purposes of evaluation. It is interesting to note

that several other counselor educators who have conceptu-

alized problems in the area of counseling supervision
have reached similar conclusions (Arbuckle, 1963r

Johnston and Gysbers, 1967).
Pierce and Schauble (1970), using a model

developed by Carkhuff for predicting growth in inter-
personal functioning, investigated changes over time in

the behavior of counseling interns on the therapeutic

conditions of empathy, regard, genuineness, and concrete-

ness. Interns having supervisors who themselves were

functioning at high levels of empathy, regard, genuineness,

and concreteness changed significantly in a positive

direction. On the other hand, interns who had supervisors

offering low levels of these conditions tended to decline
slightly. Therefore, these investigators concluded

that individual counseling supervision can have a potent
shaping influence on supervisee behavior.







15

In the following study, Pierce and Schauble

(1970) assessed the functioning of 22 counseling and
therapy practicum students, over a 20-week period, on the

dimensions of empathy, regard, genuineness, and concrete-

ness. Predictions of growth were posited on the basis

of the level of functioning of individual supervisors

and practicum instructors. It was determined that those

counselor candidates with high level practicum instructors

and high level individual supervisors showed significant

gains in interpersonal functioning. The students with

high level practicum instructors and low level individual

supervisors also showed significant gains, but took a

longer time to do so. Practicum students with low level

practicum instructors and low level individual supervisors

showed no growth in these conditions.

Drawing upon the formulation of Rogers, Carkhuff,

and Truax, Desrosiers (1967) investigated the relationship

between the levels of supervisor offered empathy, uncon-

ditional regard and congruence and changes in the self-

concepts of beginning practicum students. The general

hypothesis waste

Growth in counseling trainees' self-concept
is a function of the level of therapeutic
conditions offered by their supervisory
groups and by their supervisors.

The findings of the study indicate that change in

self-concept was related to the level of therapeutic

conditions offered. The level of unconditionality







16

of regard was found to play the most important role

in the change of self-concept.

A number of studies have explored sub-

dimensions of the counselor preparatory experience as

opposed to the total program. Hansen and Barker (1964)

investigated the degree to which the level of the supervisor-

supervisee relationship was related to the supervisee's

level of experiencing. The subjects were three practicum

supervisors and 28 graduate students in a National

Defense Education Act Counseling and Guidance Institute.

At the termination of the practicum experience a super-

visory session relating to significant practicum experiences

was audio taped. Using Gendlin's Experiencing Scale,

two three-minute excerpts from each tape was rated by

two judges. The results demonstrated that those practicum

students who believed that they had a good supervisory

relationship were less defensive and more sensitive to

themselves than practicum students who gave a low rating

to their relationship.

The differential effect of specific counselor

preparatory approaches has also been investigated.

Parry (1969) found a trend favoring experiential treat-

ment over didactic treatment and over a control group

with no treatment in raising the level of facilitative

conditions. However, the differences were not

statistically significant.







17
Payne and Gralinski (1968) studied the effects

of supervisor style on naive helpers' learning of empathy.

Forty-two undergraduates in psychology were divided into

three groups of 14. Each subject in all three groups

was asked to react to seven taped client statements as

if they were the counselors. Following this, each

naive helper in the experimental groups was provided a

20-minute supervisory experience. The supervisory experi-

ences were either technique-oriented (didactic) or

counseling-oriented (experiential). Also, there was a

control group which received no treatment. These naive

counselors responded to seven additional taped client

statements. The findings of this study indicated that
the naive counselors in the technique-oriented supervision

and the control group offered higher levels of empathy
than those counselors in the counseling-oriented super-

vision. The findings of Payne and Gralinski (1968) and

Parry (1969) suggest that experiential supervision does

not necessarily result in higher levels of empathy.
Lewis (1969) investigated the relationship

between practicum supervisory methods (didactic-

behavioristic or introspective-experiential) and positive

attitudinal changes in counselor candidates. Didactic-
behavioristic experiences entailed utilization of audio

tape recordings, lectures, and other didactic experiences:
the introspective-experiential approach consisted of







18
"sensitivity training," immediate feedback regarding the

practicum student's counseling behavior and personal
counseling. In an attempt to assess which approach

resulted in more effective counseling, as perceived by

counselors and their clients, Silverman (1969) used the

design and subjects of the Lewis study (1969). His

findings suggested that clients counseled by counselors

prepared by the experiential method felt emotionally

closer to their counselors than did clients of counselors

prepared by the didactic approach. However, evaluations
of the quality of the counseling did not differ,

irrespective of the method used in preparing the counselor.

Silverman (1969) concluded, therefore, that both experiential

and didactic methods have strengths and should be
utilized in the practicum.

Supportive and non-supportive supervisory
experiences were investigated by Blane (1968). Where

supervision focused supportively upon the strengths of

the counselor's counseling skills, significant gains in

empathy were made on the part of the counselor, whereas

no significant gains were observed with non-supportive

supervision. The immediate effects of supportive and

non-supportive supervisory behavior have also been studied

by Davidson and Enmer (1966). Twenty-eight graduate

students enrolled in a National Defense Education Act

Institute were divided into two groups of 14. Students








19
in one group participated in a supportive supervisory

session while the students in the other group met with

a nonsupportive supervisor. Then, all the students

were administered a focus of concern scale and a semantic

differential relating to their perceptions of practicum

supervision. The results indicated that the practicum

students from the nonsupportive group were less positive

about practicum supervision than were those from the

supportive group. Further, the results indicated

that those practicum students who received the non-

supportive supervision tended to shift the focus of their

supervision from the client to themselves significantly

more often than did those in the supportive supervisory

group. The investigators qualified their findings,

however, by stating that "limitations in the conceptuali-

zation and instrumentation warranted the exercise of

caution in interpreting the results." Adams (1968)

investigated process-oriented and task-oriented super-

vision and found no differences between counselors of

either group with regard to interview behavior or early

appearing behavior change in clients. He concluded,

however, that effective counseling behavior is a balance

between feminine (tender, nurturant, submissive) and

masculine (aggressive, implicit, concrete) ways of

functioning with clients and recommended that practicum









students be placed in a practicum which operated

differently than their usual style of functioning.
Another dimension of practicum supervision

which has drawn attention is the use of sensitivity

groups and their contribution to the supervisory process.
Bonney and Gazda (1966) required group counseling for

students participating in an Advanced National Defense

Education Act Summer Institute on the assumption that

students should be required to accept counseling them-

selves (to achieve self-understanding) within the context

of a counselor preparatory program. An 18-month follow-up

study showed reactions which, with some reservations,
were generally positive. Foreman (1967) introduced

T-groups as part of a counseling practicum and found

both positive and negative responses to the experience.

Objective evidence of the effect of the T-groups on

counseling is absent in both of these studies; further-

more, both studies rely on self-estimates from the

subjects. Betz (1969) compared the effects of affective-

oriented and cognitive-oriented group counseling.
The affective-oriented type showed some generalization

to counselor behavior in terms of counselor capacity

to respond to counselee affect during the counseling

interview. McKinnon (1969) found minimal evidence for
support of the hypothesis that group counseling, as a

concomitant of practicum, facilitates positive








21

perceptual reorganization and more internally-oriented

verbal behavior in client interviews. The findings of

Wirt, Betzs and Engle (1969) and Myrick and Pare (1971)

support the general observation that short-term group

experiences, in practicum, do not affect consistently a

variety of outcome measures.

Ivey et al. (1968) studied the effects of

"micro-counseling," utilizing video tapes, upon three

different skills,- attending behavior, summarization of
feelings, and reflection of feelings. The results of this

study suggest that attending behavior may be described in

behavioral terms which are meaningful to beginning
practicum students, and that it may be feasible to teach

complex counseling skills in two hour blocks of time.

Since research was done with paid clients, further

study is required to determine the generalizability of
effects to "real" clients.

Utilization of video tape methods, such as those

used in the study of Ivey et al. (1968), is becoming

increasingly popular with researchers. Evidence suggests

that in the supervisory process the use of video tape

feedback enables both the supervisee and the supervisor

to observe nonverbal cues that can cause reactions in

both the client and the counselor (Ryan, 1969).

Pepperman (1967) found that counselors trained to use

self-observations from video tapes,, free from supervision,









improved significantly in their interview behavior,
whereas the control group, exposed to traditional

activities of closed circuit observation and formal
instruction in theory, method, and techniques, showed

minimal change. Poling (1968a) found that with the

video tape approach, the counselors were more anxious than

the counselees, but he concluded that the critiquing of

video taped interviews was a valuable contribution to

the practicum experience (1968b). Nelson (1968) con-

trasted the use of video critiques with the use of audio

critiques in practicum, and found some significant change
in subsequent counseling behavior, but only with respect

to improved "relationship" scores; total score on the
Counselor Performance Rating Scale, as well as change of

self-perceptions and development of rapport, showed no

significant differences in comparison with the practicum

student group receiving audio critiques. Searle (1968)

reported that, while not significant, there was a trend

for video taping of group counseling to increase the amount
of defensive behavior among the group members.
Video methods also have been used in simulation

experiences during counselor preparation. Eisenberg

and Delaney (1969) studied the effect of video taped
simulations of counseling sessions on practicum student
counseling responses. A video tape was developed to
present each of 40 clients. For the first 20 clients







23

two segments of the video tape were developed. In one

segment the client appeared alone. In the second

segment an experienced counselor appeared with each

client. The counselor made an appropriate counselor

response lead to each client. Using this tape, a number

of procedures were compared to assess their effectiveness

in facilitating the acquisition, by practicum students,

of the appropriate counselor response. The investigators

concluded that systematic exposure to a model presented

on video tape significantly influenced the practicum

students' responses to clients seen on video tape, but

not to live clients.

Research focusing on other dimensions of the

supervisory process, the supervisor's role, for example,

has been conducted by Johnston and Gysbers.(1967) who

found that a majority of supervisors believe in a

democratic relationship with their supervisees. A study

was undertaken by Walz and Roeber (1962) to investigate

the orientation of practicum supervisors toward their

role in the supervisory relationship. A typescript of

a counseling interview was sent to 29 counselor educators,

in the North Central United States, requesting that they

respond to it as if it had been given to them by one

of their own practicum students. In responding, the

majority of the Pupervisors focused on counselor rather

than client behavior. The findings further indicated







24

that 73 percent of the comments were either questioning

or instructive in nature. The investigators concluded

that supervisors appear to be "teaching-oriented" and

seem not to have any underlying rationale for supervision.

Also, noted earlier, the results of Delaney and Moore

(1966) indicated that the supervisor's role, before

supervision, is perceived predominantly by supervisees

as that of an instructors, including the planning of

duties assigning tasks, and evaluating. Gysbers and

Johnston (1965) found that the beginning practicum

supervisees expected specific help from supervisors, but

by the end of practicum the supervisees desired less

specific help and more freedom.
In order to study supervisees' expectations of

a practicum, Hansen (1965) asked 30 counselor candidates

in a National Defense Education Act Institute to describe

their expectations of the supervisory relationship through

the use of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory.

The supervisees also completed the inventory after the

practicum to describe the supervisory relationship that

they actually experienced. The supervisees reported

that their supervisors were significantly more genuine

and empathic. Also, the supervisors offered higher

levels of respect and provided an overall better relation-

ship than the supervisees had expected. Miller and Getting

(1966) attempted to identify factors that supervisees view as








25
important in the supervisory relationship. Their find-

ings revealed that support, constructive criticism, and

concreteness were considered significant to supervisees.

The foregoing review of positions and research
indicate that a significant divergence of opinion

exists, on the part of authorities, regarding the nature

of practicum supervision, especially with respect to the

role of the supervisor and the expectations of supervisees.

While this divergence is recognized, its implications

have not been evaluated. Lister's comment (1966b),

with respect to the.discrepancy between counselor candi-

date's expectations and the supervision they receive,

was that the counselor candidate may, in fact, be

frustrated. Gysbers and Johnston (1965), focusing on

this same discrepancy, stated that it may result in a

minor degree of tension which actually facilitates growth

in practicum. Taking a more negative position, but

just as tentative, was the comment of Miller and Oetting

(1966) that the trainees' attitude may be a crucial

factor in his supervision learning.

A number of discrepant positions in the
literature on practicum supervision are apparent from

the research and opinions noted. Such a review supports

the need to explore these divergencies and to isolate,

through process outcome research, those "...supervisory

variables which are antecedent conditions of desirable








26

counselor candidate behavior." More evidence appears

needed, for instance, to determine which conditions

should be present during supervision to facilitate

supervisee self-exploration, or which approach is most

effective for a specific learning skill. Further research

will minimize discrepant positions as variables in the

supervisory experience are identified and evaluated.













CHAPTER III


DESIGN OF STUDY AND RESULTS


Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to investigate

the following questions What effect does practicum

supervisor offered levels of empathy, respect, and

genuineness have on the depth of self-exploration of

practicum students? In order to answer this question

certain conditions were established. Specifically, two

practicum supervisors, during controlled supervisory

sessions, offered, on a predetermined sequence (discussed

below), to their supervisees high and low levels of

empathy and respect. After it was determined that the high

and low levels of offered conditions did, in fact,- differ

significantly (p /.05) the following null hypothesis

was tested

There will be no significant difference
in supervisee levels of self-exploration
under conditions of high and low levels
of supervisor offered respect and
empathy.









Subjects

Four graduate students in the counselor

education program at the University of Florida who were

currently offering, in counseling, an average level of

accurate empathy, respect, and genuineness below 3.0, as

measured by the Carkhuff (1969b) Scales (Appendix B),

were selected to be subjects in this study. These

subjects were arbitrarily designated as supervisee number

one, number two, number three, or number four. At the

time that these subjects received the experimental

treatment they had just completed a counseling theory

and laboratory practice course and were entering the

first week of their initial supervised practicum

experience.

Subjects offering below minimally facilitative

levels were selected in order to control for the

variance that could be introduced by high self-exploring

and low self-exploring supervisees interacting with

supervisor offered conditions. Holder, Carkhuff, and

Berenson (1967) manipulated the levels of helper offered

empathy, respect, genuineness, and concreteness in an

initial interview with three helpees identified as

functioning at high levels and three helpees functioning

at low levels of these conditions. The level of self-

exploration was found to be a function of helper offered








29

conditions for the low functioning helpees only. Thus,

it appeared that, in initial supervisory sessions,

only low level functioning supervisees self-explore

as a function of supervisor offered high level conditions.

Two raters, who were selected according to

criteria discussed in the "Selection and Preparation of

Raters" section of this chapter, determined the level of

conditions being offered by the beginning counselor

candidates, referred to above, by rating a composite tape

made by each of these students. Each tape was a composite

of three 15-minute counseling sessions conducted by the

beginning counselor candidate. These counseling sessions

were conducted as a requirement of the laboratory portion

of the introductory counseling theory course referred to

earlier. One three-minute excerpt, including at a

minimum one client-counselor-client interaction, was

randomly selected for rating from the first, middle, and

last third of each composite tape. Carkhuff (1969c) has

suggested "...that it is usually most efficient to sample

the briefest excerpts." Kiesler, Mathieu, and Klein (1964)

have found that the reliability, range, and discriminatory

power of ratings are usually independent of segment

length. Excerpt location appears to provide different

results. Carkhuff (1969c) suggests that random or

predesignated means of sampling or a combination of both

will increase the probability of securing representative







30

excerpts. However, evidence has been presented against

the validity of random sampling (Kiesler, Klein, and

Mathieu, 1965). Since there seemed to be contradictory

evidence concerning the best method of rating tapes, a

judgment was made'to use a random means of sampling for

locating excerpts for selection (Carkhuff, 1969c).
Client-counselor-client interaction samples

were selected as opposed to counselor-client-counselor

samples as the former allowed for the assessment of both
the counselor's degree of responsiveness and its effect upon

the client. These interaction samples were recorded

on a master tape and submitted to the raters for rating.

(see Table 1).


Table 1

Mean Ratings of Supervisee Counseling Excerpts

Supervisee E1 R2 G

1 1.50 1.50 1.50

2 1.60 1.60 1.50

3 2.00 2.00 2.00
4 2.18 2.18 2.00

1E = Empathic Understanding

2R = Respect

3G = Genuineness










The four subjects were requested, on a

voluntary basis, "to participate in a one-hour supervisory

experience which will be audio taped for purposes of

research." The subjects were asked to disqualify them-

selves if they had any prior knowledge of the study. They

were informed that a debriefing session would be provided

by the investigator when the study was completed. The

purpose of the debriefing would be to explain the nature of

the study and to answer any questions. It was also

recognized by the researcher that another reason for

having a debriefing session would be to determine if any of

the subjects had sensed the nature of the experimental

treatment.

Supervisors


Two practicum supervisors were selected from

members of the faculty of the University of Florida who

were offering, in counseling, levels of respect, accurate

empathy, and genuineness above 3.0, as measured by the

Carkhuff (1969b) Scales. Supervisor levels of function-

ing were assessed by the two experienced raters, mentioned

above. In keeping with the research findings of Carkhuff

(1969b), Kiesler (1966), and Kiesler, Mathieu, and Klein

(1964), one three-minute excerpt was taken from the first,

middle, and last third of a counseling session conducted

by each supervisor. Each excerpt included a.client-


~ ~









counselor-client interaction. The excerpts were

recorded on a master tape and submitted to the raters

for rating (see Table 2).


Table 2

Mean Ratings of Supervisor Counseling Excerpts

Supervisor E1 R2 G3

A 3.5 3.1 3.1

B 3.5 3.5 3.3

1E = Empathic Understanding
R = Respect

G = Genuineness


High level functioning supervisors were chosen

for this study in order to control for the variance that

could be introduced through the interaction of supervisee

self-exploration and a low level functioning supervisor.

In a study by Alexik and Carkhuff (1967), two professional

helpers of identical preparation and experience, one

functioning at high levels of empathy, respect, genuine-

ness, and concreteness and the other functioning at low

levels, counseled a client who, unknown to the helpers,

had a response set to self-explore deeply during the first

third of the interview, not at all during the middle

third, and again at high levels during the last third.








33
Tape ratings indicated that the low level functioning

helper functioned at levels related to the client's depth

of self-exploration. On the other hand, the higher

functioning helper offered high levels following the

introduction of the experimental period. Therefore, it

was inferred that during initial supervisory sessions

high level functioning supervisors offer facilitative

conditions independently of the levels of supervisee
self-exploration.

Selection and Preparation of Raters

Two raters, referred to above, who had experience
in the use of the Carkhuff (1969b) Scales, were utilized.

They were experienced counselors and had been rated

as functioning, in counseling, at above a 3.0 level on

the facilitative conditions of empathy, respect, and

genuineness. Evidence supports the predictive validity

of ratings of tapes by counselors who are functioning at

high levels in their own counseling (Carkhuff and Berenson,

1967). Conversely, evidence indicates the counselors

who are functioning at low levels in their counseling are
likely to vary considerably in rating tapes when their

ratings are compared with ratings made by high functioning

counselors (Burstein and Carkhuff, 1969). "Simply stated,

people functioning below minimally facilitative levels on

the relevant dimensions distort" (Carkhuff, 1969b). Thus,









it appears that, when rating tapes, high level function-

ing counselors discriminate more reliably than low

functioning counselors.

Rater Preparation

Each rater was presented with a set of.

directions (Appendix A), a copy of the relevant rating

scales (Appendix B), and several score sheets (Appendix C)

on which to record ratings. The raters were instructed to

evaluate the experimental treatment and its effects by

rating audio tapes of supervisor offered levels of

facilitative conditions and supervisee levels of depth

of self-exploration, during supervisory periods I, II,

and III described below under "Experimental Treatment."

The ratings assigned by the raters were to be recorded

on the score sheets (Appendix C).

Since the raters were currently involved in

rating for another study at the University of Florida

and had demonstrated through the use of Ebel's (1951)

coefficient to have inter-rater reliabilities of .85 or

greater on ratings of the dimensions of empathy, respect,

genuineness, and self-exploration, only a brief orientation

to the study was necessary.

In order for these raters to evaluate supervisor

and supervisee offered levels of empathy, respect,

and genuineness and supervisee levels of self-exploration,







35
the following five-point scales which specify stages

along a continuum were utilized "Empathic Understand-

ing," "The Communication of Respect," "Facilitative

Genuineness," and "Helpee Self-Exploration" (Appendix C).

These scales were written to apply to all interpersonal

processes and had been validated in extensive process

and outcome research (Carkhuff and Berenson, 19671

Carkhuff, 1969b).

Experimental Treatment

Each practicum supervisor, arbitrarily

identified for the purposes of this study either as

Supervisor A, or Supervisor B, presented himself as a

person who was trying to offer as much help as possible

in the short time he had with the supervisee regarding

problems the supervisee had experienced with either

laboratory practicum clients or clients he had in his current

practicum.

Supervisor A established a high level of super-

visee depth of intrapersonal exploration by offering high

levels of empathy and respect to supervisee number one

during the first 20 minutes of their initial supervisory

session. He then introduced lowered levels of empathy

and respect which were maintained for a 20-minute period.

Finally, this was followed by a 20-minute time period

where the normally high levels were re-established.







36

Supervisor A then provided supervision to supervisee

number two by offering 20 minutes of lowered levels of

empathy and respect followed by a 20-minute time period

where the supervisor's normally high conditions were

offered. Finally, this was followed by a 20-minute

time period where the low conditions were re-established.

Supervisor B first established a low level of

supervisee depth of intrapersonal exploration by offering

low levels of empathy and respect to supervisee number

three during the first 20 minutes of the initial supervisory

session. He then offered his normally high levels of empathy

and respect which were maintained for a 20-minute period.

Finally, this was followed by a 20-minute time period

where the low conditions were re-established. Supervisor B

then provided supervision to supervisee number four by

offering high levels of empathy and respect during the

first 20 minutes of their supervisory session. He then

introduced lowered levels of empathy and respect which

were maintained for a 20-minute period. Finally, this was

followed by a 20-minute time period when the normally

high levels were re-established.

An attempt was made to offer normally high

levels of supervisor genuineness throughout the entire

period of all supervisory sessions. This was done in order

to reduce the possibility of one of the supervisees









sensing the nature of the experimental treatment.

Experimental operations were checked (explained below)

by determining the levels of supervisor offered empathy,

respect, and genuineness, as well as supervisee depth

of self-exploration, throughout all supervisory sessions.

As a cover story for the supervisor's intentional

changing of conditions (and as a breaking point for research

design purposes) another person knocked at the door

at the end of the first 15 minutes of each supervisory.

session. The supervisor left the room and upon returning

he said in audible tones to the second personI "Well,

let me know as soon as you find out." The supervisor, it

should be emphasized, was not Visibly upset at any time

during the interview and his voice in relating to the

second person conveyed a concerned but matter of fact,

business like tone. The supervisor then changed to the

level of condition stipulated in the research design for

that sequence of the session.

Again, as a cover story for the supervisor's

changing of conditions (and as another breaking point

for research design purposes) the supervisor, following

another knock at the door some 15 minutes later, left

the room. Upon re-entering he said in audible tones,

"Well, I'm relieved to hear that." The supervisor then

endeavored to provide the level of conditions specified

for the third sequence of the research design.







38

The supervisor experimentally altered his

normally high levels of accurate empathy and respect

not by being phony and manipulative, but by simply

selectively withholding the "best" empathic and warm

responses that automatically arose in him. Conditions

were not changed precipitously. The supervisor was not

grossly non-empathic nor did he at any time show negative

regard toward the counselor. Thus, for instance, the

supervisor did not deliberately appear to misunderstand the

supervisee when in fact he did understand. Instead, he simply

selectively held back some of his better tentative

"guesses" of what the counselor was feeling or experiencing.

Data Collection and Analysis

Excluding the initial and terminal statements,

as well as time spent leaving the room, there were

roughly three 15-minute periods (designated as periods I,

II, and III) in each session with the four supervisees.

Each of these 15-minute time periods was divided into

five three-minute segments. These three-minute segments

were recorded onto separate individual small spools of

tape, providing 15 three-minute samples from each

session or a total of 45 samples.

The 45 samples were assigned code numbers

and randomly arranged for presentation to the raters.

Since the segments were randomly coded the raters did








39

not know whether a given sample came from the early,

middle, or last phases of supervision, nor did they know

whether the sample was from the time period in which

the supervisor was attempting to offer high or low

conditions. Also, the raters were unaware of the nature

of the supervisory treatment. Each of the two raters

independently rated each of the 45 three-minute samples

according to the criterion instruments assigned to him.

The ratings were recorded on forms (Appendix C) which

were returned immediately to this investigator for analysis.

Rater Reliability

Rater reliability was determined by utilizing

the intraclass correlation (Guilford, 1954) which provides

essentially an average intercorrelation. Two reliability

scores were calculated; the first provided the mean

reliability for each rater and the second gave the mean

reliability for both raters. The rater reliability scores

for empathy, respect, genuineness, and depth of self-

exploration are presented respectively in Tables 3 through 6.
For the empathy scores the reliability was

.9847, .9922; for respect, .9017, .9483; for genuineness,
.9811, .9904; and for depth of self-exploration, .7456,

.8543. Consequently, rater reliability for each rater

as well as for both raters for empathy, respect, genuine-

ness, and depth of self-exploration was judged acceptable.









Table 3
Rater Reliability Ratings for Empathy

Supervised Rater A Rater B

1 31.5 33.5

2 43.0 43.0

3 37.0 37.0
4 47.0 46.5


Analysis of Variance on Ratings for Empathy

Source Degrees of Sum of Mean
Freedom Squares Square

Supervisee 3 239.34 79.78

Raters 1 .28

Remainder 3 1.85 .617

TOTAL 7 241.47

l = 79.78 617 = .9847
79.78 + .617
r22 = 79.78 .617 = 9922
79.78 =



NOTEs rll is defined as rater reliability for one rater.

r1 Vp +-(-l) Ve o
Vp = variance for persons (supervisees)
Ve = variance for error
k = number of raters
r22 = reliability of the mean of two raters for
S each person (supervisees)
r2 Ve
Vp


-------------









Table 4

Rater Reliability Ratings for Respect

Supervisee Rater A Rater B

1 33.0 34.0
2 43.0 43.5

3 37.5 37.0
4 43.5 40.0


Analysis of Variance .on Ratings for Respect

Source Degrees of Sum of Mean
Freedom Squares Square

Supervisee 3 117.84 39.28
Raters 1 .78
Remainder 3 6.10 2.03
TOTAL 7 124.72

r 11= 3928 2.03 .9017
39.28 + 2.03 41.31
r* 22 = 3725 = .9483
39.28-









Table 5
Rater Reliability Ratings for Genuineness

Supervisee Rater A Rater B

1 31.0 30.5
2 40.5 40.5

3 37.5 35.0
4 44.0 43.0


Analysis of Variance on Ratings for Genuineness

Source Degrees of Sum of Mean
Freedom Squares Square

Supervisee 3 183.75 61.25
Raters 1 2.0
Remainder 3 1.75 .583
TOTAL 7 187.5

r2 = 61.25 .5 583 602 = .
= 3T+3 = .9811
61.25 + *583 3 .9
r22 = 6125 "583 = =.6 .9904
61.25 61.25









Table 6

Rater Reliability Ratings for Depth of Self-Exploration

Supervisee Rater A Rater B

1 41.5 42.0

2 46.0 44.5

3 41.5 37.0
4 40.5 36.5


Analysis of Variance on Ratings for
Depth of Self-Exploration

Source Degrees of Sum of Mean
Freedom Squares Square

Supervisee 3 55-59 18.53
Raters 1 11.28

Remainder 3 8.10 2.70

TOTAL 7 74.97

rl = 18.53 2.70 .7456
21.23
r2= | = .8543









Analyses

The differences in the predicted directions

for levels of accurate empathy, respect, and genuine-

ness were analyzed by utilizing four factors order,

phase, tape segments, and subjects nested within order.

The order, phase, and tape segments were considered as

fixed effects and subjects nested within order as a random

effect. Tape segments were considered fixed since tape

segment one was the first three minutes, tape segment

two was the second three minutes, etc.; hence, they were

fixed in the sequence of experimentation. The same

analysis was performed on each of the four dependent

variables, empathy, respect, genuineness, and depth of

self-exploration. The design was a four-way cross

classification.

The analysis of the data for the empathy scores,

as presented in Table 7, reveals that only the inter-

action between phases and order was significant (p .01).

This was expected since the conditions high, low, high

in the first order were switched to low, high, low in

the second order. Similarly, the analysis of the data

for the respect scores, as presented in Table 8, shows

that only the interaction between phases and order was

significant (p /.01). This was expected since the

conditions of high, low, high in the first order were

switched to low, high, low in the second order.







45

The analysis of the data for the genuineness

scores, as shown in Table 9, also reveals that only the

interaction between phases and order was significant.

This was not expected since-the supervisors attempted to

maintain their normally high levels of genuineness

throughout the supervisory sessions. The analysis of

the data for the depth of self-exploration scores produced

identical results. As shown in Table 10, only the

interaction between phases and order were significant

(p .01). In summary, all analyses showed the inter-
action between order and phases to be significant

(p Z.01).
Since the foregoing F tests were significant

(p /.01), a series of Tukey's tests of multiple
comparisons were conducted to determine whether supervisor

offered levels of empathy, respect, and genuineness

were significantly different between periods I and II,

II and III, and I and III. Specifically, Tukey's multiple

comparison procedure was first used to test whether
there was any difference between the first (period I),

middle (period II), and last third (period III) of the

supervisory session with respect to empathy scores. The

results of this comparison showed that high levels of
empathy differed significantly (p L.05) from low levels,

but that no difference was detected between the two high














O NV CO[- (I C
O 0 -H 4 0 CO C0
4. C'- H H H




u0 0
0 D a)0 L


a a a
rCd 0 0 N N


.0 .0 0 a)
0 a0
to oa X Po

0 0 N4 N 0 NO 0 0N
w N, \D H, H, o
Z oi 0c 0 0 0 .n 0
t- o to ,0o cd.

E Cd





0 a) H

H 0 O0






0 :j
tOt CO II













;4 10 \ 0
O O t H 0










(1) $4 a)
H co Hx




0 A E > o H

O ,1 k 4 O Q 0 O a 4
4 CD cd 1) j d) (D o to Oia) to a) -I
m 1 0 0
o L 0
Pl to t Nt .-
4'l N r
C) L 0 0 Li L 0 0 0) L o C
(C)~+ to
Li C 0~- 0 to to 0 CO
~~~ '0 d p 0 'd Cd C o dd t


to 0 P4 Ci t 0 0 P-i -i o 0 40










47


*

SH a H H H-P



SH N

N "
4) ( 0)



F p C C
'0 0 N O X X
6 > f 0 41



E ) aa
L 0 # 0 a) I>- 4
S' 4 a) *i m *
0 co E r A to



) C) E w VV E





S0 \C \C H \

Li H H VII E- U' \0 N H ON 00 ON ao
-p a a a a a * H



O SO dN H A N H H
C .5 iII
1 & E* Ul PD 4M P A A






o HO
D 0 0


( )C) H 0N 4 NN N O c ,l
C 0 0o
Li C .x


n o n r


< .r o i r c
SC CO 0
C) Li C)I
0V 0 )
4'04 4 0 a N 4 aS

S, N d


to o


C) (1 C ) U) ri (1) C ) .-
'0 (d P A0 '0 0 C a 0 0 0 00 C tw
0A a P SI (1) ; 4 k *
S 0 0 0 A 0 0
0 Li 0 5 Li Li .0L *
1t o f









48





Cr CL- co C'\ \0 CL- N
N N c \ H 0-%
PY4 CO \0 r1 H
N





o *a 4 'd
d0 0 0 P

0m 00 + O N

o t u p
a NM 0 N 0
o 0 0 43 43



4O a) 0
0 0 i 0 0 + XO 0O

o m 3 a 4 N ca
N o N 0 C ma a c m c- Na
U) 5 O 3 UI) Cd U) Cd ,!0

o0. 54 WN \0 0 H \0 r0 CO
C! ME Cd) P. E Pj l Mad PL K>
0
*H 0
5 4 N 0 0 0' C 4Ht N '-o C N' CO H



0 CC
H 0 .
0

0n 0 0O
CO 0 N 0'. "ON 0) t H
.H e 6 i . . .
SH H UN N N H N II

H



0
H O






o 0 H4 -N N'
S0 0 O



'C rt (1) El N
j si w d U P Id d M a Na o
o1 a h 1Cd

e 0 px0 0 P P a
c 0 V
5 0 0 S .C) 0 *0
e o 6d N o

0 s: ) o
4 o U) 0 0 C U e 0 AO *

/ 0 P E E 0 0 4 4 E 0 P0 *










49




-I N 0 0, N N
NU N x\ O\al L- \0

,-l
0 0

4 o m o $



S) >

S0 a Q M 4) 0
rd .a -V d
0i 0 40 .0 *) x




o 4 w 5 0 W a
p $ -4 0a N bD N b0- bS-i



0 a) Q 5 ll 0 co0
HO N N N '0 cdO m







o 0,4 N n 0\ 4) t N N H




Sd H o n w -
1Q ci t CN c \ \P CD U` CD Il U%




C0 OC
o t 0
o o 4 . ,, r i







w C\ '0 N 9 o o N 0o o0\Q
.-I SH H









o0
a (n o v
mO l C- H
0 I e H N .N N 4 0'. 0 0 co 0

E Q HH

;4


0 *P
rl-l


M C *




"-P 4 4) C
4-i ) o


4 4 ) 0 N 0

:s ciid D r0 N a fl
0 ; S- 0 ) R )


a) c o C *
o L C a C a> si C C) a0 5I
5 t 0 'd a* a c as O .' a m o -
o i C) i 5i Si A o .as N
N O PI N N O 0 P- P- N 0 PiO *




















V)
SH

CO '0 H



H 0

E oAc--





F-4 cm
HH C \ H l







vlv


C) a
oa 6 Ea
H ) to I-' H Hto


C) - H ) rt- CC





4-i
\ a- 4 N o \0


M 1 rC ( Vt1 l

N H H
V- 4 01 f:
H C '

'-k 0 H H N M


-- af m -P 4 -
Cd E D Pc I .


H OA Cq N a * ka
;. ,c y)( Q 1 0 o






i N N N


M C|






ND C' \l

c c c3 H 4
o) to ti







o )o d o vb
N C1 N Co


IO m
H cO H






o o r
CM- r i-









levels or the two low levels. The results of the

Tukey's multiple comparison procedure on levels of

empathy offered by the two supervisors are presented in

Tables 11 and 12, respectively.
Secondly, Tukey's multiple comparison pro-

cedure was used to test whether there was any difference

between the first, middle, and last third of the super-

visory sessions with regard to respect scores. The

results of the comparison showed that high levels of

respect differed significantly (p /.05) from low levels,

but that no difference was detected between the two

high levels or the two low levels. The results of this

Tukey's multiple comparison procedure on levels of

respect offered by the two supervisors are presented in

Tables 13 and 14, respectively.



NOTEI Tukey's method is to find a critical value, D,
and any comparisons L = X. X. with ILL (absolute
value of L) greater than D we reject the hypothesis
that those two means are equal.

D = qo<(p,v) fSE
qc -(p,v) = tabulated value of the Student Range
distribution.
S= probability of falsely rejecting at least one
of all possible pairwise comparisons. (W = .05
p = the number of treatments to be compared (p = 12)
v = the number of degrees of freedom associated
with the mean square error (MSE) (v = 16)
tabulated value q.05 (12,16) = 5.35

MSE = mean square error
n = number of observations in each mean that is
being compared.









Table 12

Tukey's Multiple Comparison on Levels of Empathy
Offered by Supervisor A


Levels M

(a) High 3

(b) Low 1

(c) High 3

(a) Low 1
(b) High 3

(c) Low 1

Significant at .05 level
Critical value D = .949


sans Comparisonr


.60

.50

.50

.20

.45

.85


(a)-(b) =

(b)-(c) =

(a)-(c) =

(a)-(b) =
(b)-(c) =

(a)-(c) =


Table 13

Tukey's Multiple Comparison on Levels of Empathy
Offered by Supervisor B

Levels Means Comparison

(a) Low 2.20 (a)-(b) =-1.3

(b) High 3.50 (b)-(c) = 1.2*
(c) Low 1.70 (a)-(c) = 0.5

(a) High 3.45 (a)-(b) = 1.25*
(b) Low 2.25 (b)-(c) =-1.0*
(c) High 3.25 (a)-(c) = .25


Significant at .05 level
Critical value D = .949


2.1

2.0

0.1

2.24*

1.6*
-.65


Significant at .05 level
Critical value D = .949


~









Table 14

Tukey's Multiple Comparison on Levels
Offered by Supervisor A


Levels

(a) High
(b) Low

(c) High

(a) Low
(b) High

(c) Low

Significant at .05 level
Critical value D = .831


means


3.60
1.60

3.45

1.15

3.45
1.90


of Respect


Comparison


-(a)-(b)
(b)-(c)

(a)-(c)

(a)-(b)

(b)-(c)

(a)-(c)


= 2.00

=-1.80*

= 0.15

=-2.30

= 1.55

=-0.75


Table 15

Tukey's Multiple Comparison on Levels of Respect
Offered by Supervisor B


Levels Me

(a) Low 2

(b) High 3.

(c) Low 1

(a) High 3,
(b) Low 2,

(c) High 3

Significant at .05 level
Critical value D = .831


ans Comparison


.20

.55
.70

.30
.25
.10


(a)-(b) =-1.35*
(b)-(c) = 1.85

(a)-(c) = 0.50

(a)-(b) = 1.25
(b)-(c) =-1.05*

(a)-(b) = 0.20


--~-


----







54

Thirdly, Tukey's multiple comparison procedure

was used to test whether there was any difference between

the first, middle, and last third of the supervisory

session with respect to genuineness scores. The results

of this comparison showed that high levels of genuineness

differed significantly (p L.05) from low levels, but that

no difference was detected between the two high levels

or the two low levels. This result was of particular

interest as the debriefing session conducted by the

investigator, two weeks after the provision of the experi-
mental treatment, revealed that none of the four subjects

had sensed the nature of the study under the low levels

of supervisor offered genuineness. The results of this

Tukey's multiple comparison test on levels of genuineness

offered by the two supervisors are presented in Tables 15

and 16, respectively.
Finally, the effect of the experimental operation

on supervisees' process (supervisees' depth of intra-

personal exploration) was analyzed. Supervisee levels

of self-exploration under low and high conditions were

compared using a simple t-test and were found to be
significantly different (p /.001). The mean self-

exploration score under high levels of supervisor offered

respect and empathy was 3.13 and under low levels,
2.33.









Table 16

Tukey's Multiple Comparison on Levels of Genuineness
Offered by Supervisor A


Levels M

(a) High 3
(b) Low 1
(c) High 3

(a) Low 1.
(b) High 3
(c) Low 1

Significant at .05 level
Critical value D = .935


means

.30

.50
.35

.05
.40

.75


Comparison

(a)-(b) = 1.80*
(b)-(c) = 1.85*
(a)-(c) =-0.05

(a)-(b) =-2.35*
(b)-(c) = 1.65*
(a)-(c) = -.70


Table 17

Tukey's Multiple Comparison on Levels of Genuineness
Offered by Supervisor B

Levels Means Comparison

(a) Low 2.10 (a)-(b) = 1.35*
(b) High 3.45 (b)-(c) = 1.75*
(c) Low 1.70 (a)-(c) = 0.40

(a) High 3.30 (a)-(b) = 1.15*
(b) Low 2.15 (b)-(c) =-1.10*
(c) High 3.25 (a)-(c) = 0.05


Significant at .05 level
Critical.value D = .935












Two practicum supervisors, arbitrarily designated

for the purposes of this study either as supervisor A

or supervisor B, established high and low conditions pf
respect and empathy which differed significantly (p /.05).
These supervisors attempted unsuccessfully to maintain
their normal levels of genuineness while offering high
and low levels of respect and empathy. Hence, supervisor

offered levels of genuineness differed significantly

(p /.05) under high and low conditions of respect and
empathy. A debriefing session conducted by the investigator
revealed, however, that none of the four subjects

sensed the nature of the experimental treatment under
the low levels of supervisor offered genuineness.
Establishing the foregoing conditions, the effect of

the experimental treatment on supervisees' depth of
self-exploration was analyzed. Supervisee levels of

self-exploration under low and high conditions were
compared and were found to differ significantly

(p Z.001).













CHAPTER IV


SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary

This study was designed to investigate the

following questions What effect does practicum super-

visor offered levels of empathy, respect;, and genuine-

ness have on the depth of self-exploration of practicum

students? In order to answer this question certain

conditions were established. Specifically, two practicum

supervisors, during controlled supervisory sessions,

offered, on a predetermined sequence, to their supervisees

high and low levels of empathy and respect. After it

was determined that the high and low levels of offered

conditions did, in fact, 'differ significantly (p /.05)

the following null hypothesis was tested

There will be no significant difference in
supervisee levels of self-exploration under
conditions of high and low levels of super-
visor offered respect and empathy.

The subjects were four graduate students in

the counselor education program at the University of

Florida who were currently offering, in counseling, an








58

average level of accurate empathy, respect, and genuine-

ness below 3.0, as measured by the Carkhuff (1969b) Scales.

These subjects were arbitrarily designated as supervisee

number one, number two, number three, or number four.

Two practicum supervisors were selected from members of

the faculty of the University of Florida who were offering,

in counseling, levels of respect, accurate empathy, and

genuineness above 3.0, as measured by the Carkhuff (1969b)

Scales. Two experienced raters were instructed to

evaluate the experimental treatment and its effects

by rating audio tapes of supervisor offered levels of

facilitative conditions and supervisee levels of depth

of self-exploration during supervisory periods I, II, and

III.
The data were analyzed by using four factors

order, phase, tape segments, and subjects nested within

order. The order, phase, and tape segments were

considered as fixed effects and subjects nested within

order as a random effect. Tape segments were considered

fixed since tape segment one was the first three minutes,

tape segment two was the second three minutes, etc.,

hence, they were fixed in the sequence of experimentation.

The same analysis was performed on each of the four

dependent variables, empathy, respect, genuineness, and

depth of self-exploration. The design used was a four-way

cross classification.








59

The analyses of the data for the empathy

scores and the respect scores showed only the inter-

action between phases and order was significant (p Z.01).

This was expected since the conditions high, low, high

in the first order were switched to low, high, low in

the second order. The analyses of the data on the

genuineness scores also revealed that only the inter-

action between phases and order was significant. This

was not expected since the supervisors attempted to

maintain their normally high levels of genuineness

throughout the supervisory sessions. The analyses of the

data for the depth of self-exploration scores showed

identical results. In summary, all analyses showed

the interaction between order and phases to be significant

(p Z.01).
Tukey's multiple comparison procedure was

used to test whether there was any difference between

the first, middle, and last third of the supervisory

sessions with regard to empathy scores, respect scores,

and genuineness scores. The results of the comparison

showed that high levels differed significantly (p Z.O5)

from low levels in every variable, but that no difference

was detected between the two high levels or the two low

levels. These tests revealed two findings first, that

both supervisors were able to provide high and low

levels of empathy and respect which differed significantly










(p Z.05), irrespective of the order in which the
conditions were offered; second, that both supervisors

were unsuccessful in the attempt to maintain their

normal levels of genuineness while offering differing

levels of empathy and respect.

Supervisee levels of self-exploration under

low and high conditions were compared using a simple

t-test and were found to be significantly different

(p /.001). The mean .self-exploration score under high
levels of supervisor offered respect and empathy was

3.13 and under low levels, 2.33. The results of the
comparisons revealed that high levels of supervisor

offered respect, empathy, and genuineness facilitated

deeper levels of supervisee self-exploration than did
low supervisor offered conditions.

The results of this study provided statistically

significant support for the prediction that supervisee

depth of self-exploration is a function of supervisor

offered levels of facilitative conditions. Therefore,

the null hypothesis, "There:will be no significant

difference in supervisee levels of self-exploration

under conditions of high and low levels of supervisor

offered respect and empathy," was rejected.










Conclusions


From the above results, it would appear that

several conclusions are warranted. Clearly, this

study suggests that practicum students who are currently

offering an average level of facilitative conditions

below 3.0, self-explore more deeply under high supervisor

offered conditions of empathy and respect than under low

supervisor offered conditions. Similarly, the provision

of high and low levels of supervisor offered genuine-

ness appears related to high and low levels of supervisee

self-exploration. In view of the importance of self-

exploration, during supervision, to the development of

health engendering counselors, it appears highly important

that careful screening take place in the selection of

practicum supervisors. Supervisees functioning below

a 3.0 level should be supervised by supervisors offering

high levels of facilitative conditions.

This study also suggests that, without prior

preparation, practicum supervisors functioning, in

counseling, above a 3.0 level of facilitative conditions

are able to offer high and low levels of respect and

empathy which differ significantly (p /.01), irrespective

of the order of conditions offered. Consequently, high

level functioning supervisors may effectively utilize

the differential offering of facilitative conditions to








62

accelerate or decelerate certain desirable or undesirable

counselor behaviors in the natural setting of practicum

supervision.

In addition, the findings of this study

suggest that practicum supervisors, without preparation,

are unable to maintain their normally high levels of

genuineness when offering different levels of respect

and empathy. This finding is incongruent with the

findings of an earlier study by Truax and Carkhuff (1965)

which suggests that not only can helpers maintain their

normally high levels of genuineness while offering

high and low levels of respect and empathy, but that

helper genuineness is not crucial of helpee self-

exploration. Additional studies are needed to resolve

this apparent conflict in findings.

A final conclusion that can be tentatively

suggested is that practicum students functioning, in

counseling, below a 3.0 level of facilitative conditions

are unable to sense the differential offering of high and

low supervisor offered facilitative conditions in super-

visory sessions. Hence, the design used in this experiment

provides what may prove, in future research, to be a

reliable model for the investigation of the supervisory

relationship.










Implications


It should be emphasized that this experiment

attempted to investigate the immediate effect of high

and low levels of supervisor offered facilitative

conditions on supervisee depth of self-exploration.

Therefore, it can not be concluded that any long range

effects would yield precisely the same results. It

is, however, this investigator's belief that the results

obtained in the current research would be accentuated in

long-range studies. It would be highly informative to

determine experimentally what the results would be if

the same supervisory experiences used in this study were

to be used over a longer period of time.

The findings of the present study suggest

several areas for future investigation. While it appears

that high levels of empathy, respect, and genuineness

facilitate high levels of self-exploration, no evidence

is presently available relating to the effect of super-

visor offered levels of concreteness of expression and

self-disclosure upon supervisee self-exploration.

Furthermore, future research requires the development of

research designs which will make it possible to

investigate the differential effects that each of the

facilitative conditions has upon supervisee depth of










self-exploration. In view of the findings of this

study, the findings of earlier studies which suggest

that students tend to gravitate toward the levels

of facilitative conditions offered by their supervisors,

and the acknowledged paucity of research on practicum

supervision, future research on this topic appears

highly warranted.













BIBLIOGRAPHY


Adams, H. J. Three practicum components associated with
client early-appearing behavior change.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan,
1968.

Alexik, M. and Carkhuff, R. R. The effects of the
manipulation of client self-exploration upon
high and low functioning counselors. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 1967, 23, 210-212.

Altucher, N. Constructive use of the supervisory
relationship. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
1967, 14, 165-17.-
American Personnel and Guidance Association. Standards
for the preparation of school counselors. A
policy statement. Washington, D.C.i APGA, 1961.

American Personnel and Guidance Association. Standards
for the preparation of secondary school counselors
-- 196?. Washington, D.C.I APGA, 1967.

Arbuckle, D. S. The learning of counseling Process, not
product. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
1963, 10, 163-168.

Association of Counselor Education and Supervision, Committee
on Counseling Effectiveness. Commitment to
action in supervision; Report of a national
survey of counselor supervision. Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Personnel and
Guidance Association, Las Vegas, March 31, 1969.

Berenson, B. G., Carkhuff, R. R., and Myrus, P. The
interpersonal functioning and training of college
students. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
1966, 13, 441-446.

Betz, R. L. Effects of group counseling as an adjunctive
practicum experience. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1969, 16, 528_-533.









Birk, Janice M. Effects of counseling supervision method
and preference on empathic understanding.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-
Columbia, 1970.

Blane, S. M. Immediate effect of supervisory experiences
on counselor candidates. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 1968, 8, 39-44.

Bonney, W. C. and Gazda, G. Group counseling experiences,
Reactions by counselor candidates. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 1966, 5, 205-211.

Bryn, D. How to monitor an interview. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 1962, 1, 162-165.

Burstein, J. and Carkhuff, R. R. Objective client and
therapist ratings of therapist offered facilitative
conditions of moderate to low functioning
therapists. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1969.

Carkhuff, R. R. Critical variables in effective counselor
training. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
1969, 16, 238-245.

Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and Human Relations. Vol. I.
New Yorki Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
1969 (b).

Carkhuff, R. R.. Helping and Human Relations, Vol. II.
New Yorki Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969
(c).

Carkhuff, R. R. and Berenson, B. G. Beyond Counseling
and Therapy. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1967.

Carkhuff, R. R., Kratochvil, D., and Friel, T. Effects
of professional training: Communication and
discrimination of facilitative conditions.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 15, 68-74.

Carkhuff, R. R. and Truax, C. B. Training in counseling
and psychotherapy An evaluation of an inte-
grated didactic and experiential approach.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29,
331-336.
Cash, W. L. and Munger, P. F. Counselors and their prepara-
tion. Review of Educational Research, 1966,
36, 256-263.










Clark, C. M. On the process of counseling supervision.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 1965,
4, 64-67.

Colby, K. M. Psychotherapeutic processes. Annual Review
of Psychology, 1964, 15, 347-370.

Davidson, T. N. and Emmer, E. T. Immediate effects of
supportive and nonsupportive supervisor behavior
on counselor candidates. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 1966, 6, 27-31.

Delaney, D. J. and Moore, J. C. Student expectations
of the role of practicum supervisor. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 1966, 6, 11-17.

Desrosiers, Francois-X. A study of the personal growth
of counseling trainees as a function of the
level of therapeutic conditions offered by,
their supervisory groups and by their supervisors.
Education, 1967, 119A-120A.

Ebel, R. L. Estimation of the reliability of ratings.
Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 407-424.

Eisenberg, S. and Delaney, D. J. Using video simulation
of counseling for training counselors. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 1969, 17, 15-19.

Ekstein, R. Supervision of psychotherapy Is it teach-
ing? Is it administration? Or is it therapy?
Psychotherapy Research, Theory, and Practice,
1964, 1, 137-1388.

Ekstein R. and Wallerstein, R. S. The Teaching and
Learning of Psychotherapy. New York: Basic
Books, 1958.

Foreman, M. E. T-groupss Implications for counselor
supervision and preparation. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 1967, 7, 48-53.

Guilford, J. P. Psychometric Methods. (2nd Ed.) New
York McGraw Hill, 1954.

Gysbers, N. C. Practicum supervision theories: Learning
theory. Paper presented at the meeting of
the American Personnel and Guidance Association.
Boston, April 19, 1963.










Gysbers, N. C. Strategies for practicum supervision.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 1964, 3,
149-152.

Gysbers, N. C. and Johnston, J. A. Expectations of a
practicum supervisor's role. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 1965, 68-74.

Hall, J. H. and Warren, S. L. (eds.) Rehabilitation
counselor preparation. National Rehabilitation
Association and National Vocational Guidance
Association, Washington, D.C., 1956.

Hansen, J. C. Trainees' expectations of supervision in
the counseling practicum. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 1965, 4, 75-80.

Hansen, J. C. and Barker, E. N. Experiencing and the
supervisory relationship. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1964, 11, 107-111.

Hansen, J. C. and Warner, R. W. Review of research on
practicum supervision. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 1971, 10, 261-272.

Harmon D. and Arnold, D. High school counselors evaluate
their formal preparation. Personnel Guidance
Journal, 1960, 39, 303-306.

Hathaway, D. E. Effects on verbal conditioning super-
visory techniques on naive helping persons.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,
1968.

Heimann, R. A. Practicum training. In C. J. Daane, C. F.
Combs, and C. G. Wrenn (Eds.), Developments in
Counseling. Research and Services Bulletin
No. 18, Arizona State University, Bureau of
Educational Research and Services, 1965.

Hoch, E. L., Ross, A. 0., and Windy, C. L. Conference
on the professional preparation of clinical
psychologists A summary. American Psychologist,
1966, 21, 42-52.

Holder, T., Carkhuff, R. R., and Berenson, B. G. Differential
effects of the manipulation of therapeutic
conditions upon high and low functioning clients.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967,
14, 63-66.









Hosford, R. E. Research relating to counselor super-
vision. In "Commitment to action in supervision:
Report of a national survey of counselor super-
vision." Association of Counselor Education and
Supervision, Committee on Counselor Effectiveness.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Personnel and Guidance Association, Las Vegas,
March 31, 1969.

Ivey, A. E., Normington, C. J., Miller, D. C., Morrill,
W. H., and Haase, R. F. Microcounseling and
attending training. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, monograph supplement, 1968, 15,
5, Part 2.

Johnston, J. A. and Gysbers, N. C. Essential characteris-
tics of a supervisory relationship in counseling
practicum. Counselor Education and Supervision,
1967, 6, 335-340.

Kell, B. L. and Mueller, W. J.. Impact and Change: A Study
of Counseling Relationships. New Yorks Appleton
Century-Crofts, 1966.

Kelz, J. W. The development and evaluation of a measure
of counselor effectiveness. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 1966, 44, 511-516.

Kiesler, D. J. Basic methodological issues implicity in
psychotherapy process research. American Journal
of Psychotherapy, 1966, 20, 135-155.

Kiesler, D. J., Klein, M. H., and Mathieu, P. L. Sampling
from recorded therapy interviews The problem of
segment location. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 1965, 29, 337-344.

Kiesler, D. J., Mathieu, P. L., and Klein, M. H. Sampling
from the recorded therapy interviews A comparative
study of different segment lengths. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 349-357.

Knowles, R. T. and Barr, D. J. Pseudo-subjectivity in
counseling. Personnel and Guidance Journal,
1968, 46, 572-579.

Krasner, L. The therapist as a social reinforcement
machine. In H. H. Strupp and L. Luborsky (Eds.),
Research in Psychother py, Vol. 2, Washington,
D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1962.










Krumboltz, J. D. Changing the behavior of behavior
changers. Counselor Education and Supervision,
1967, 6, 222-229.

Lewis, G. J. Approaches ,to counseling practicumi A
comparison of the introspective-experiential
and the didactive-behavioristic paradigms.
Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University,
1969.

Lister, J. L. Counselor experiencing Its implications
for supervision. Counselor Education and Super-
vision, 1966, 5, 55-60 (a).

Lister, J. L. Supervised counseling experiences Some
comments. Counselor Education and Supervision,
1966, 6, 69-72 (b).

Mazer, G. E. and Engle, K. B. Practicum supervision!
Good guys and bad guys. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 1968, 7, 147-149.

McKinnon, D. W. Group counseling with student counselors.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 1969, 8,
195-200.

Miller, D. C. and Oetting, E. R. Students react to
supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision,
1966, 6, 73-74.

Munger, P. F., Brown, D. F., and Needham, J. T. NDEA
institute participants two years later. Personnel
Guidance Journal, 1964, 42, 987-990.

Munger, P. F. and Cash, W. L. Supervised counseling
practice in the first semester of graduate train-
ing. Counselor Education and Supervision, 1963,
2, 197-200.
Myrick, R. D. and Pare, D. D. A study of the effects of
group sensitivity training with student counselor-
consultants. Counselor Education and Supervision,
1971, 11, 90-96.

Nelson, D. B. An investigation of the effects of using
video tape critiques as teaching devices in a
counseling practicum. Doctoral dissertation,
East Texas State University, 1968.









Parry, K. A. The effect of two training approaches on
counselor effectiveness. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Missouri, 1969.

Patterson, C. H. Counseling. Annual Review of Psychologyt
1966, 17, 79-110.

Patterson, C. H.. Supervising students in the counseling
practicum. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
1964, 11, 47-53.

Payne, P. and Gralinski, D. M. Effects of supervisor
style and empathy upon counselor learning.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 15,
517-531.
Pepperman, C. W. Effects upon counselors of the video
tape recorder used in the counseling practicum.
Doctoral dissertation, The Penn State University,
1967.

Peters, H. J. and Hansen, J. D. Counseling practicumi
Bases for supervision. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 1963, 2, 82-85.

Pierce, R. M. and Schauble, P. G. Graduate training of
facilitative counselors The effects of
individual supervision. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1970, 3, 210-215.

Poling, E. G. Video tape recordings in counseling
practicums I. environmental considerations.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 1968, 7,
348-356 (a).
Poling, E. G. Video tape recordings in counseling
practicumi II. critique considerations.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 1968, 8,
33-38 (b).
Rogers, C. R. Training individuals to engage in the
therapeutic process. In C. R. Strother (Ed.),
Psychology and Mental Health, Washington, D.C.,
American Psychological Association, 1957.

Rogers, C. R. On Becoming a Person. Bostons Houghton
Mifflin, 1961.

Rogers, C. R. The interpersonal relationships The core
of guidance. Harvard Educational Reivew, 1962,
32, 416-429.









Ryanr C. W. Video aids in practicum supervision. Coun-
selor Education and Supervision, 1969, 8,
125-129.

Sanderson, H. Basic Concepts in Vocational Guidance.
New Yorks McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1954.

Searle, P. R. The effect of video tape feedback on the
behavior of counseling groups. Doctoral
dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1968.

Silverman, M. S. Effects of differential practicum
experience on client and counselor perceptions
bf initial interviews. Doctoral dissertation,
Northwestern University, 1969.

Truax, C.. B. and Carkhuff, R. R. Experimental mani-
pulation of therapeutic conditions. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 119--12T.

Truax, C. B. and Carkhuff, R. R. Toward Effective
Counseling and Psychotherapyt Training and
Practice. Chicagoi Aldine, 1967.

Truax, C. B., Carkhuff, R. R., and Douds, J. Toward
an integration of the didactic and experiential
approaches to training in counseling and
psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
1964, 11, 240-247.

Walz, G. R. Practicum supervision theories, Self
theory. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Personnel and Guidance Association,
Boston, April 9, 1963.

Walz, G. R. and Roeber, E. C. Supervisor's reactions to
a counseling interview. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 1962, 2, 2-7.

Walz, G. R., Roeber, E. C., and Gysbers, N. C. Integrated
theory of supervision. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Personnel and Guidance
Association, Boston, April 10, 1963.

Wirt, M., Betz, R. L., and Engle, K. The effects of
group counseling on the self-concepts of counselor
candidates. Counselor Education and Supervision,
1969, 8, 189-194.































APPENDICES











APPENDIX A


DIRECTIONS TO RATERS

Tape Rating Session I


Please be sure to read all the directions carefully

before proceeding.

The directions accompany (1) a copy of Carkhuff's Empathic

Understanding, Genuineness, and Respect Scales, (2) copies

of the Empathic Understanding, Genuineness, and Respect

Score Sheets, and (3) a master tape containing a number

of excerpts from counseling sessions. After familiarizing

yourself with these forms, begin to rate the excerpted

counseling sessions by placing the number of the empathic

understanding, genuineness, or respect level which you

believe most closely describe the counselor's behavior

in the blank provided to the right of the segment number.

For example Segment Level

1 ___

2

etc.

Be sure to write the date and your name in the blanks

provided on the score sheets. Return all your materials

to me as soon as your ratings are completed.










DIRECTIONS TO RATERS

Tape Rating Session II


Please be sure to read all the directions carefully

before proceeding.

The directions accompany (1) a copy of Carkhuff's Empathic

Understanding, Genuineness, Respect, and Depth of Self-

Exploration Scales, (2) copies of the Empathic Under-

standing, Genuineness, Respect, and Depth of Self-

Exploration Score Sheets, and (3) a master tape containing

a number of excerpts from supervisory sessions. After

familiarizing yourself with these forms, begin to rate

the excerpted supervisory sessions by placing the number

of the empathic understanding, genuineness, or respect level

which you believe most clearly describes the supervisor's

behavior, and the depth of self-exploration level which

you believe most clearly describes the supervisee's behavior

in the blank provided to the right of the segment number.

For example Segment Level

1

2
etc.

Be sure to write the date and your name in the blanks

provided on the score sheets. Return all your materials

to me as soon as your ratings are completed.












APPENDIX B


SCALE 1
EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES

(Robert R. Carkhuff)

LEVEL 1
The verbal and behavioral expressions of the
first person either do not attend to or detract signifi-
cantly from the verbal and behavioral expressions of
the second persons) in that they communicate signifi-
cantly less of the second person's feelings than the
second person has communicated himself.
Examples The first person communicates no awareness of
even the most obvious, expressed surface
feelings of the second person. The first
person may be bored or uninterested or simply
operating from a preconceived frame of
reference which totally excludes that of the
other personss.
In summary, thefirst person does everything
but express that he is listening, understanding, or
being sensitive to even the feelings of the other person
in such a way as to detract significantly from the
communications of the second person.

LEVEL 2
While the first person responds to the expressed
feelings of the second personss, he does so in such
a way that he subtracts noticeable affect from the
communications of the second person.
ExamplesI The first person may communicate some awareness
of obvious surface feelings of the second
person, but his communications drain off a
level of the affect and distort the level
of meaning. The first person may communicate
his own ideas of what may be going on, but
these are not congruent with the expressions
of the second person.
In summary, the first person tends to respond
to other than what the second person is expressing or
indicating.










LEVEL 3
The expressions of the first person in response
to the expressed feelings of the second persons) are
essentially interchangeable with those of the second
person in that they express essentially the same affect
and meaning.
Example The first person responds with accurate under-
standing of the surface feelings of the second
person but may not respond to or may misinterpret
the deeper feelings.
In summary, the first person is responding so
as to neither subtract from nor add to the expressions of
the second person; but he does not respond accurately to
how that person really feels beneath the surface feelings.
Level 3 constitutes the minimal level of facilitative
interpersonal functioning.

LEVEL 4
The responses of the first person add noticeably
to the expressions of the second persons) in such a way
as to express feelings a level deeper than the second
person was able to express himself.
Example: The facilitator communicates his understanding
of the expressions of the second person at a
level deeper than they were expressed, and thus
enables the second person to experience and/or
express feelings he was unable to express
previously.
In summary, the facilitator's responses add
deeper feeling and meaning to the expressions of the
second person.

LEVEL 5
The first person's responses add significantly to
the feeling and meaning of the expressions of the second
persons) in such a way as to (1) accurately express
feelings levels below what the person himself was able to
express or (2) in the event of on going deep self-exploration
on the second person's part, to be fully with him in his
deepest moments.
Examples The facilitator responds with accuracy to all
of the person's deeper as well as surface
feelings. He is "together" with the second
person or "tuned in" on his wave length. The
facilitator and the other person might proceed
together to explore previously unexplored areas
of human existence.
In summary, the facilitator is responding with a
full awareness of who the other person is and a compre-
hensive and accurate empathic understanding of his deepest
feelings.










SCALE 2
THE COMMUNICATION OF RESPECT IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES

(Robert R. Carkhuff)

LEVEL 1
The verbal and behavioral expressions of the
first person communicate a clear lack of respect (or
negative regard) for the second personss.
Examples. The first person communicates to the second
person that the second person's feelings and
experiences are not worthy of consideration
or that the second person is not capable of
acting constructively. The first person may
become the sole focus of evaluation.
In summary, in many ways the first person
communicates a total lack of respect for the feelings,
experiences, and potentials of the second person.

LEVEL 2
The first person responds to the second person
in such a way as to communicate little respect for the
feelings, experiences, and potentials of the second person.
Examples The first person may respond mechanically or
passively or ignore many of the feelings of
the second person.
In summary, in many ways the first person
displays a lack of respect or concern for the second
person's feelings, experiences, and potentials.

LEVEL 3
The first person communicates a positive respect
and concern for the second person's feelings, experiences,
and potentials.
Examples The first person communicates respect and
concern for the second person's ability to
express himself and to deal constructively with
his life situation.
In summary, in many ways the first person
communicates that who the second person is and what he
does matters to the first person. Level 3 constitutes
the minimal level of facilitative interpersonal functioning.

LEVEL 4
The facilitator clearly communicates a very deep
respect and concern for the second person.
Examples The facilitator's responses enables the second
person to feel free to be himself and to
experience being valued as an individual.








79

In summary, the facilitator communicates a
very deep caring for the feelings, experiences, and
potentials of the second person.

LEVEL 5
The facilitator communicates the very deepest
respect for the second person's worth as a person and his
potentials as a free individual.
Examples The facilitator cares very deeply for the
human potentials of the second person.
In summary, the facilitator is committed to the
value of the other person as a human being.



SCALE 3
FACILITATIVE GENUINENESS IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES

(Robert R. Carkhuff)

LEVEL 1
The first person's verbalizations are clearly
unrelated to what he is feeling at the moment, or his
only genuine responses are negative in regard to the
second persons) and appear to have a totally destructive
effect upon the second personss.
Examples The first person may be defensive in his
interaction with the second persons) and
this defensiveness may be demonstrated in the
content of his words or his voice quality.
Where he is defensive he does not employ his
reaction as a basis for potentially valuable
inquiry into the relationship.
In summary, there is evidence of a considerable
discrepancy between the inner experiencing of the first
persons) and his current verbalizations. Where there is
no discrepancy, the first person's reactions are employed
solely in a destructive fashion.

LEVEL 2
The first person's verbalizations are slightly
unrelated to what he is feeling at the moment, or when
his responses are genuine they are negative in regard to
the second person; the first person does not appear to
know how to employ his negative reactions constructively
as a basis for inquiry into the relationship.
Examples The first person may respond to the second
persons) in a "professional" manner that has
a rehearsed quality or a quality concerning the
way a helper "should" respond in that situation.









In summary, the first person is usually respond-
ing according to his prescribed role rather than express-
ing what he personally feels or means. When he is
genuine his responses are negative and he is unable to
employ them as a basis for further inquiry.

LEVEL 3
The first person provides no "negative" cues
between what he says and what he feels, but he provides
no positive cues to indicate a really genuine response
to the second personss.
Example The first person may listen and follow the
second persons) but commits nothing more of
himself.
In summary, the first person appears to make
appropriate responses that do not seem insincere but
that do not reflect any real involvement either. Level 3
constitutes the minimal level of facilitative inter-
personal functioning.

LEVEL 4
The facilitator presents some positive cues
indicating a genuine response (whether positive or
negative) in a nondestructive manner to the second
personss.
ExampleI The facilitator's expressions are congruent
with his feelings, although he may be somewhat
hesitant about expressing them fully.
In summary, the facilitator responds with many
of his own feelings, and there is no doubt as to whether
he really means what he says. He is able to employ his
responses, whatever their emotional content, as a basis
for further inquiry into the relationship.

LEVEL 5
The facilitator is freely and deeply himself
in a nonexploitative relationship with the second personss.
ExampleI The facilitator is completely spontaneous in
his interaction and open to experiences of all
types, both pleasant and hurtful. In the event
of hurtful responses the facilitator's comments
are employed constructively to open a further
area of inquiry for both the facilitator and
the second person.
In summary, the facilitator is clearly being
himself and yet exploying his own genuine responses
constructively.










SCALE 4
HELPEE SELF-EXPLORATION IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES

(Robert R. Carkhuff)

LEVEL 1
The second person does not discuss personally
relevant material, either because he has had no
opportunity to do such or because he is actively evading
the discussion even when it is introduced by the first
person.
Examples The second person avoids any self-descriptions
or self-exploration or direct expression of
feelings that would lead him to reveal himself
to the first person.
In summary, for a variety of possible reasons
the second person does not give any evidence of self-
exploration.

LEVEL 2
The second person responds with discussion to
the introduction of personally relevant material by the
first person but does so in a mechanical manner and
without the demonstration of emotional feelings.
Examples The second person simply discusses the material
without exploring the significance or the
meaning of the material or attempting further
exploration of that feeling in an effort to
uncover related feelings or material.
In summary, the second person responds
mechanically and remotely to the introduction of personally
relevant material by the first person.

LEVEL 3
The second person voluntarily introduces dis-
cussions of personally relevant material but does so
in a mechanical manner and without the demonstration of
emotional feeling.
Examples The emotional remoteness and mechanical
manner of the discussion gives the discussion
a quality of being rehearsed.
In summary, the second person introduces
personally relevant material but does so without spontaneity
or emotional proximity and without an inward probing to
discover new feelings and experiences.

LEVEL 4
The second person voluntarily introduces dis-
cussions of personally relevant material with both
spontaneity and emotional proximity.








82

Example The voice quality and other characteristics
of the second person are very much "with" the
feelings and other personal materials that
are being verbalized.
In summary, the second person introduces
personally relevant discussions with spontaneity and
emotional proximity but without a distinct tendency
toward inward probing to discover new feelings and
experiences.

LEVEL 5
The second person actively and spontaneously
engages in an inward probing to discover new feelings
and experiences about himself and his world.
Example: The second person is searching to discover
new feelings concerning himself and his world
even though at the moment he may perhaps be
doing so fearfully and tentatively.
In summary, the second person is fully and
actively focusing upon himself and exploring himself
and his world.










APPENDIX C


Ratings of Supervisee Counseling Excerpts
Score Sheet 1


Random Segment E R G Dx
Number

14

12

18

4

7.
17

15

3

30
20

13

36
8

2

35
6

19
21

E = accurate empathy
R = respect
G = genuineness
Dx = self-exploration









Ratings of Supervisee Counseling Excerpts
Score Sheet 2

Random Segment E R G D
Number E R G Dx
Number

25
22

10

16

29

32
28

11

34
23

31

5
26

9
24

33
1

27


E = accurate empathy
R = respect
G = genuineness
Dx = self-exploration









Ratings of Supervision Session Tape Segments
Score Sheet 3


Random Segment E R G D
Number

23
3
85
12

4
61

9
78
40

8
14

43

50
63

59

E = accurate empathy
R = respect
G = genuineness
Dx = self-exploration









Ratings of Supervision Session Tape Segments
Score Sheet 4

Random Segment E R G Dx
Number

45
68

27
69
41
46

89

37
58
64

81

87

51
29

17


E = accurate empathy
R = respect
G = genuineness
Dx = self-exploration










Ratings of


Supervision Session Tape Segments

Score Sheet 5


Random Segment E R G Dx
Number


E = accurate empathy
R = respect.
G = genuineness
Dx.= self-exploration










Ratings of


Supervision Session Tape Segments

Score Sheet 6


Random Segment E R G Dx
Number


E = accurate empathy
R = respect
G = genuineness
Dx = self-exploration




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