• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Review of related literature
 Methodology
 Results and discussion of...
 Summary, implications, and...
 Appendices
 Bibliography
 Biographical data






Group Title: effects of four orientation approaches on disadvantaged black freshman students' perceptions of counseling center services /
Title: The Effects of four orientation approaches on disadvantaged black freshman students' perceptions of counseling center services /
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00099106/00001
 Material Information
Title: The Effects of four orientation approaches on disadvantaged black freshman students' perceptions of counseling center services /
Physical Description: ix, 92 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Miles, Gail Boyes, 1947-
Publication Date: 1980
Copyright Date: 1980
 Subjects
Subject: Counseling in higher education   ( lcsh )
College student orientation   ( lcsh )
African American college students -- Attitudes   ( lcsh )
Counselor Education thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1980.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 87-91.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Gail Boyes Miles.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00099106
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 - 000100155
oclc - 07311828
notis - AAL5616

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 3 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Tables
        Page v
        Page vi
    Abstract
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Review of related literature
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Methodology
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
    Results and discussion of the results
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
    Summary, implications, and recommendations
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
    Appendices
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
    Bibliography
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
    Biographical data
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
Full Text










THE EFFECTS OF FOUR ORIENTATION APPROACHES ON DISADVANTAGED
BLACK FRESHMAN STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF COUNSELING
CENTER SERVICES





By

GAIL BOYES MILES


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


1980













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This dissertation was completed with the help of several special

people. My sincere appreciation is expressed to my chairperson, Roderick

McDavis, for his support, understanding, perseverance, and friendship.

Also, appreciation is extended to other members of my doctoral committee:

Dr. Janet Larsen for her complete and total support of all my endeavors

and Dr. Robert Jester for his help and scholarly advice with Chapter 4.

A special appreciation is given to Dr. Katherine Steele, whose

support, encouragement, and advice increased my faith in myself and

who served as an exemplary role model.

Deepest love and gratitude are expressed to my husband, Vernon,

whose moral support, sacrifices, and cooperation made this endeavor

possible. Also special thanks to himare given for his help as my

computer consultant.

Finally, a special expression of love, admiration, and thanks is

given to my children, John, Jeff, and Jeremy, for their sacrifices,

acceptance, and help during three critical years of their life.













TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . ... . .. ii

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . ... . . .. v

ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . ... ....... vii

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . ... . . 1

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . .. 1
Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . 2
Purpose of the Study . .. . .. . . . .. 4
Significance of the Study. . . . . . . . 4
Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . 5
Organization of the Study. . . . . . . . 6

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . .... 7

Introduction . . . . . . . ... . . 7
Student Perceptions of Counseling. . . . . . 7
Black Students' Perceptions of Counseling . . . 9
Student Perceptions of Counseling Center Services. . 14
Communicating Counseling Services of Counseling Centers. 18
Factors Affecting Student Use of Counseling Centers. .. 23
Summary. . . . . . . . . ... ...... 27

3 METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . ... ..... 29

Introduction . . . . . . . .... ..... 29
Hypotheses . . . . . . . .... ..... 29
Population and Sample. . . . . . . . ... 30
Treatment. . . . . . . . ... ..... 32
Instrumentation. . . . . . . . .... 33
Procedures . . . . . . . .... ..... 38
Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . .... 40
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . 40

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS. . . . . 42

Results. . . . . . . . . ... ...... 42
Summary. . . . . . . . . ... ...... 58
Discussion of the Results. . . . . . . ... 59









Page

5 SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . ... 63

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . ... 63
Implications . . . . . . . . ... .. . . 64
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . ... 66

APPENDIX

A LETTER TO STUDENTS OF GROUP 2. . . . . . . ... 69

B OUTLINE FOR INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . .... 70

C INSTRUMENTS. . . . . . . . ... ..... 72

D LETTER TO PANEL OF EXPERTS . . . . . . .... 77

E TABLES OF RELIABILITY STUDY. . . . . . . ... 79

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . ... ....... 87

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . .... ..... 92













LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Distribution of Subjects by Sex . . . . . .. 43

2 Means and Standard Deviations of the College Routine
Factor of the CACL . . . . . . . . .. 44

3 Analysis of Variance of the College Routine Factor of
the CACL . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44

4 Means and Standard Deviations of the Vocational Choice
Factor of the CACL . . . . . . . . .. 45

5 Analysis of Variance of the Vocational Choice Factor
of the CACL . . . . . . . . . . .. 45

6 Means and Standard Deviations of the Adjustment to
Self and Others Factor of the CACL . . . . ... 46

7 Analysis of Variance of Adjustment to Self and Others
Factor of the CACL . . . . . . . . .. 46

8 Means and Standard Deviations of the Total Scores of
the CACL. . . . . . . . ... . . 47

9 Analysis of Variance of Total Scores of the CACL. .. .. 47

10 Product-Moment Correlation between Knowledge of the
Counseling Center and the Total Scores of the CACL. . 48

10.1 Means of Knowledge of Counseling Center Scores and
Overall Scores on CACL among Groups . . . . .. 48

11 Chi-Square Analysis of Four Group Responses to
Question One . . . . . . . . . .. 49

12 Chi-Square Analysis of Four Group Responses to
Question Two . . . . . . . . . . 50

13 Chi-Square Analysis of Four Group Responses to
Question Three . . . . . . . .. .. . 50

14 Chi-Square Analysis of Four Group Responses to
Question Six . . . . . . . . . 51

15 Chi-Square Analysis of Four Group Responses to
Question Seven . . . . . . . . . .. 52








Table Page

16 Chi-Square Analysis of Four Group Responses to
Question Eight. . . . . . . . . . 52

17 Analysis of Variance of Repeated Measures of Group 1. .. 53

18 Analysis of Variance of Repeated Meaeures of Group 2. .. 54

19 Analysis of Variance of Repeated Measures of Group 3. .. 54

20 Analysis of Variance of Repeated Measures of Group 4. 54

21 Follow-Up Means and Standard Deviations of the College
Routine Factor of the CACL. . . . . . . .. 55

22 Follow-Up Means and Standard Deviations of the
Vocational Choice Factor of the CACL. . . . . ... 55

23 Follow-Up Means and Standard Deviations of the
Adjustment to Self and Others Factor of the CACL. ... 56

24 Follow-Up Means and Standard Deviations of the Total
Overall Scores of the CACL. . . . . . . ... 56

25 Follow-Up Analysis of Variance of College Routine
Factor of the CACL. . . . . . . . . .. 56

26 Follow-Up Analysis of Variance of Vocational Choice
Factor of the CACL. . . . . . . . . .. 57

27 Follow-Up Analysis of Variance of Adjustment to Self
and Others Factor of the CACL . . . . . . .. 57

28 Follow-Up Analysis of Variance of Total Overall
Scores of the CACL. . . . . . . . . .. 57
E.1 Vocational Choice Scores. . . . . . . . .. 79

E.2 Vocational Choice Scores, Computation or r. . . .. 80

E.3 College Routine Scores. . . . . . . . ... 81

E.4 College Routine Scores, Computation of r. . . . ... 82

E.5 Adjustment Scores . . . . . . . .... 83

E.6 Adjustment Scores, Computation of r . . . . .. 84

E.7 Overall Scores. . . . . . . . . . . 85

E.8 Overall Scores, Computation of r. . . . . . ... 86







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


THE EFFECTS OF FOUR ORIENTATION APPROACHES ON DISADVANTAGED
BLACK FRESHMAN STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF COUNSELING
CENTER SERVICES

By

Gail Boyes Miles

December, 1980

Chairperson: Dr. Roderick McDavis
Major Department: Counselor Education

Black college students have not used counseling center services

because they were unaware of the services provided by such centers.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of four orien-

tation approaches on disadvantaged black students' perceptions of

counseling center services. The 86 students in the sample included

48 black freshman students entering the Program for Academic Counseling

and Tutoring and 38 black freshman students entering the Special Ser-

vices Program during the 1980 summer quarter at the University of

Florida. These students were divided into four groups, each group

receiving similar and different orientation approaches.

In the first group, 31 students participated in a large group

orientation which acquainted them with the services of the counseling

center and provided them with a brochure explaining these services.

In the second group, 18 students participated in the large group orien-

tation, received the counseling center brochure, and were sent a per-

sonalized letter from the director of the center welcoming them to

campus and explaining the services of the center. In the third group,

19 students participated in the large group orientation, received the







center brochure, were taken on a tour of the center, and participated

in a small group orientation in which a black counselor acquainted them

with the services of the center. In the fourth group, 18 students

participated in the large group presentation, received the center bro-

chure, and participated in an individual orientation in which a black

counselor acquainted them with the services of the center.

The students in the four groups completed the Counseling Appro-

priateness Check List (CACL) and a self-report questionnaire at the end

of their orientations. The 66 item CACL was used to measure their

attitudes toward the appropriateness of discussing problems with a

counselor in the counseling center related to satisfactory adjustment

to college life, career exploration and career choice, and personal and

social adjustment. The self-report questionnaire was used to determine

students' knowledge about the location and services of the counseling

center and expected use of the center for problems.

An analysis of variance indicated no significant differences among

the four groups on their responses to the three CACL factors and their

CACL total scores. An analysis of variance of repeated measures was

performed to evaluate differences in responses to questions concerning

each factor within each group. This analysis indicated that these stu-

dents were more likely to consider vocational and educational problems

as more appropriate than personal problems for discussion with a

counselor in the counseling center. There was a correlation between

the scores of the CACL and knowledge of the center for the students in

group 3 who received the small group orientation, but not for students

in the other groups. The students in group 4 who received the indi-

vidual interviews were more likely to discuss a future personal problem







with a counselor in the counseling center than the students in other

groups. The results of a six-week follow-up indicated that no signi-

ficant changes occurred in the students' responses to the CACL items.

Based on the results of this study, four conclusions were drawn.

First, personalized orientations do not affect students' attitudes

toward problems appropriate to discuss with a counselor in the counsel-

ing center. Second, the traditional counseling center brochure appears

to be as effective in changing student attitudes toward the center as a

more personal approach. Third, information-dissemination appears to

be most effective through small-group orientation. Fourth, students

seem more likely to use the counseling center for solving personal

problems if they have had an opportunity to see a counselor individually.













CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION


Statement of the Problem

One of the main concerns of university student services staff,

in general, and university counseling center staff, in particular, is

their effectiveness in communicating services to new students attending

the institution. Studies have revealed a significant difference be-

tween those services which students perceive being offered by counseling

centers and those which are actually offered (Warman, 1960; Gelso &

McKensie, 1973; Nathan, Joanning, Duckro, & Beal, 1978).

Recent surveys estimate that at least 30 percent of the students

in college do not know the services offered by university counseling

centers (Paul & Crego, 1979). Another large number possess erroneous

information about specific services (Paul & Crego, 1979). This con-

tinues to occur even after extensive dissemination of information by

counseling centers and by structured orientation programs. This lack

of effective communication procedures appears to be an important factor

in students' perceptions of counseling center services.

The black student population exemplifies perceptual differences

between services which students perceive being offered by the counseling

center and those which are actually offered. Since these students are

often first generation college students, they frequently arrive on

campus with no clearly defined expectations of college life (Gibb,








1973). Another significant factor contributing to perceptual inac-

curacies is the student's lack of knowledge about counseling in general.

Most middle-class students have had continuing relationships with

"helping" professionals such as doctors, lawyers, etc. The role of

the helper and the helpee has been clearly defined (Vontress, 1969).

With many minority students these roles are not so clearly differen-

tiated. They are less likely to perceive a counseling center profes-

sional as a resource from which to seek help. These cultural barriers

affect decisions by black students to use counseling center services.

There is supportive research suggesting that the perceptions of

entering freshmen are most likely developed and changed during their

first months on campus (Freedman in King & Walsh, 1972). Freshmen have

greater sensitivity to their environment and hence are more likely to

assimilate more information. Thus, a strong case can be made for more

powerful and informed orientation programs which reach the students

during this critical period when they are more likely to accept and

assimilate the information.



Need for the Study


Reportedly, nonwhite students are not using university counseling

centers in proportion to their numbers on campus (Winer, Pasca, Dinello,

& Weingarten, 1974). Benedict, Apsler,and Morrison (1977) suggested

that this lack of use of counseling centers by minority students was

the result of a lack of awareness of the availability of counseling as

well as inaccurate perceptions of the counseling center. Assuming that

the results of the Winer and Benedict studies are correct, it would








seem that a comprehensive information campaign may be needed to orient

these students to services which are offered.

Another factor related to this lack of use is a persistence among

black students that university services are directed toward white

students on campus. As a result, information given black students is

often overlooked. This lack of awareness constitutes a large portion

of their misconceptions toward university counseling services. It

would appear that an effective means of increasing awareness is essen-

tial to their future use of the services.

Traditionally, newspapers and brochures have been used by counsel-

ing centers to inform students of their services. A study conducted

by Paul and Crego (1979) found that directors of counseling center

services reported this means of communication as their most important

way of disseminating information to the students. They also perceived

it as the most effective means of communication. Gibb (1973), however,

proports that passive efforts alone are not enough and suggests that

"counselors should use more aggressive techniques with black students

in seeking them out for anticipatory guidance" (p. 469). These con-

flicting results suggest that an investigation of attitudes held by

minority students regarding help-giving sources is important. Because

counseling centers must plan for their programs, and orientation staff

must devise the most effective means of "orienting" new students, there

is an economic and administrative need for the most effective and

efficient way of communicating services to incoming students, especially

minority students.







Purpose of the Study


The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of four

types of orientation approaches on black freshman students' perceptions

of counseling center services. Each orientation technique increased

the personal contact each student received from university staff mem-

bers. Follow-up data were used to determine whether students' percep-

tions of counseling center services changed after the initial orien-

tation.



Significance of the Study

This investigation has important implications for future orien-

tation programs directed specifically toward black students as well as

for administrators of university counseling centers who must choose

effective methods of information dissemination. Counseling center

services are intangible and as such are difficult to "market" to the

student population (Paul & Crego, 1979). Traditionally, universities

have utilized existing student services programs to orient all students

including the minority population (Madrazo-Peterson & Rodriguez, 1978).

The results of this traditional approach of disseminating information

are not encouraging (Paul & Crego, 1979).

Webster and Fretz (1978) found that black students placed counsel-

ing centers as low preferences in seeking help for personal problems and

suggested an exploration of student perceptions of these services. If

students' perceptions can be altered by specific orientation approaches,

orientation programs could become an important method of information

dissemination in which staff are expected to place more energy.








There is every indication in the literature that once black

students' perceptions of counseling center services adequately match

actual services offered, utilization of counseling center services by black

students will increase (King et al., 1973). Therefore, this study opens

other avenues of research to examine the assumptions made in previous

literature; namely, that, with increased awareness of services, black

students would, in fact, use counseling center services.



Definition of Terms


The following terms have been operationally defined for this

study:

University Counseling Center--A service offering free psychological

and vocational counseling to all students and their spouses. The center

is staffed by psychologists whose primary interests are to facilitate

the growth and development of the students.

Counseling--"An interactive process which facilitates meaningful under-

standing of self and environment and results in the establishment

and/or clarification of goals and values for future behavior" (Shertzer

& Stone, 1974, p. 20).

Counselor--"A skilled helper who-provides conditions that facilitate

problem resolution and behavior change in a way that is consistent with

the client's values and goals" (Blackham, 1977, p. 9).

Black Student--Black students who are enrolled full-time at the

University of Florida and who have been admitted to the university

under the special admittance program during summer quarter, 1980.







Perceptions--The perceived knowledge which is held by the students

about the services of university counseling centers.

Orientation--A formalized period of time set by university staff to

systematically familiarize new students with the campus and its ser-

vices. For the purposes of this study the term orientation will refer

to the five days prior to the first day of summer classes.

Program for Academic Counseling and Tutoring (PACT)--A program mandated

by the State of Florida to admit disadvantaged students to the Univer-

sity of Florida as special students who for academic reasons could not

be admitted as regular students. The program is administered by the

College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

Special Services--A program mandated by the federal government to admit

disadvantaged students to the University of Florida as special students

who for academic reasons could not be admitted as regular students.

The program is administered by the DSSSP.

Traditional Counseling Center Brochure--Prepared written material given

to all incoming students which explains the services offered by the

university counseling center.



Organization of the Study

The remainder of the study is described in four chapters. A re-

view of literature on minority students' perceptions of counseling

centers is presented in Chapter II. The methods and procedures which

were used in the study are explained in Chapter III. The results of the

study are reported and discussed in Chapter IV. Implications, recom-

mendations, and a summary of the study are presented in Chapter V.














CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

There are many interdependent factors affecting minority students'

perceptions of counseling center services. All new students have cer-

tain expectations of counseling that they bring to campus. These have

been developed by previous experiences with counselors or by friends or

relatives' experiences. To evaluate some of the problems and explore

research in the area, several aspects of the literature on student per-

ceptions have been researched. The areas discussed in this chapter

include student perceptions of counseling, black student perceptions

of counseling, student perceptions of the counseling center services,

and factors affecting student use of counseling center services.



Student Perceptions of Counseling


Most of the research conducted on student views of counseling

have been done in terms of the type of problems students will discuss

with a counselor at a counseling center (Strong et al., 1971; Resnick &

Gelso, 1971). The results of these studies have been used to define

the student's expectations and perceptions of the counseling role.

There is research which indicates that the professional counselor

is not considered the principle source of help on campus and is being

"challenged" by other nonprofessional sources, i.e., friends, family,

etc. (Warnath, 1972). One reason appears to be that minority students







often reject campus counselors because they are considered typical

middle-class persons who do not understand the background of the

students. Thus, minority students rate counselors low as sources of

help for problems. Warnath (1972) suggested that university counselors

need to define, educate, and expand their role to include successful

techniques for various problems and clientele.

Christensen and Magoon (1974) continued to evaluate students' pre-

ference of help-givers by surveying University of Maryland students

and asking them to rank their order of preference. Their results con-

tinued to support previous studies. They found that family, friends,

faculty, and relatives were the first preference for all problems:

educational, vocational, and emotional. On the average, counselors

were not perceived as important help-givers on campus. Their conclu-

sions indicated that "counseling centers should educate students

generally as to their perceived importance as help-givers" (p. 313).

A main concern for counselors is that students utilize them as a

resource for many problems ranging from vocational through emotional

crisis counseling. However, Resnick and Gelso (1971) reported that

vocational and educational problems were considered more important to

discuss with a counselor than were personal and emotional problems.

Wilcove, Gerry, and Sharp (1971) found even greater significant dif-

ferences in what students perceived as being appropriate for counseling

than Resnick and Gelso's study. As in other studies, they found that

the students were less likely to visit counselors for a personal prob-

lem than for educational or vocational problems.

In a survey of student perceptions toward various campus help-givers

at the University of Minnesota, Strong, Hendel, and Bratton (1971)







found students more likely to see a counselor for vocational and

educational problems, but as the problems became more complex and

serious they turned to other mental health professionals for help such

as psychologists and psychiatrists. The counselor was not perceived

as a resource for personal and emotional problems. The results, how-

ever, did show that students viewed counselors on campus as good re-

sources for help. These student perceptions brought their views of

counselors more in line with the counselors' perceived view of their

profession.

Most of the studies determining student views of counseling con-

sistently show that students are more likely to seek help for vocational

and educational problems than for personal and emotional concerns.

Students do not seem to be aware that counselors have been trained in

a specialized profession where they have developed unique counseling

skills to help students in a wide range of concerns. Counselors become

frustrated when students come only for educational and vocational

problems. Because students view the counseling role as a functional

role for vocational and educational problems, counselors spend much of

their time on these problems and very little time on what they consider

to be an important functional role.



Black Students' Perceptions of Counseling

Black students' perceptions of university counseling centers and

counselors have been reported in the student personnel literature.

Russell (1970) explored black students' perceptions of counseling in

general and found that because schools are dominated by white leaders







and counseling centers by white counselors, black students have feelings

of alienation toward counselors. As a result of this alienation, they

have negative attitudes toward counseling services. Black clients feel

frustrated in the counseling relationship and as a result terminate

prematurely. These negative experiences are indirectly passed along

to their friends and relatives. As a result, black students do not

seek counseling. The expectations of black students regarding counsel-

ing differ from actual experience, and, thus, constitutes a serious

gap for effective counseling services. Russell (1970) suggested that

counselors have a major responsibility to educate the black student

to the need and use of counseling services.

An exploration by Vontress (1969) of the barriers which black

students must overcome before they can utilize the full benefits of

the counseling relationship supported Russell's work. One significant

barrier for black clients is their "lack of familiarity with counsel-

ing" (p. 12). Because they have not been involved with helping pro-

fessionals, they have inaccurate expectations of counseling and the

counseling relationship. His suggestions included very structured

counseling relationships as well as reeducation of the black client

toward counselors as help-givers.

As-previously mentioned, minorities often bring inaccurate per-

ceptions of college life to campus. According to the study by Gibb

(1973) of the differential expectations of black students in a pre-

dominantly white university, the college expectations of minority

students are not clearly defined. According to Haettenschwiller (1971),

the students have not completed "anticipatory socialization." Not only








do these students have ill-defined expectations of college life, they

also possess erroneous information which affects their interaction with

the college environment. In addition, as these expectations were not

met, students became frustrated and hostile toward the institution and

the help-givers. One clear indication of this phenomenon is the dif-

ferent types of expectations and perceptions held by freshmen black

students and upperclassmen. The freshmen entered the university with

idealized expectations but soon became disillusioned. Gibb's solution

to the problems of differential perceptions and their expectations of

services on campus was to aggressively seek out students for potential

counseling using more direct and positive methods as well as more

effective orientation approaches.

There is also research which suggests that black students come to

campus with different expectations than white students. Erwin (1976)

found that black students' basic attitudes of alienation, powerlessness,

and social. isolation keep them from seeking help from professionals

whom they consider part of the established white community. Erwin

(1976) found the following:

Their racial and ethnic barriers often make conven-
tional counseling inoperable: racially stereotyped
attitudes of both the white counselor and the black
client, mutual ignorance of backgrounds, the language
barriers, client's lack of familiarity with counseling,
and the black students' reservation about self-
disclosure. (p. 162)

These barriers are similar to those discussed by Russell and Vontress

10 years earlier.

Madrazo-Peterson and Rodriguez (1978) found a prevailing attitude

that college services were directed toward the white college community

and as a result ethnic minority students expressed "anger, frustration,





-12-


and helplessness" (p. 262). These perceptions are, in part, a result of

the universities' continued use of traditional approaches in student

services programs toward non-traditional groups. Because of this rigid-

ity, the non-traditional groups have not utilized the services. With

their feelings of alienation and hostility, the minority students take

active steps to withdraw from university activities and associate primari-

ly with other minority students. A consistent finding with previous

results indicated that freshmen students expressed a significantly

greater satisfaction with the university environment than the upper-

classmen. The authors suggested that this was due, in part, to their

idealism and optimism they have when they reach college. As they con-

tinue to become involved on campus, they become less satisfied with

the services and the college environment. One possible reason for

dissatisfaction appears to be the realities of inadequate campus ser-

vices to meet their needs, and as a result their idealism is lost.

Their recommendations included the need for further research to assess

the environmental perceptual differences of minority students and the

need for universities to provide support services designed specifically

for minority students.

In another exploration of various ethnic groups' preferences for

sources of counseling, Webster and Fretz (1978) found that the source

of help was often related to the kind of problem. Their results were

consistent with other studies (Warnath, 1972; Strong, Hendel, &

Bratton, 1971; Synder, Hill, & Dirksen, 1972; Christensen & Magoon,

1974). Their students also reported a low preference for using mental

health professionals. Another aspect of preferences occurred in the

reported preference by black students for black counselors. This







counseling centers since most centers have few black professionals.

The reported low preference for using counseling center staff was also

attributed in part to a lack of understanding of the services offered.

They recommended more exploration as to why students ranked counselors

low to assess whether it is a negative attitude toward counselors or

is actually a misunderstanding of the availability of services. Another

suggestion was that counseling centers have active outreach programs

to clarify student expectations of their services.

Somewhat different results were reported by Peoples (1977). In

his dissertation study he found that black students had positive views

toward counseling, although they reported more positive views toward

black counselors than toward white counselors. He did not find any

perceived difference between freshmen and upperclassmen as did Gibb

(1973) and Madrazo-Peterson and Rodriguez (1978). Although these

findings were somewhat surprising, the most significant and unusual

finding appeared in the types of problems they perceived as being

appropriate to discuss with a counselor. Peoples found that black

students reported seeking counseling mainly for social and personal

problems. Educational and vocational problems were secondary. This

finding was the first research to indicate that students may be changing

their perceptions of the counselor role, and was a significant contri-

bution to previous research as well as opening other avenues for con-

tinued study.

Most of the studies concerning black students' perceptions of

counseling have one continuing theme: They perceive counseling as a

white "invention" which is directed toward the white community. They

did not perceive counselors as effective help-givers who could







significantly help them with social and emotional adjustment problems.

This inadequate perception of the counselor role led this population

to non-professional help (family, friends, or relatives) during times

of emotional and social stress. As a result, black students did not

seek counseling in proportion to their numbers on campus.



Student Perceptions of Counseling Center Services


The original study which explored the views held by students

toward counseling center services was conducted by Warman (1960) as

part of his dissertation research. For the purpose of his study,

Warman developed an instrument entitled the Counseling Appropriateness

Check List (CACL) which measures attitudes toward the appropriateness

of discussing problems with a counselor in the counseling center. His

study yielded significant differences between counseling center staff

perceptions and students' perceptions of appropriate problems to be

brought to staff. His results showed that all groups (faculty, ad-

ministration, and students) except counselors placed vocational coun-

seling as the most appropriate for discussion at counseling centers

while counselors saw adjustment problems as the most appropriate.

Several replication studies have yielded similar results (Ogston,

Altmann, & Conklin, 1969; Wilcove, Gerry, & Sharp, 1971; Resnick &

Gelso, 1971).

An exploration of the perceptions of students toward a counsel-

ing center in a large midwestern university by Leonard (1971)

found that even though most of the students who had used the

counseling center had positive attitudes toward it, they







expressed feelings that the "worth of the counseling center had not

been adequately communicated to the total population of the students

whom it serves" (p. 3272A). There was a definite feeling that the ser-

vices offered by the counseling center were not commonly known on

campus. As a result of these findings she suggested as in previous

studies that the university find more effective ways of publicizing

their services.

More recent research continues to support Warman's 1960 study

(Gelso, Karl, & O'Connell, 1972; Benjamin & Romano, 1980). Gelso,

Karl, and O'Connell (1972) using the CACL found that the communication

gap between the counselors and the student population continued. They

sought to answer the question "Do students' perception of the

appropriateness of various types of problems for discussion in counsel-

ing depend on the amount of knowledge about the counseling centers

which they perceive themselves possessing?" Their results showed that

as perceived knowledge about the center services increased, their

rating on the CACL of the appropriateness of discussing adjustment

problems increased and thereby became synonymous with what counselors

perceived as their role. Perceived knowledge of counseling center

services was an important variable in their rating of problems appro-

priate for counselors.

There are, however, several studies which contradict perceptual

differences toward counseling center services. Fullerton and Potkay

(1973) surveyed undergraduate students at Western Illinois University

to explore their perceptions of the university counseling center and

help-giving sources. They concentrated on knowledge of counseling

center services and found results contrary to previous studies.







Students responded by overwhelmingly agreeing that the university

should offer counseling services (91 percent) but not usually for

themselves (65 percent). The students reported a greater awareness of

counseling center services than previous literature. This may be due,

in part, to the effectiveness in communicating their services to

students on that campus.

Several studies have indicated that lack of knowledge of counsel-

ing services is a definite variable in perceptual differences of students

and other campus groups. King, Newton, Osterlund, and Baber (1973) at

the University of Missouri evaluated the perceptions of students toward

counseling centers. One variable which they tested was "source of

knowledge of the counseling center." Their comparison consisted of

two groups: those who had received counseling and those who had re-

ceived their information in some other indirect way such as word-of-

mouth or advertisement. They found that students who had received

counseling in the counseling center had somewhat different views of

counselors than the others, i.e., they saw counselors as "strange" but

would use the counseling center if they had a problem while the group

who had not been counseled saw counselors as "trained professionals."

This brings about some interesting questions as to the importance of

personal counseling experiences and how they affect one's perceptions

of counselors as helping professionals.

A survey study of perceptions of Boston University students done

by Benedict, Apsler, and Morrison (1977) found a general lack of know-

ledge about the counseling center by campus students. Most of the

students did not have adequate knowledge about the counseling center.

Only 54 percent were aware that there was a center on campus while only







14 percent could identify where it was located. It was more likely

that students would use the center for academic problems (55 percent)

than for vocational (42 percent) or emotional problems (37 percent).

Overall, only 47 percent of the sample reported that they would ever

use the counseling center for any reason. There was reportedly con-

sistent lack of interest in using the counseling center. This particu-

lar study was the first to quantify the general lack of use and under-

standing of the counseling center, and has been used to reevaluate the

effectiveness of information-giving sources about counseling centers.

The authors suggested their results were due largely because the

majority of the students were unaware of the counseling center's

existence. These results were not surprising to the authors since

the student orientation to the center consisted of brochures explaining

services which were given to the students at the same time as all the

other information about services on campus and was quickly shelved or

lost. They concluded that because Boston University relies only on

communicating counseling center services by "brief written communica-

tion," the lack of knowledge would be expected to be great and

understandable.

Holmberg (1971) surveyed undergraduate students' attitudes toward

counseling centers and other campus groups. Results indicated that

the students were the least informed group on campus (groups included

faculty members, administration, and students), although the students

had the greatest need to have adequate knowledge of the counseling

center services. The author suggested that counseling centers begin to

concentrate more energy and time toward the student groups who need the

knowledge the most.







There appears to be several conflicting results on students'

adequate perceptions of counseling center services. Fullerton and

Potkay (1973) and Peoples (1977) reported exceptionally good results

on student perceptions of counseling centers, while the majority of

the literature supports the initial conclusion found by Warman in 1960;

there is a definite perceptual difference between students' percep-

tions of counseling center services and what counseling center staff

perceive as being their role. Most of the literature strongly sug-

gests that counselors in counseling centers have an obligation to find

better means of communicating their services to the students.


Communicating Counseling Services of Counseling Centers


Recently counselors have begun to evaluate the effectiveness of

different means of communicating services to students. An early study

by Bigelow, Hendrix, and Jensen (1968) determined whether counseling

center brochures were communicating services to students effectively.

As a result of their study, certain conclusions were reached about

this type of written communication and its effectiveness on students.

Their results indicated that counseling center brochures did increase

students' use of the counseling center. They also found that students

who received the brochures after they arrived on campus, as opposed to

receiving it in the mail, were more likely to use the services. The

brochures also increased the counselor's workload for students with

emotional problems. These results support the contention that bro-

chures can be used to provide students with information about counseling

center functions and services. Results such as these, however, have







been used by counseling centers to justify their continued use of

brochures while no further research has been undertaken to evaluate

the effectiveness of the counseling center brochure.

Frankel and Perlman (1969) approached the problem a little dif-

ferently by trying to determine the approach most successful in pro-

viding knowledge about the counseling center. According to the authors,

perceptions of the counseling center are developed through personal

contact with a counselor, by other people's contact with counselors,

and by university brochures and other written information (advertising

and brochures). They were able to determine whether personal contact

was important in students' perceptions toward the counseling center.

The results showed that personal contact did not make a difference in

students' perceptions. They reported that indirect contact with

counseling services and the university written information were as

successful in providing adequate knowledge of the services as personal

contact with a counselor.

Some researchers have investigated different types of informa-

tion approaches and reported their findings. Gelso and McKensie (1973)

using Warman's original study on the differential perceptions of

students and other campus groups experimented with two types of

information-giving approaches in an effort to change the perceptions

of women toward counseling center services at the University of

Maryland. The oral-written information group was given a 10 to 15

minute oral presentation in small group format on the appropriateness

of various problems for discussion with a counselor at the counseling

center. The written-information only group received a three-page







counseling center brochure containing the same information presented

to the oral-written group. Their results contradicted the previous

studies of Bigelow, Hendrix, and Jensen (1968) and Frankel and Perlman

(1969). Gelso and McKensie found that written communication alone was

not sufficient to change students' perceptions of counseling center

services. Using the CACL they differentiated between the change in

perceptions of various groups. Their results strongly suggested that

written communication of services (brochures, newspaper advertisement,

etc.) was ineffective in changing students' perceptions. Information,

however, presented by counselors with written communication was suffi-

cient to modify their perceptions.

Taking Gelso and McKensie's study a step further, Duckro, Beal,

and Moebes (1976) determined whether the personal nature of the

presented communication was a "relevant dimension" in making the dif-

ference. By using the CACL they evaluated changes in students' per-

ceptions. Their results showed that personal communication was more

effective,and there was greater change in the perceptions of freshmen

than sophomores or juniors. This study indicated that personalized

written communication may be effective in helping to eliminate nega-

tive perceptions freshman students have toward use of counseling

centers for vocational and educational problems.

Another variable in the communication of services which has

been explored is the optimum time to present the information. An

investigation of this optimum time for presenting information most

successfully to college students was performed by King and Walsh

(1972). They explored the changes in college expectations and







perceptions at six different times in the freshman year and found

that events which freshmen experience during that first year had a

lasting impact on the perceptions of the university. This is a good

indication that the freshman year is an excellent time to offer

information for assimilation and strongly supports an effective

orientation approach in communication services to incoming students.

Other studies have tried to determine the precise approach in

communicating counseling center services. A comparison study by

Nathan, Joanning, Duckro, and Beal (1978) explored the effectiveness

of verbal versus written communication in changing students' per-

ceptions. Using the traditional brochure, a personalized letter,

and a small group presentation they tried to determine which, if any,

was more effective. The results suggested that vocational counseling

and counseling for problems in college routine appeared to be suscep-

tible to change by any of the three methods of receiving information.

None of the three, however, had any effect in changing the perceptual

differences regarding adjustment problems. Therefore, they surmised

that there was no difference in the three presentations of informa-

tion and concluded that "simple presentation of the facts is enough

to increase at least self-reported knowledge of the center functions"

(p. 244). Further research, however, into their presentation of

the information is required to substantiate their results since no

significant difference was found.

Students often fail to perceive their lack of awareness about

campus counseling services until they near graduation. Gallagher

and Scheuring (1979) in reporting the results of a student needs








survey at the University of Pittsburgh found that the students about

to graduate complained that while they were going to school, they

were not aware of the various services on campus. This continued

to occur even with extensive advertising of student services. As

a result of the need survey a direct outreach program was developed

to inform students about the services. Programs were developed

which had high impact and high interest, and the students were in-

dividually contacted by counselors. As a result of their interven-

tion, they found that an aggressive campaign was successful in

students becoming more aware of counseling services and their

worth.

A new approach to evaluating students' use and lack of use of

services is known as "student consumerism." Paul and Crego (1979)

approached the problem of information dissemination by using this

new approach. As a result of the responses from 153 counseling

center directors who had attended the 1976 Annual Directors' Con-

ference in Salt Lake City, various conclusions were made. Directors

of counseling centers were asked what type of media they utilized

most often for information dissemination and which one appeared to

be the most successful. Most of the directors reported that news-

papers and brochures were more effective than orientation programs.

These perceptions were not developed as a result of research data,

but as a general feeling about their delivery. They also perceived

word-of-mouth communication by a student who had received counseling

and had used the counseling center as the greatest contribution to








general feeling about their delivery. They also perceived word-of-mouth

communication by a student who had received counseling and had used the

counseling center as the greatest contribution to the students' know-

ledge of services offered. Paul and Crego summed up the results as a

general lack of awareness by counseling center directors that their

advertising approach may not be as successful as they had perceived.

Many of these studies support the traditional approach of informa-

tion dissemination. However, as was seen in previous research, students

on campus continue to be inadequately informed about counseling services.

This suggests that the traditional approach to communication services

is not effective. Further research is indicated to determine why

traditional approaches are not effective.



Factors Affecting Student Use of Counseling
Services

Research studies have shown that black students prefer black

counselors. They do not use counseling centers as often as they would

if black professionals were available. Sager, Braybay, and Waxenberg

(1972) found that black students often refused to accept counselors

from the white community. Since there are limited black professionals

in counseling centers to counsel black clients, services are not used

by black students. Two alternatives to this problem are seeking out

black professionals for counseling center positions and training white

counselors in techniques that are effective in counseling ethnic

minorities.

Inaccurate perceptions of counseling also affect students' use of

counseling centers. According to Davis and Swartz (1972) for many







admission that they are "crazy." Counseling and psychiatry often have

very negative connotations. The center itself does not promote posi-

tive attitudes (i.e., long intake procedures and white counselors who

do not understand clients or their problems). Their study was con-

ducted at City College of San Francisco where a mental health service

was established on the community college campus. The authors investi-

gated new ways of bringing black students to counselors for help.

Using aggressive techniques, they emphasized on black radio stations

that the counseling center was for students, and that there was a

"brother" there to help. They contacted all black staff in key posi-

tions and asked them to recommend that students in need of counseling

visit the center. They made informality and professionalism compatible

by visiting students in cafeterias, parking lots, or the Black Student

Union. These techniques increased the number of black clients using

the center. Spring, 1970, showed that 9 percent of the students seek-

ing counseling were black students, while by June the intake of black

students had risen to 23 percent. His conclusion was that one of the

main factors in increasing black students' utilization of counseling

services was "personalized contact."

Lack of knowledge about counseling center services is a signi-

ficant factor in black students not visiting counselors. Snyder,

Hill, and Dirksen (1972) explored why students did not use counsel-

ing center services. They found that although students had positive

attitudes toward the counseling center, they had little knowledge

about it or about counseling. Furthermore, when students had per-

sonal and social problems, they turned to family and friends for

help. The counseling center was the last choice as a resource for







help. Lack of knowledge of the counseling center and inaccurate

perceptions of counselors as a resource for personal problems kept the

students from using the center.

Lack of awareness by counseling center personnel about the lack of

use appears to have some impact on student use of counseling centers.

Winer, Pasca, Dinello, and Weingarten (1974) asked counseling center

directors the reason for non-use of services by black students. Al-

though their respondents agreed that nonwhite students were not using

their services, no one offered an explanation for the cause or what

could be done to help the problem. Furthermore, as a general rule,

counseling center staff waited for the students to come to them. Little,

if any, outreach was attempted. In fact, the respondents seemedto have

little awareness that there was a need to educate nonwhite students about

counseling center services. The directors on the average thought the

problem could be solved by finding minority professionals to join their

staff. Winer et al. felt this unawareness by directors was a contribu-

ting factor of nonuse of counseling services by black students.

As well as those listed previously, a variety of factors which

determine use of counseling center services have been explored in the

literature. Gibb (1975) in a three-year study at the University of

Illinois found that the use of counseling centers by black students

decreased during the period studied. He suggested that the decline in

the utilization was possibly due to several interrelated factors:

(1) university services in general increased for minority students and

as a result of this increased support system the students had less need

for counseling; (2) as the number of black students on campus increased

they had more satisfaction with social and cultural contacts and had





-26-


greater chances of becoming involved in extracurricular activities;

and (3) there may have been general dissatisfaction with the counseling

center services. Another result found a greater use of the clinic by

black middle-class students. Lower socioeconomic level students did

not use the center. As a result they suggested an aggressive outreach

program to reach students who otherwise would not use the services.

Spurlock (1976) found that minority students especially at larger

universities had problems dealing with "conflicting advice and bureau-

cratic complexity of the guidance system" (p. 187) and as a result

developed feelings of alienation and withdrawal from the university

support system.

Woods (1977) found that minority students were reluctant to use

counseling center services because they perceived them to be oriented

toward the white middle-class students. He developed a model at the

University of California, Santa Barbara, that was effective in increas-

ing the use of counseling by the black students. Instead of waiting for

voluntary self-referral clients, the coordinator of the program aggres-

sively sought out clients and informed the students about their services.

He used peer counselors and ethnic awareness groups. He made presenta-

tions at student orientation and consulted with faculty and staff about

special needs of minority students. His final results were so suc-

cessful that he concluded counseling centers should have more aggressive

techniques to make students aware of services.

A ranking of factors affecting the use of the counseling center

was done by Peoples (1977) in his dissertation research. The minority

students of his study responded to a questionnaire as to why they did

not use the counseling center services. The top five reasons are


listed below:









Rank
Lack of knowledge 29.97% 1

Other images of CC 19.27% 2

Reluctance because or
personal factors 9.17% 3

Fear, lack of self-confidence,
and mistrust 7.03% 4

Negative expectations
regarding counseling 6.73% 5



Peoples' rank order appears to substantiate the previous research

on factors which affect student use of counseling centers. A general

theme in most of the literature is the continual lack of knowledge about

counseling services. Another general theme concerns minority students'

negative attitudes and perceptions of counseling and the perceived white

support system.



Summary

There are continued reports in the literature indicating that

college students do not consider the counselor an important resource

for social and emotional problems. They are more likely to seek help

from family and friends than from mental health professionals. Minority

college students consider the counselor even less of a resource person

and have greater perceptual inaccuracies of the counselor role. Not

only do they prefer black counselors, and have negative views of white

counselors, but also have a general lack of knowledge about counseling

services. Various approaches have been used to reeducate these stu-

dents, but for the most part, they have been unsuccessful. The





-28-


literature suggests that better communication of counseling center

services is the first step toward increasing the use of counseling

centers by black students.













CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of four

types of orientation approaches on black freshman students' perceptions

of counseling center services. The Counseling Appropriateness Check

List (CACL) was used to obtain three scores (college routine, vocational

choice, and adjustment to self and others). These scores were used as

a measure of students' perceptions of problems appropriate to discuss

with a counselor at the university counseling center. The scores were

compared to the type of orientation which the students received. The

randomized control-group posttest only design was used in the study.

The hypotheses, population and sample, instrument, treatment, pro-

cedures, analysis of the data, and the limitations of the study are

discussed in this chapter.



Hypotheses

1. There are no significant differences among groups on their responses

to items pertaining to satisfactory adjustment to college life as

measured by the group scores on the college routine factor of the

CACL.

2. There are no significant differences among groups on their responses

to items pertaining to career exploration and career choice as








measured by the group scores on the vocational choice factor of

the CACL.

3. There are no significant differences among groups on their responses

to items pertaining to social and personal adjustment as measured

by the group scores on the adjustment to self and others factor of

the CACL.

4. There is no relationship between problems considered appropriate

to discuss with a counselor as measured by the CACL and knowledge

of the counseling center as measured by the self-report question-

naire.



Population and Sample


The target population to which the results are generalizable is

black freshman students who have been admitted to four-year public

universities under special admittance programs. These students are

entering the university directly from high school. They have not met

the minimum academic standards set by universities to be admitted as

"regular" students, but have been recommended by counselors, teachers,

and administrators who believe that they can succeed in college. They

are all receiving financial aid from federal and state assistance pro-

grams and are considered "high-risk" students.

There are two special admittance programs at the University of

Florida: Special Services and Program for Academic Counseling and

Tutoring (PACT). Because federal guidelines governing the Special

Services Program restrict students from participating in studies re-

quiring different presentations of information, they could not be





-31-


included in the three treatment groups. However, they were used to

obtain baseline data on the population.

Students in both of these special programs were drawn from the

same population. Special students were admitted to the University of

Florida during spring quarter, 1980. They were randomly assigned to a

particular program with Special Services choosing approximately three

students for every one student chosen by PACT. The students' back-

grounds and demographic information were similar.

The sample included all black freshmen entering the PACT program

and 38 students entering the Special Services Program during the 1980

summer quarter at the University of Florida. The students from PACT

were randomly assigned to three experimental groups and the students

from Special Services to a control group. These students were black

males and females who had been admitted to the university under the

special admittance programs during the 1980 summer quarter and who were

full-time freshmen enrolled in at least 12 credit hours.

All Special Services students who completed the freshman orienta-

tion by attending the final orientation meeting (N = 31) were selected

for the control group (Group 1) in the study. All PACT students enrolled

in the summer program were selected for the experimental groups (Group

2 (N = 18); Group 3 (N = 19); Group 4(N = 18)). Permission was granted

from the Special Services Director to use seven students from Special

Services in Group 3. The total number of students who participated in

the study was 86. The procedure of random assignment was completed

two days prior to the beginning of orientation. Ten .peer counselors

randomly chose five to six students. The peer counselors were ran-

domly (by selecting numbers from a hat) assigned a time at which all




-32-


their students were to attend the special orientation at the counseling

center. Those students assigned to group 2 (N = 18) were not given an

orientation time. Students were assigned to groups 3 and 4, according

to which time they were scheduled to attend the orientation. The peer

counselors were given the responsibility of getting their students to

the counseling center at the assigned time. Students were assigned to

groups to ensure that they would attend their special orientation.



Treatment


Four information-dissemination approaches were used in this study.

In the first approach, the 31 students in group 1 participated in a

large group orientation in which the services of the counseling center

were discussed by a counseling center representative during the initial

general meeting to welcome new students to the campus. They also re-

ceived the traditional counseling center brochure in their orientation

packet.

In the second approach, the 18 students in group 2 participated

in the large group orientation above, received the counseling center

brochure, and received a personalized letter from the Director of the

Counseling Center welcoming them to campus. This letter also included

an explanation of the type of services offered by the counseling

center (Appendix A). The letter was sent to their campus address

during the first week of summer quarter.

In the third approach, the 19 students in group 3 participated

in the large group orientation above, received the counseling center

brochure, were given a tour of the counseling center, and received







an orientation to the center by a black counselor in small groups of

five to ten. The information covered in the small group was the same

as that which is covered in the traditional brochure. The black

counselor was given an outline to follow for this small group pre-

sentation (Appendix B).

In the fourth approach, the 18 students in group 4 participated in

the large group orientation above, received the counseling center

brochure, and participated in an individual interview with a black

counselor to discuss types of services offered in the center. The

information provided in the traditional brochure also was reviewed

during the individual interview. The counselors who saw students in-

dividually were given the same outline as the group presenter (Appen-

dix B).



Instrumentation

The instruments used in this study were the Counseling Appropri-

ateness Check List (CACL) and a self-report questionnaire (Appendix C).

The CACL was used to measure student attitudes toward the appropriate-

ness of discussing problems with a counselor at the counseling center.

The self-report questionnaire was used to determine students' knowledge

of location and services of the counseling center. The CACL was de-

veloped by Warman (1960) and is composed of 66 items related to student

problems. Through a literature search, Warman collected 362 statements

of problems as potential items. A panel of experts was used to evalu-

ate the items. He obtained agreement on 72 percent of the items. Of








these items agreed upon, he chose 99. In later research, 33 items

were dropped leaving 66 items now contained in the instrument. The

three factors being evaluated on the instrument are college routine,

vocational choice, and adjustment to self and others. Students are

asked to answer each item by indicating to what degree each problem

would be appropriate to discuss with a counselor in a counseling

center.

The instrument has a 5-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 (definitely

inappropriate) to 5 (most appropriate). The responses included in the

instrument are

A (most appropriate for discussion at the counseling center)

a (appropriate but there are other sources on campus that would

be just as appropriate)

? (undecided or uncertain)

i (probably inappropriate for discussion at the counseling

center)

I (definitely inappropriate)

The college routine factor contains 12 items that represent ques-

tions pertaining to students' satisfactory adjustment to college life,

such as study habits, school problems, and time management. The voca-

tional choice factor contains 14 items which represent questions per-

taining to career explorations and career decisions. The adjustment

to self and others factor contains 40 items which represent questions

pertaining to social and emotional adjustment. Warman used the instru-

ment to evaluate the perceptual differences among various campus groups

toward the appropriateness of discussing problems with a counselor at

the counseling center.








No reported validity or reliability data were found in the

literature other than Warman's original panel of experts. However,

various studies since 1960 have used the CACL effectively to evaluate

differential perceptions of various groups on campus as well as

measuring the effects of some type of "treatment" students' per-

ceptions. Ogston, Altmann, and Conklin (1969) ;Wilcove, Gerry, and

Sharp (1971); and Resnick and Gelso (1971) used the instrument in much

the same way as Warman by evaluating perceptual differences of various

campus groups. Other research has been done to evaluate a manipula-

tion of students' perceptions toward counseling centers by various

information-giving approaches (Gelso & McKensie, 1973; Duckro, Beal, &

Moebes, 1976; Nathan, Joanning, Duckro, & Beal, 1978). Data from this

research indicate that the instrument is very reliable and capable of

yielding significant results.

Content validity was determined by a panel of experts that in-

cluded one clinical psychologist from the Student Mental Health Clinic

and four Counseling Psychologists from the Psychological and Vocational

Counseling Center at the University of Florida. Each professional was

contacted by phone and asked to participate. A cover letter and the

CACL were sent to them with specific instructions (Appendix D). Each

professional was asked to rate each item for its representativeness to

be included in the instrument. There was general consensus among the

respondents. If four of the five experts agreed that the item should

remain in the instrument, the item was retained. None of the items

were singled out as inappropriate by at least two experts, and there-

fore, all items were retained in the instrument used in this study.








Because the instrument has no reported reliability data, a pilot

study was conducted spring quarter, 1980, to determine the reliability

of the instrument. The sample included a random selection of 65

students who used the University of Florida Teaching Center and the

Office of Instructional Resources Math Lab. These students were special

admittance students who entered the university under the same program

and policies as the sample which was drawn for the dissertation re-

search, but had been at the university for at least two quarters.

All 65 students completed the CACL between the second and fourth

week of the 1980 spring quarter at the University of Florida. Three

weeks later they were again contacted to complete a second question-

naire. Several follow-ups were needed. By the end of the 8th week,

47 questionnaires had been completed, and the analysis was begun. This

field technique (test-retest) was used to determine if there were any

problems in the reliability of the instrument as well as problems with

test administration. Reliability coefficients were determined for each

factor as well as the overall instrument (see tables in Appendix E).

The weighted raw scores for the Vocational Choice factor are shown in

Table 1, where x is the pretest score and y is the posttest score. The

computation of a product-moment correlation between the two test scores

is shown in Table 2. The correlational coefficient r was .62. The

mean of x equals 55.02 while the mean of y equals 56.47. The standard

deviation of the pretest was 12.35 while the standard deviation of the

posttest was 7.71.

The weighted raw scores for the College Routine factor are shown

in Table 3 where x is the pretest scores and y is the posttest scores.

The computation of a product-moment correlation between the two test








scores is shown in Table 4. The correlational coefficient, r, was .82.

The mean of the pretest was 43.57 while the mean of the posttest scores

was 42.21. The standard deviation of the pretest was 10.27 while the

standard deviation of the posttest was 9.31.

The weighted raw scores for the Adjustment to Self and Others

factor are shown in Table 5 where x is the pretest scores and y is the

posttest scores. The computation of the product-moment correlation

between the two test scores is shown in Table 6. The correlational

coefficient, r, was .95. The mean of the pretest was 129.26 while the

mean of the posttest was 128.70. The standard deviation of the pretest

was 38.72 while the standard deviation of the posttest was 36.13.

The overall weighted raw scores are shown in Table 7 where x is

the pretest and y is the posttest. The computation of the product-

moment correlation between the two test scores is shown in Table 8.

The correlational coefficient r was .88. The overall mean of the pre-

test was 225.51 while the overall mean of the posttest was 227.70.

The standard deviation of the pretest was 45.35 while the standard

deviation of the posttest was 43.51.

As a result of the evaluation of the panel of experts, the con-

tent of the Counseling Appropriateness Check List was judged to be

valid. The reliability coefficients range from .63 to .95 depending

on the factor. The Adjustment to Self and Others had the highest

reliability with a coefficient of .95. In evaluating the raw data,

there were definite differences in the answers of the pre- and posttests,

but they were unstable in such a way that when students changed their

minds on one item, they were likely to change their minds on other








items and thus canceled out differences. This was due, in part, to the

weighting of the raw data.

The overall scores coefficient and the college routine coefficient

reported high correlations of .88 and .82, respectively. The lowest

correlation .63 on the vocational choice factor was somewhat surprising.

Previous literature has reported this factor as the most stable, while

adjustment to self and others has previously been the least stable.

The overall reliability of .88 indicates that the CACL is reliable and

can be used in research studies to yield significant results.

The self-report questionnaire was developed by the researcher to

obtain specific knowledge the students held about the counseling center

and to determine their future use of the center for problems. The

questionnaire contained nine items, eight of which could be answered

by yes or no. Three items were concerned with the knowledge the students

had about the counseling center on the University of Florida campus.

Four items addressed the students' future use of the counseling center

for personal, academic, and vocational problems. One item asked the

students' perceptions of importance of the counseling center on the

University of Florida campus. The last item asked an open-ended

question concerning where the students had received their information

about the counseling center.



Procedures

A special orientation program occurred for all incoming special

admittance students five days prior to the beginning of summer quarter.

At that time students were oriented to student life on the University







of Florida campus. Each student was assigned a peer counselor whose

main function was to help the new students adjust to college life.

These peer counselors were trained by orientation staff during the

previous quarter on their role and function in the orientation process.

At that time they also were given a presentation on the procedure for

this research study and the importance of the project. The peer

counselors were asked to help see that the students in the study

followed through on their schedules.

On the first day of summer orientation, all four groups received

the large group presentation by a counseling center staff member and

the counseling center brochure in their orientation packet. This was

the only orientation approach that group 1 received. In addition to

the above orientation group 2 received a personal letter of welcome

containing information about the counseling center from the Director

during the first week of summer quarter. On the third day of orienta-

tion, all students in groups 3 and 4 received their special orientation

to the counseling center. Five black counselors participated in this

orientation. Four counselors saw four to six students individually in

15 minute interviews while one counselor facilitated three small group

presentations for group 3 students.

At the end of the five-day orientation program, students attended

an evaluation session where the researcher administered the CACL and

the self-report questionnaire to groups 1, 3, and 4. Students in

group 2 were individually contacted at the end of the first week of

summer quarter to complete the instruments. Six weeks after the orien-

tation, the CACL was administered to the students a second time to

measure their perceptions of counseling center services.







Analysis of the Data

The analysis of variance was used to test the hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1 was evaluated by an analysis of mean scores among groups

on the college routine factor of the CACL. Hypothesis 2 was evaluated

by an analysis of variance of mean scores among groups on the voca-

tional choice factor of the CACL. Hypothesis 3 was evaluated by an

analysis of variance of mean scores among groups on the adjustment to

self and others factor of the CACL. Hypothesis 4 was evaluated by an

analysis of variance of total mean scores among groups on the CACL.

Hypothesis 5 was evaluated by using the product-moment correlation

coefficient to determine whether a relationship existed between students'

knowledge of the counseling center and their scores on the CACL. An

analysis of variance also was performed to evaluate differences in

scores of each factor within each group. The level of significance

was p < .05.



Limitations of the Study

Threats to internal validity include:

1. Contemporary history--Since the students participated in an

intensive orientation program, there was a possibility that they experi-

enced events besides the treatment procedure that may have affected

their attitudes and scores. Through the self-report questionnaire it

was reported that the peer counselors may have affected the students'

scores, especially in group 1 where they had no other special orienta-

tion.







2. Subject mortality--Groups 2, 3, and 4 had several instances

of subject mortality. Several students in group 3 canceled registra-

tion prior to attending. Two students from the groups left the campus

before the end of orientation.

3. Differential selection of subjects--Some threats to the random-

ness began to occur the day prior to the special orientation. The

researcher was contacted by the leaders of the PACT program and told

that some of the students were moved to different time slots for the

convenience of the program. As a result, six students were switched in

groups 3 and 4. Also, seven students from the Special Services program

came into the counseling center and were given the special orientation

of group 3. These seven students were retained in group 3 since seven

students who had been assigned to group 3 did not attend the orienta-

tion. Also, there were 2 students who left the university before the

end of the orientation period. Because of this compromise in randomness,

the results may reflect a difference between the groups as a result of

differential selection of subjects rather than as a result of the

treatment.













CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION



Results

This research study examined the effects of four types of orienta-

tion approaches on black freshman students' perceptions of counseling

center service. At the end of these orientation approaches, each student

was asked to complete the Counseling Appropriateness Check List (CACL)

as well as a self-report questionnaire. The CACL yielded total weighted

scores for each student on each factor represented in the instrument.

The self-report questionnaire yielded students' perceptions of specific

knowledge of the counseling center and information on their expected

use of the counseling center for problems.

An analysis of variance was performed on each factor of the CACL

and on total scores of the instrument among groups. An analysis of

variance of repeated measures was performed to evaluate student dif-

ferences in responses to questions pertaining to each factor within

each group. Several chi-square analyses were performed on the answers

of the self-report questionnaire to determine the differences among

groups on their knowledge of the counseling center and how they per-

ceived using the counseling center. A Pearson Product-Moment Correla-

tion was used to evaluate the correlation between students' scores of

the CACL and their specific knowledge of the counseling center. Table 1

shows the distribution of subjects by sex and by group.








Table 1

Distribution of Subjects by Sex


Group Males % Females %


1
(general orientation) 13 42 18 58

2
(letter) 9 50 9 50

3
(small group) 5 28 13 72

4
(individual interviews) 9 50 9 50


Total 36 44% 49 56%



Hypothesis 1: There are no significant differences among groups

on their responses to items pertaining to satisfactory adjustment to

college life as measured by the group scores on the college routine

factor of the CACL. The means and standard deviations of each group

are reported in Table 2. The means among groups ranged from 48 to 52

while the standard deviations ranged from 8.82 to 12.60. The result

of the analysis of variance is reported in Table 3. This analysis

indicates no differences among groups in their responses to the CACL

college routine factor questions. Therefore, null hypohesis one was

retained.








Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations of the College
Routine Factor of the CACL


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
(N = 31) (N = 18) (N = 18) (N = 18)

Means 49 51 48 52

Standard Deviations 9.21 8.82 13.30 12.60




Table 3

Analysis of Variance of the College
Routine Factor of the CACL


Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between Groups 197 3 66 .786

Within Groups 6764 81 84



Hypothesis 2: There are no significant differences among groups

on their responses to items pertaining to career exploration and career

choice as measured by the group scores on the vocational choice factor

of the CACL. An analysis of variance was used to test the hypothesis.

The means and standard deviations for each group are reported in Table 4.

The means among groups ranged from 52 to 62 with a standard deviation

range from 11.1 to 14.74. The result of the analysis of variance is

shown in Table 5. This analysis indicates no differences among groups

in their responses to the CACL vocational choice factor questions.

Therefore, null hypothesis two was retained.








Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations of the Vocational
Choice Factor of the CACL


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
(N = 31) (N = 18) (N = 18) (N = 18)

Means 58 60 60 62

Standard Deviation 12.81 14.34 11.10 14.74




Table 5

Analysis of Variance of the Vocational
Choice Factor of the CACL


Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between Groups 221 3 74 .583

Within Groups 10208 81 126



Hypothesis 3: There are no significant differences among groups

on their responses to items pertaining to social and personal adjustment

as measured by the group scores on the adjustment to self and others

factor of the CACL. An analysis of variance was used to test the

hypothesis. The means and standard deviations of each group are re-

ported in Table 6. The means among the four groups ranged from 126 to

132, and the standard deviations ranged from 35.48 to 43.05. The result

of the analysis of variance is reported in Table 7. This analysis in-

dicates no differences among groups in their responses to the CACL







adjustment to self and others factor questions. Therefore, null

hypothesis three was retained.



Table 6

Means and Standard Deviations of the Adjustment to Self
and Others Factor of the CACL


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
(N = 31) (N = 18) (N = 18) (N = 18)

Means 126 129 132 130

Standard Deviations 36.46 43.05 38.57 35.48




Table 7
Analysis of Variance of Adjustment to Self
and Others Factor of the CACL


Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between Groups 393 3 131 .094

Within Groups 112707 81 1391



Hypothesis 4: There are no significant differences among groups

on the CACL total scores. An analysis of variance was used to test the

hypothesis. The means and standard deviations of each group's total

scores are reported in Table 8. The means among the four groups ranged

from 234 to 245 with the standard deviation ranging from 46.72 to 54.52.

The result of the analysis of variance is reported in Table 9. This







analysis indicates no differences among groups in their responses to

the CACL questions. Therefore, null hypothesis four was retained.



Table 8

Means and Standard Deviations of the Total
Scores on the CACL


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
(N = 31) (N = 18) (N = 18) (N = 18)

Means 234 241 241 245

Standard Deviations 46.72 54.52 52.82 54.07




Table 9

Analysis of Variance of Total Scores
of the CACL


Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between Groups 1648 3 549 .212

Within Groups 209095 81 2581



Hypothesis 5: There is no correlation between students' knowledge

of the counseling center and their overall CACL scores. All students

were asked three questions to determine their specific knowledge of the

counseling center on the University of Florida campus. The responses

to each item were yes or no. A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was

computed between their scores on the questions pertaining to knowledge

of the counseling center and their overall scores on the CACL.







The results are shown in Table 10. Group 4 had a negative correla-

tion of -.31. Groups 1 and 2 had the same correlation of +.16. Group 3

had a correlation of .608 which was significant at the .01 alpha level.

The null hypothesis that there is no correlation between knowledge of

the counseling center and scores on the CACL was retained for groups 1,

2, and 4. However, the null hypothesis was rejected for group 3.



Table 10

Product-Moment Correlation between Knowledge of the Counseling
Center and the Total Scores of the CACL



Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Knowledge of the
counseling center
with overall scores
on the CACL .162 .160 .608** -.310

**p < .01



Table 10.1

Means of Knowledge of Counseling Center Scores and Overall
Scores on CACL among Groups



Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

X knowledge of
counseling center
scores 1.74 1.61 2.11 2.39

X overall scores
on the CACL 234 241 241 245




-49-


In an evaluation of perceived knowledge of the counseling center

among groups, there were no significant differences in their responses

to questions pertaining to knowledge of the counseling center existence

on campus (question one) and knowledge of specific programs offered by

the counseling center (question three). The results of the chi-square

analyses are reported in Tables 11 and 13. There was a significant

difference among groups on their responses to the question pertaining

to the counseling center location on campus (question two) as shown in

the chi-square analysis in Table 12. The greatest variance can be found

with groups 3 and 4 where these groups were more likely to know the

location of the counseling center than groups 1 and 2.



Table 11

Chi-Square Analysis of Four Group Responses
to Question One


N YES NO


Group 1 (General Orientation) 31 27 4

Group 2 (Personalized Letter) 18 17 1

Group 3 (Small Group Orientation) 17 16 1

Group 4 (Individual Orientation) 15 15 0


Totals 81 75 6

2 = 2.7028; df = 3
x = 2.7028; df = 3








Table 12

Chi-Square Analysis of Four Group Responses
to Question Two


N YES NO

Group 1 (General Orientation) 31 12 19

Group 2 (Personalized Letter) 18 7 11

Group 3 (Small Group Orientation) 17 15 2

Group 4 (Individual Orientation) 15 14 1


Totals 81 48 33

2
x = 21.65**; df = 3; **p < .01


Table 13

Chi-Square Analysis of Four Group Responses
to Question Three


N YES NO


Group 1 (General Orientation) 31 15 16

Group 2 (Personalized Letter) 18 6 12

Group 3 (Small Group Orientation) 17 7 10

Group 4 (Individual Orientation) 15 10 5


Totals 81 38 43

2 = 3.93; df = 3
= 3.93; df = 3



Although there were no differences among groups in their scores on

the CACL, there were differences to the question on the self-report







questionnaire pertaining to future use of the counseling center for a

personal problem (question six). The greatest variance was found in

group 4 where more students reported they would use the counseling

center for a personal problem than students in other groups (Table 14).

Using the chi-square analysis, the responses were significant at the

.05 alpha level. There were no differences in the responses among

groups to the questions pertaining to future use of the counseling

center for academic (question seven) or vocational (question eight)

problems (Tables 15 and 16, respectively).



Table 14

Chi-Square Analysis of Four Group Responses
to Question Six


N YES NO

Group 1 (General Orientation) 31 19 12

Group 2 (Personalized Letter) 18 6 12

Group 3 (Small Group Orientation) 17 7 10

Group 4 (Individual Orientation) 15 13 2


Totals 81 45 36

2 = 10.11*; df = 3; *p < .05
x = 10.11"; df = 3; *p < .05








Table 15

Chi-Square Analysis of Four Group Responses
to Question Seven


N YES NO

Group 1 (General Orientation) 31 30 1

Group 2 (Personalized Letter) 18 17 1

Group 3 (Small Group Orientation) 17 17 0

Group 4 (Individual Orientation) 15 15 0


Totals 81 79 2

2
2 = 1.4754; df = 3


Table 16

Chi-Square Analysis of Four Group Responses
to Question Eight


N YES NO

Group 1 (General Orientation) 31 30 1

Group 2 (Personalized Letter) 18 16 2

Group 3 (Small Group Orientation) 17 16 1

Group 4 (Individual Orientation) 15 14 1


Totals 81 76 5

2
x = 1.23; df = 3


In previous literature continuing support can be found that

are more likely to perceive the counseling center as a source of

vocational and educational problems than for adjustment problems


students

help for

(Wilcove,







Gerry, & Sharp, 1971; Resnick & Gelso, 1971). An analysis of variance

of repeated measures was performed to investigate the differences of

each student on their perceptions of each factor of the CACL.

The analysis of variance across factors for group 1 is shown in

Table 17. There was a significant difference across factors at the .01

alpha level. The analysis of variance across factors for group 2 is shown

in Table 18. There was a significant difference across factors at the .01

alpha level. There also was a significant difference across factors on

the responses of group 3 at the .01 alpha level (Table 19). The analysis

of variance across factors for group 4 is shown in Table 20. There was

a significant difference across factors at the .01 alpha level.


Table 17

Analysis of Variance of Repeated Measures
of Group 1

Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between Subjects 41.284 30 1.38 4.84*

Within Subjects 19.125 2 9.56 33.54**

Interaction 17.109 60 .285

**p < .01; *p < .05


Follow-up data were collected during the sixth week of summer

quarter, 1980. This consisted of administering the CACL to the students

from all four groups who had participated in the orientation approaches.

Eighty percent of group 1, 79 percent of group 2, 88 percent of group 3,







Table 18

Analysis of Variance of Repeated Measures
of Group 2

Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between Subjects 22.815 17 1.342 3.82

Within Subjects 13.721 2 6.86 19.6**

Interaction 12.063 34 .35


**p < .01


Table 19

Analysis of Variance of Repeated Measures
of Group 3

Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between Subjects 28.693 17 1.69 6.04**

Within Subjects 9.453 2 4.73 16.89**

Interaction 9.356 34 .28

**p < .01


Table 20

Analysis of Variance of Repeated Measures
of Group 4

Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between Subjects 32.587 17 1.92 12.00**

Within Subjects 16.736 2 8.37 52.31**

Interaction 5.481 34 .16

**p < .01







and 88 percent of group 4 responded to the CACL. An analysis of vari-

ance was performed on each CACL factor and the CACL total scores.

The means and standard deviations of the three factors and the

total scores are reported in Tables 21, 22, 23, and 24. The analysis

of variance of each of the three factors and the total scores are re-

ported in Tables 25, 26, 27, and 28. The analyses of variance indicate

no differences in the responses of the students for all three factors

and their total scores. Therefore, null hypotheses one, two, three,

and four were retained as they were in the posttest analysis of data.



Table 21

Follow-Up Means and Standard Deviations of the College
Routine Factor of the CACL


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
(N = 25) (N = 14) (N = 16) (N = 16)

Means 46 47 47 51

Standard Deviations 12.995 12.311 14.935 6.475




Table 22

Follow-Up Means and Standard Deviations of the Vocational
Choice Factor of the CACL


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
(N = 25) (N = 14) (N = 16) (N = 16)

Means 57 55 58 60

Standard Deviations 15.555 15.892 12.467 10.179








Table 23

Follow-Up Means and Standard Deviations of the Adjustment to
Self and Others Factor of the CACL


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
(N = 25) (N = 14) (N = 16) (N = 16)

Means 122 113 131 110

Standard Deviations 40.523 42.981 37.661 36.006



Table 24

Follow-Up Means and Standard Deviations of the Total
Overall Scores of the CACL


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
(N = 25) (N = 14) (N = 16) (N = 16)

Means 226 216 236 222

Standard Deviations 52.642 52.001 60.913 37.520



Table 25

Follow-Up Analysis of Variance of College Routine
Factor of the CACL


Source of Variation SS df MS F

Between Groups 204 3 68 .600

Within Groups 7582 67 113








Table 26

Follow-Up Analysis of Variance of Vocational Choice
Factor of the CACL


Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between Groups 164 3 55 .331

Within Groups 11063 67 165




Table 27

Follow-Up Analysis of Variance of Adjustment to Self
and Others Factor of the CACL


Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between Groups 3981 3 1327 .859

Within Groups 103497 67 1547




Table 28

Follow-Up Analysis of Variance of Total Overall
Scores of the CACL


Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between Groups 3328 3 1109 .428

Within Groups 173588 67 3591







Summary


1. There was

responses

2. There was

responses

3. There was

responses

by the CAC

4. There was

responses

5. There was


no significant difference among the treatment groups'

to the college routine factor as measured by the CACL.

no significant difference among the treatment groups'

to the vocational choice factor as measured by the CACL.

no significant difference among the treatment groups'

to the adjustment to self and others factor as measured

:L.

no significant difference among the treatment groups'

to the total scores on the CACL.

no correlation between groups 1, 2, and 4's knowledge of


the counseling center at the University of Florida and their over-

all scores on the CACL.

6. There was a significant positive correlation between group 3's

knowledge of the counseling center at the University of Florida

and its overall scores on the CACL.

7. There was a significant difference among groups in their perceived

knowledge of the counseling center location on the University of

Florida campus.

8. There was no significant difference among groups in their per-

ceived knowledge of the existence of the counseling center on the

University of Florida campus.

9. There was no significant difference among groups in their per-

ceived knowledge of special programs offered by the counseling

center on the University of Florida campus.

10. There was a significant difference among groups in their perceived

future use of the counseling center for personal problems.







11. There was no significant difference among groups in their per-

ceived future use of the counseling center for academic problems.

12. There was no significant difference among groups in their per-

ceived future use of the counseling center for vocational problems.

13. The scores for all groups on the vocational choice factor and the

college routine factor of the CACL were significantly higher than

the adjustment to self and others factor of the CACL.

14. There were no significant changes in the follow-up responses of

all groups to the CACL.



Discussion of the Results

No significant differences were found for any factor measured by the

CACL among groups. This is an indication that the scores on the CACL were

not significantly affected by the four orientation approaches which the

students received. Based on their self-report, the attitudes of students

toward the counseling center were essentially unchanged, regardless of

the orientation approach. This result is supportive of Nathan et al.

(1978), who found the personalized letter as effective in information

dissemination as a more personal approach. It is contrary to Gibb (1975)

and Vontress (1969), however, who believed that black students required

more personal aggressive information-giving techniques to affect change.

The results from groups 1, 2, and 4 indicated no correlation be-

tween knowledge of the counseling center and the CACL scores. The

scores were not affected by their knowledge of the counseling center.

There was no evidence in this study that the increased knowledge would

increase black student usage of the counseling center. This is contrary







to Benedict et al. (1977) who believed that with increased knowledge,

students' perceptions of counseling center services would change and

result in greater usage of the counseling center. It appears, however,

that the scores of group 3 (small group orientation) were positively

affected by their knowledge of the counseling center. This could be

due, in part, to a sharing of ideas during the small group session.

However, this greater knowledge did not increase the probability of

their using the counseling center for problems in the future.

Groups 3 and 4 reported significantly higher knowledge of the

counseling center location. This is not surprising since groups 3

and 4 attended their orientation at the counseling center while groups

1 and 2 relied on written information of the counseling center loca-

tion. Ninety-two percent of the students knew there was a counseling

center on campus, regardless of the orientation received. Unlike other

colleges (Benedict et al., 1977) which reported less than 30 percent

of their student population were aware of the counseling center, the

University of Florida orientation was effective in communicating to

the students the existence of the counseling center on campus. There

also was little difference among groups in their knowledge of special

programs at the counseling center. This occurred even though special

programs were discussed in the special orientations of groups 3

and 4.

It appears that the students in group 4 (individual interview

orientation) were more likely to go to the counseling center for a

personal problem than any other group. Eighty-seven percent of group 4

responded that they would use the counseling center for a personal

problem, while only 61 percent of group 1, 32 percent of group 2, and







41 percent of group 3 would use it for a personal problem. The per-

sonal interviews appear to have influenced the students' attitudes

about personal use of the counseling center for an adjustment problem,

but did not affect their scores on the CACL.

It appears that a more personal orientation to the counseling

center does not affect students' perceptions of what is appropriate to

discuss with a counselor at the counseling center. In addition, this

study found that students' attitudes toward discussing personal prob-

lems with a counselor cannot be changed by a more personal one-time

orientation. There is, however, some indication the personal one-on-one

interview affected students' attitudes toward their own use of the

counseling center for personal problems. This in itself is interesting

since no literature to date has been able to identify an effective way

of increasing students' perceptions of counseling for personal problems

(Nathan et al., 1978). It would seem that these personal interviews

may have set the foundation for future counseling relationships.

The small group discussion, where students could ask questions

and process information, was the most effective means of transmitting

knowledge. Previous literature, however, which suggested that students'

attitudes would change with more knowledge of services has not been

supported. Students' perceived knowledge had no effect on their

attitudes.

It appears that the peer counselors affected students' knowledge

of the counseling center. Based on an evaluation of the responses to

the ninth question on the self-report questionnaire asking where students

received information about the counseling center, more students (65 per-

cent) reported peer counselors as their major source of information.




-62-


The peer counselors may have offered groups 1 and 2 more personal

information than was intended and as a result affected students' scores

on the instruments.













CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS



Summary

Reportedly, nonwhite students are not using the university counsel-

ing center in proportion to their numbers on campus (Winer et al.,

1974). One important reason cited in the literature appears to be the

attitudes students hold about counseling and the counseling center.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of four types

of orientation approaches on black freshman students' perceptions of

counseling center services. The need for the study was discussed in

Chapter 1 as well as the significance of the study. The definition of

the terms used throughout the study also were included.

Chapter 2 included a discussion of student attitudes toward

counseling center services, student attitudes toward counseling, black

student attitudes toward counseling and counseling center services,

effective ways of communicating services to students, and factors

affecting student use of the counseling center. The literature re-

garding black student attitudes stated that often they perceive friends

and relatives as more appropriate help-givers than professional coun-

selors on campus, and as a result do not use the counseling center

services. An exploration of factors affecting black student use of the

counseling center revealed their perceptions of counseling center

services and perceived knowledge of the center were most often cited







as important factors in student use. The hypotheses, population and

sample, treatment, instruments, procedures, analysis of data, and the

limitations of the study were described in Chapter 3.

The results of the study and a discussion of the results were

presented in Chapter 4. Based on the results of the study, hypotheses

1, 2, 3, and 4 were retained. Correlational coefficiants on the

knowledge of the counseling center and the overall scores on the CACL

were computed. For groups 1, 2, and 4, no relationship was found be-

tween the two scores, while for group 3 there was a significant dif-

ference at the .01 alpha level. Differences among groups on perceived

future use of the counseling center were investigated. It was found

that students with more personalized orientation were more likely to

use the counseling center in the future for personal problems than

those students with general orientations. F-ratios were determined

to evaluate students' perceptual differences across factors of the

CACL. It was found that students were more likely to consider voca-

tional and educational problems appropriate than personal adjustment

problems. Implications for the orientation staff, counseling center

staff, staff of special admittance programs, and student affairs staff

were discussed in Chapter 5. This chapter also included the summary

and recommendations for further research.



Implications

This investigation has important implications for future orienta-

tion programs directed specifically toward black students and for

administrators of university counseling centers who must choose effective




-65-


methods of information dissemination. Traditionally, universities

have used existing student orientation programs to orient new black

students. Although their orientation may be separate from the general

population, the approaches used for them are essentially the same as

the general new freshman student population. There have been repeated

assertions in the literature that the traditional approaches are not

successful in changing black student attitudes toward counseling center

services (Madrazo-Peterson & Rodriguez, 1978; Paul & Crego, 1979).

However, the present study indicates that the traditional orientation

approaches using large group presentations and counseling center bro-

chures are successful in orienting black freshman students toward the

counseling center. Thus, it appears that black students do not need a

special approach distinctly different from the general student popula-

tion. Although black student attitudes did not change toward the

counseling center, their perceived future use of the counseling center

was affected by the more personal orientation approach. They are more

likely to use the counseling center for personal problems than those

who received the traditional approaches.

For university administrative groups, the implications are clear:

1. Orientation staff should continue to use the traditional general

large group orientation and the counseling center brochures since they

appear to be as effective in changing student attitudes as the more

personal approaches.

2. Counseling center staff should investigate ways of offering small

group sessions for incoming freshmen. Small group discussion appears

to be the most effective method of information dissemination. Since

the individual interview with a black counselor appears to increase the





-66-


probability that a black student will use the counseling center for

personal problems, counseling center staff who want to increase their

black student load for personal problems should promote interviews with

black counselors.

3. Special services staff, as a part of orientation, should schedule

students to visit the counseling center. Students are more likely to

have knowledge of the counseling center if they have been physically

shown the center. Large group presentations also should be continued

because they are effective in making students aware of the services on

campus. Students use the peer counselors as a major source of informa-

tion and help. Therefore, peer counselors should be well-trained and

well-informed about the university and the services offered to incoming

freshman students.

4. Student affairs staff should include special written material in

the orientation packets followed by a brief presentation during the

general orientation meeting describing services being offered on campus.

The traditional brochures are effective in communicating the existence

of services on campus to black freshman students.



Recommendations


The following are suggested recommendations for further research:

1. There should be further investigation of orientation programs for

black freshmen that includes a control group without peer counselor

contact. Peer counselors were a major source of information and influ-

ence on the new students. It is important to assess this influence

quantitatively.








2. An outreach approach needs to be examined in future research studies.

This approach should include the orientation staff visiting the housing

units on campus with specific orientation techniques. During the

present study, it was found that the impact of housing on the study

was substantial, and as a result should be used to promote information

dissemination.

3. A more comprehensive questionnaire needs to be developed not only

to obtain specific information about student attitudes toward counseling

and the counseling center, but also to assess their attitudes toward

the university. There was evidence during the study that attitudes

toward the university were modified as a result of the more personalized

orientation.

4. A study comparing the effects of black and white counselors on

black student attitudes toward counseling center services needs to be

conducted. It was decided for this study to limit the orientation

approaches to all black counselors. As a result, there was no measure

of the impact of white counselors on black students during orientation.





























APPENDIX A

LETTER TO STUDENTS OF GROUP 2











June 16, 1980


Dear

Welcome to the University of Florida campus. Ahead of you lie four
very exciting but possibly stressful years. Some students learn quickly
how to cope with this stress. Others may need help in adjusting to
campus life. The Counseling Center is a place to seek help with your
problems.

We try to let new students know about the Counseling Center and
the services we offer, but we are often forgotten in the confusion of
freshman orientation. That is why I am taking the time to send this
letter to you.

A little stress is a natural part of your college experience but
the inability to cope with stress can lead to complications. Counsel-
ing is a way of dealing with stress. Counseling is a way for you to
understand yourself and those around you better. Counselors are warm
caring professionals who want to do everything possible to help you feel
better about yourself and your environment.

We, at the Counseling Center, are ready to help you. You can see
a counselor about any personal problem which is bothering you. You can
see a counselor who will help you explore what your interests are and
how these interests translate into a career. You can see a counselor
to discuss school problems such as inability to study properly or in-
ability to get along with your roommate. We have special interest
groups during the year for such things as assertiveness training and
weight control.

We hope that your years at the University of Florida will be happy
and successful. If you feel a need to talk to someone, some to 311
Little Hall where there is always someone who will listen.


Sincerely,



Milan Kolarik
Director














APPENDIX B

OUTLINE FOR INTERVIEWS


I. Introduction

II. Role of the Counseling Center on the University of Florida
Campus

III. What is a Counselor?

a. Confidentiality
b. Training
c. Help Offered

IV. Services Offered by the Counseling Center

a. Personal private counseling
b. Group counseling
c. Vocational counseling
d.. Special interest groups
e. Marital/relationship counseling






























APPENDIX C

INSTRUMENTS








Counseling Appropriateness Check List

Directions: Read over the following list of problems. For each
problem decide to what extent you think it would be appropriate for
a student to discuss it with a university counselor at the Psycho-
logical and Vocational Counseling Center on campus. Please respond
to each item whether or not you have had direct experience with the
Counseling Center. Mark your response as follows:

If the problem is most appropriate for discussion at the
Counseling Center, mark . . . .) a ? i I

If the problem is appropriate but there are other sources
that would be just as appropriate, mark . A () ? i I

If you are uncertain or undecided, mark ..... .A a ( i I

If the problem is probably inappropriate for discussion at
the Counseling Center, mark . . .. A a ? ( I

If the problem is definitely inappropriate,
mark. . . . . . . . . A a ? i ()


Disappointed in a love affair . . . . . .

Home life unhappy . . . . . . . . .

Ineffective use of study time . . . . . .

Going in debt for college expenses . . . .

Troubled by moral values of others . . ... .

Doubting the wisdom of my vocational choice . .

Choosing best courses to prepare for a job . .

Not knowing how to study effectively . . . .

Want to be more popular . . . . . . .

Am I qualified for the vocation I am considering? .

Science conflicting with my religion . . . .

Want to know what I'm suited for . . . . .

Am I in the proper curriculum? . . . . .

Lacking self-confidence . . . . . . .

Not getting as much out of my studying as I
put in to it . . . . . . . . .


a ?

a ?

a ?

a ?

a ?

a ?

a ?

a ?

a ?

a ?

a ?

a ?

a ?

a ?


A a ? i I








16. Feel inadequate about social skills . . . .. A a ? i I

17. Want some sort of scholarship to help my expenses A a ? i I

18. Am good at several occupations and don't know
which to choose . . . . . . . . . A a ? i I

19. Having beliefs that differ from my church . .. A a ? i I

20. Having to wait too long to get married . . A a ? i I

21. Considering many fields but not certain which one A a ? i I

22. Taking things too seriously . . . . . . A a ? i I

23. Not getting studies done on time . . . ... A a ? i I

24. Feel timid in the presence of other people. ..... .A a ? i I

25. Don't know what to believe about God . . ... A a ? i I

26. Want to learn more about my chosen profession . A a ? i I

27. Being in love . . . . . . . . . A a ? i I

28. Getting back in college after dismissal . . .. A a ? i I

29. Parents making too many decisions for me .... .A a ? i I

30. Want to achieve better study habits . . . .. A a ? i I

31. Have no close friends in college . . . ... A a ? i I

32. What type of job would be best for me ...... A a ? i I

33. Having conflicts about religion . . . . . A a ? i I

34. Not happy with present major, but no alternative
in mind . . . . . . . . . . . A a ? i I

35. Having trouble with one or both parents . . .. A a ? i I

36. Afraid to do new or different things . . ... A a ? i I

37. Do not know when to talk, when to be still ..... .A a ? i I

38. Want information about different vocations. ..... .A a ? i I

39. Tend to avoid my responsibilities and obligations A a ? i I

40. Want help with a marital problem . . . ... A a ? i I

41. Unable to discuss certain problems at home. ..... .A a ? i I








42. Cry over little things. . . . . . . . A a ? i I

43. Difficulty forming new friendships. . . . . A a ? i I

44. Want a career where my personality won't clash
with the field. . . . . . . .... A a ? i I

45. Confused on some moral questions . . . ... A a ? i I

46. Too many personal problems. . . . . . . A a ? i I

47. Need advice about marriage. . . . . . . A a ? i I

48. Parents old-fashioned in their ideas . . ... A a ? i I

49. Too easily discouraged. . . . . . . . A a ? i I

50. Not having enough time to study . . . ... A a ? i I

51. Need to decide on an occupation . . . . . A a ? i I

52. Easily upset by unexpected changes in plans . .A a ? i I

53. Too inhibited in sex matters . . . . . A a ? i I

54. Parents expecting too much of me . . . ... A a ? i I

55. Depressed and unhappy about my situation ..... A a ? i I

56. Want assistance in learning proper study methods. A a ? i I

57. Ill at ease with other people . . . . . A a ? i I

58. Need a part-time job now . . . . . ... A a ? i I

59. Now interested in clarifying my vocational goals.. A a ? i I

60. Differing from my family's religious beliefs. . A a ? i I

61. Afraid of making mistakes . . . . . . A a ? i I

62. Deciding whether to go steady . . . . .. A a ? i I

63. Want information about different curriculums. . A a ? i I

64. Not getting along with a member of my family. . A a ? i I

65. Feeling inferior. . . . . . . . .. A a ? i I

66. Have too few social contacts. . . . . . A a ? i I








Self-Report Questionnaire




Name Classification



Circle one

1. Have you ever heard of the counseling center? yes no

2. Do you know where the counseling center is? yes no

3. Do you know of any special programs offered by
the counseling center? yes no

4. Do you think you are likely to see a counselor at
the counseling center while you are going to
school? yes no

5. Do you think the counseling center is an impor-
tant service offered to students? yes no

6. Would you use the counseling center for a
personal problem? yes no

7. Would you use the counseling center for an
academic problem? yes no

8. Would you use the counseling center for a
problem concerning your career choice? yes no

9. From what source did you hear about the
counseling center?






























APPENDIX D

LETTER TO PANEL OF EXPERTS









Gail Miles
1012 GPA
University of Florida


Dr. Bingham
311 Little Hall
University of Florida


Dr. Bingham:

As I mentioned to you on the phone last week, as a part of my
dissertation research this summer, I will be using an instrument called
the Counseling Appropriateness Check List. The instrument was de-
veloped by Roy Warman in 1960 and has been successfully used to
measure perceptions of students toward counseling center services.
The instrument has been used exclusively for research, and although
it consistently yields significant results, there are no published
reliability or validity data. I am now collecting reliability data
in the form of test-retest on campus.

Concerning the validity data, I have chosen to evaluate content
validity of the instrument, i.e. how representative are the items
on the questionnaire of appropriate problems to take to a counselor?
I would like an evaluation of each item concerning its appropriate-
ness to be included in the instrument by indicating yes it is a
representative item or no it is not a representative item. Further-
more, if there are any problems you feel should be included that
were not, please comment on the bottom of the last page.

Thank you for the time you have given to this. Please send it
back to me through the campus mail.






Gail Miles






























APPENDIX E

TABLES OF RELIABILITY STUDY








Table E.1

Vocational Choice Scores


~IT^L U~


#


X IeSL ); 2
X X

52 2704
56 3136
69 4761
68 4624
63 3969
41 1681
66 4356
51 2601
42 1764
45 2025
69 4761
62 3844
47 2209
70 4900
53 2809
66 4356
52 2704
44 1938
47 2209
58 3364
57 3249
36 1296
54 2916
47 2209
47 2209
70 4900
60 3600
46 2116
60 3600
36 1296
60 3600
64 4096
70 4900
56 3136
54 2916
66 4356
66 4356
54 2916
63 3969
47 2209
62 3844
40 1600
49 2401
37 1369
60 3600
49 2401
55 3025
zX = 2586 EX =149,452


(Test 2) 2
Y Y2

62 3844
62 3844
70 4900
70 4900
50 2500
41 1681
68 4624
54 2912
52 2704
46 2116
60 3600
65 4225
54 2916
63 3969
54 2916
54 2916
59 3481
55 3025
51 2601
55 3025
53 2809
34 1156
57 3249
49 2401
51 2601
65 4225
57 3249
43 1849
59 3481
53 2809
59 3481
67 4480
70 4900
58 3364
55 3025
63 3969
66 4356
63 3969
64 4096
52 2704
58 3364
47 2209
48 2304
51 2601
58 3364
53 2809
56 2 3136
EY = 2654 EY =152,672


XY

3224
3472
4830
4760
3150
1681
4488
2754
2184
2070
4140
4030
2538
4410
2862
3564
3068
2420
2397
3190
3021
1224
3078
2303
2397
4550
3400
1978
3540
1908
3540
4288
4900
3248
2970
4158
4356
3402
4032
2444
3596
1880
2352
1887
3480
2597
3080
zXY=148,861








Table E.2

Vocational Choice Scores,
Computation of r


-ZX = 2586 = 55.02
N 47


ZY = 2654 = 56.47
Y N = 56.47
N 47


ax -2 14952 3027.20 = 12.35
y Y2 = 7.747



ay =- 152,672 3188.86 = 7.71
47


EXY T-
N
r =
aX ay


148,861 (55.02)(56.47)
47(12.35)(7.71) = 633
(12.35)(7.71)








Table E.3

College Routine Scores

(Test 1) 2 (Test 2) 2
# X X Y Y XY


49
40
52
55
54
48
53
47
36
18
49
53
50
52
47
60
51
41
42
51
51
25
40
45
43
50
42
26
28
29
40
50
60
50
46
54
53
54
41
22
36
30
27
30
45
46
37
X = 2048


2401
1600
2704
3025
2916
2304
2809
2209
1296
324
2401
2809
2500
2704
2209
3600
2601
1681
1764
2601
2601
625
1600
2025
2849
2500
2764
676
784
841
1600
2500
3600
2500
2116
2916
2809
2916
1681
484
1296
900
729
900
2025
2116
S1369
X2 =94,180


55
48
49
58
30
31
58
47
37
20
44
48
41
45
41
47
49
44
43
46
43
21
44
47
44
48
42
24
30
32
45
47
59
45
46
54
51
51
40
24
41
35
32
31
45
43
39
Y = 1984


3025
2304
2401
3364
900
961
3364
2209
1369
400
1936
2304
1681
2025
1681
2209
2401
1936
1849
2116
1849
441
1936
2209
1936
2304
1764
576
900
1024
2025
2209
3481
2025
2116
2916
2601
2601
1600
576
1681
1225
1024
961
2025
1849
S 1521
ZY2=87,810


2695
1920
2548
3190
1620
1488
3074
2209
1332
360
2156
2544
2050
2340
1927
2820
2499
1804
1806
2346
2193
525
1760
2115
1892
2400
1764
624
840
928
1800
2350
3540
2250
2116
2916
2703
2754
1640
528
1476
1050
864
930
2025
1978
1443
EXY=90,132








Table E.4
College Routine Scores,
Computation of r


- IX 2048
:X = 2048 43.57
N 47

- ZY 1984
y 1984 42.21
N 47


aX N X =J 94 1898.34 = 10.27



aY = N2 2 87,810 7 8 =
Y- = 8 1 1781.68 = 9.31
F-N 47


r x ay
r = X arY


90,132
9013247 (43.57)(42.21)
(10.27)(9.31) = .822








Table E.5

Adjustment Scores


# x

1 173
2 104
3 108
4 139
5 154
6 187
7 105
8 129
9 188
10 142
11 147
12 174
13 61
14 162
15 101
16 119
17 159
18 178
19 47
20 118
21 93
22 58
23 174
24 107
25 75
26 136
27 124
28 55
29 129
30 156
31 148
32 139
33 173
34 77
35 94
36 88
37 159
38 155
39 172
40 95
41 145
42 84
43 179
44 122
45 161
46 100
47 182
X = 6075


(Test 1) 2
X

29929
10816
11664
19321
23716
34969
11025
11641
35344
20164
21609
30276
3721
26244
10201
14161
25281
31684
2209
13924
8649
3364
30276
11449
5625
18496
15376
3025
16641
24336
21904
19321
29929
5929
8836
7744
25281
24025
29584
9025
21025
7056
32041
14484
25921
10000
S 33124
E~X=855,765


(Test 2) Y
Y" XY


Y

154
97
168
134
108
195
90
137
186
142
145
160
101
149
94
133
147
166
80
97
98
59
169
107
84
137
139
48
136
147
152
142
167
87
96
88
163
160
182
82
148
70
159
134
156
88
168
Y = 6049


23716
9409
28224
17956
11664
38025
8100
18769
34596
20164
21025
25600
10201
22201
8836
17689
21609
27556
6400
9409
9604
3481
28561
11449
7056
18769
19321
2304
18496
21609
23104
20164
27889
7569
9216
7744
26569
25600
33124
6724
21904
4900
25281
17956
24336
7744
S28224
EY2=839,847


26642
10088
18144
18626
16632
36465
9450
23994
34968
20164
21315
27840
6161
24138
9494
15827
23373
29548
3760
11446
9114
3422
29406
11449
6300
18632
17236
2640
17544
22932
22496
19738
28891
6699
9024
7744
25917
24800
31304
7790
21460
5880
28461
16348
25116
8800
30576
zXY=847,794








Table E.6

Adjustment Scores,
Computation of r


_ SX 6075 129.26
N 47


- EY _6049.
Y = = 128.70
N 47


aX X2 = 855,765 16,780.15 = 38.72
N 47


S= y2 = 89,847 16,563.69 = 36.13
N 47


zXY 47,794 (129.26)(128.70)
r N a (40.67)(36.13) .954
r = (X (40.67)(36.13) 9







Table E.7

Overall Scores

(Test 1) 2 (
X# X Y


274 75076
200 40000
229 52441
262 68644
271 73441
258 66564
224 50176
227 51529
266 70756
205 42025
265 70225
289 83521
158 24964
284 80656
201 40401
245 60025
262 68644
263 .69169
136 18496
227 51529
201 40401
119 14161
268 71824
299 39601
265 27225
256 65536
226 51076
127 16129
217 47089
221 48841
248 61504
253 64009
303 91809
183 33489
194 37636
208 43264
278 77284
263 69169
276 76176
164 26896
243 59049
254 23716
255 65025
189 35721
266 70756
195 38025
182 2 33124
zX = 10599 EX2=2,486,817


271
207
287
262
206
267
216
238
275
208
249
273
196
257
189
234
255
265
174
198
194
114
270
203
179
250
238
115
225
232
256
256
296
190
197
205
280
274
286
158
247
152
239
216
259
282
263
ZY =10702


rest 2) 2
Y XY

73441 74254
42849 42400
82369 65723
68644 68644
42436 55826
71289 68886
46656 48384
56644 54026
75625 73150
43264 42640
62001 65985
74529 78897
38416 30968
66049 72988
35721 37989
54756 57330
65025 66810
70225 69695
30276 23664
39204 44946
37639 38994
12996 13566
72900 72360
41209 40397
32041 29535
62500 64000
56644 53788
13225 14605
50625 48825
53824 51272
65536 63488
65536 64768
87616 89688
36100 34770
38809 38218
42025 42640
78400 77840
75076 72062
81796 78936
24964 25912
61009 60021
23104 23408
57121 60945
46656 40824
67081 68894
32761 35295
S 69169 47866
ZY=2,525,781 EXY=2,495,122




-86-

Table E.8

Overall Scores,
Computation of r


X = 1099 = 225.51
N 47

SY = 10,702 = 227.70
N 47


X = X2 2,486,817 -50,854.76 = 45.35



=Y = 2 2,5,781 51,847.29 = 43.51


XY 2,495,122
N XY 47 (225.51)(227.7)
r = aX Y = (45.35)(43.51) = .954












BIBLIOGRAPHY


Bachrach, A. Psychological Research (3rd edition). New York: Random
House, 1972.

Banks, W. The changing attitudes of black students. Personnel &
Guidance Journal, 1970, 48(9), 739-745.

Bayer, A. & Boruch, R. Black and white freshmen entering four-year
colleges. Educational Record, 1969, 50(4), 371-386.

Benedict, A., Apsler, R., & Morrison, S. Student views of their
counseling needs and counseling services. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 1977, 18(2), 110-114.

Benjamin, E. & Romano, J. Counseling services in an open-door college:
Faculty and staff perceptions. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 1980, 21(1), 14-22.

Bigelow, G., Hendrix, L., & Jensen, V. Impact of counseling center
brochures. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1968, 9(2), 97-99.

Blackham, G. Counseling Theory, Process, and Practice. Belmont, Ca.:
Wadsworth Publishing, 1977.

Boyd, W. II. Black undergraduates succeed in white colleges. Educa-
tional Record, 1977, 58(3), 309-315.

Christensen, K. & Magoon, T. Perceived hierarchy of help-giving sources
for two categories of student problems. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1974, 21(4), 311-314.

Davis, K. & Swartz, J. Increasing black students' utilization of
mental health services. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
1972, 42(5), 771-776.

Downey, R., Robyak, J., Sherrard, P., & Astley, S. Comparison of per-
ceived and actual counseling center usage patterns in five mid-
western universities. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1979, 20(6), 507-512.

Downey, R. & Sinnett, E. Characteristics of students seeking mental
health services. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1980,
21(1), 9-14.

Duckro, P., Beal, D., & Moebes, J. Differential effectiveness of
written communications on students' perceptions of the college
counseling service. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1976,
23(2), 103-107.








Duckro, P., Joanning, H., Nathan, E., & Beal, D. A religious concerns
factor of the Counseling Appropriateness Check List. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 1978, 19(5), 450-453.

Erwin, J. The attitude of black new students and administrative
response. Journal of Negro Education, 1976, 45(2), 161-165.

Frankel, P. & Perlman, S. Student perceptions of the student counsel-
ing service function. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1969, 10(4), 232-235.

Friedlander, J. Are college support programs and services reaching
high-risk students? Journal of College Student Personnel, 1980,
21(1), 23-28.

Fullerton, J. & Potkay, C. Student perceptions of pressures, helps,
and psychological services. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1973, 14(4), 355-361.

Gallagher, P. & Demos, G. The Counseling Center in Higher Education.
Springfield: Charles Thomas, 1970.

Gallagher, R. & Scheuring, S. A more efficient way of planning out-
reach programming at a university counseling center and placement
service. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1979, 20(4),
360-361.

Gelso, C., Karl, N., & O'Connell, P. Perceptions of the role of a
university counseling center. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 1972, 13(5), 441-447.

Gelso, C. & McKensie, J. Effects of information on students' percep-
tions of counseling and their willingness to seek help. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 1973, 20(5), 406-411.

Gibb, J. Black students/white university: Different expectations.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1973, 51(7), 463-469.

Gibb, J. Use of mental health services by black students at a pre-
dominantly white university: A three year study. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1975, 45(3), 430-445.

Haettenschwiller, D. Counseling black students in special programs.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1971, 50(1), 29-35.

Holmberg, B. Congruence of perceptions regarding college counseling
center services. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho,
1970.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 32 3029A.

Hoover, B. College students who didn't seek counseling during a
period of academic difficulty. (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Florida, 1966.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1967,
28, 1298A.








Huck, S., Cormier, W., & Bounds, W. Reading Statistics and Research.
New York: Harper & Row, 1974.

Hummers, J. & DeVolder, J. Comparisons of male and female students'
use of a counseling center. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1979, 20(3), 243-249.

Issac, S. & Michaels, W. Handbook in Research and Evaluation (10th
ed.). San Diego: Edits, 1978.

Kerlinger, F. Foundations of Behavioral Research (2nd ed.). New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc., 1973.

King, H. & Walsh, W. Changes in environmental expectations and per-
ceptions. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1972, 13(4),
331-336.

King, P., Newton, F., Osterlund, B., & Baber, B. A counseling center
studies itself. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1973,
14(4), 338-344.

Kohlar, R. Problems appropriate for discussion in counseling centers:
15 years later. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1975, 22,
560-562.

Leonard, M. Student perceptions of counseling centers located in
certain large universities. (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern
University, 1970.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971,
31, 3272A.

Madraza-Peterson, R. & Rodriguez, M. Minority students' perceptions
of a university environment. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1978, 19(3), 259-263.

McDavis, R., Mingo, G., Stewart, B., & Hough, T. A summer orientation
program for students in special services programs: A coordinated
approach. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1980, 21(1),
88-89.

Nathan, E., Joanning, H., Duckro, P., & Beal, D. Differential effec-
tiveness of written and verbal communications in modifying
students' perceptions of the counseling center's role. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 1978, 25(3), 242-245.

Ogston, D., Altmann, H., & Conklin, R. Problems appropriate for dis-
cussion in university counseling centers: A replication. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 1969, 16(4), 361-364.

Paul, S. & Crego, C. Marketing counseling center programs in a
student consumer society. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1979, 20(2), 135-139.








Peoples, N. A study of factors influencing the use of counseling
center services by black students at a predominantly white
university. (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University,
1977.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1978, 38(10-A),
5977-5978.

Pinsky, S. & Marks, D. Perceptions of student personnel services at
a major landgrant university. Journal of College Student Per-
sonnel, 1980, 21(2), 99-104.

Resnick, H. & Gelso, C. Differential perceptions of counseling role:
A reexamination. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1971, 18(6),
549-553.

Rich, H. A comparison of college structure and college environment
variables as predictors of student orientation. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 1979, 20(3), 216-223.

Russell, R. Black perceptions of guidance. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 1970, 48(9), 721-728.

Sager, C., Braybay, M., & Waxenberg, B. Black patient-white therapist.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1972, 42(3), 415-423.

Sharp, H. & Kirk, B. A longitudinal study of who seeks counseling when.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1974, 21(1), 43-50.

Shertzer, B. & Stone, S. Fundamentals of Counseling (2nd ed.). Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin, 1974.

Smith, D. Preferences of university students for counselors and
counseling settings. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1974,
15(1), 53-57.

Smith, E. Counseling black individuals: Some stereotypes. Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 1977, 55(7), 390-396.

Smith, P. Counseling from the past to present with blacks. Journal
of Negro Education, 1974, 43(4), 489-493.

Snyder, J., Hill, C., & Dirksen, T. Why some students do not use
university counseling facilities. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
1972, 19(4), 263-268.

Spurlock, L. Still struggling: Minorities and white colleges in the
mid-seventies. Educational Record, 1976, 57(3), 186-193.

Strong, S., Hendel, D., & Bratton, J. College students' views of
campus help-givers: Counselors, advisors, and psychiatrists.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1971, 18(2), 234-238.

Tryon, G. A review of literature concerning perceptions of and pre-
ferences for counseling center services. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 1980, 21(4), 304-311.








Vontress, C. Cultural barriers in the counseling relationship.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1969, 48(1), 11-17.

Vontress, C. Counseling blacks. Personnel and Guidance Journal,
1970, 48(9), 713-719.

Warman, R. Differential perceptions of counseling role. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1960, 7(4), 269-274.

Warnath, C. College counseling: Between the rock and the hard place.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1972, 51(4), 229-235.

Webster, D. & Fretz, B. Asian American, black, and white college
students' preferences for help-giving sources. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1978, 25(2), 124-130.

Webster, D., Sedlack, W., & Miyares, J. A comparison of problems per-
ceived by minority and white university students. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 1979, 20(2), 165-170.

Wilcove, G., Gerry, M., & Sharp, H. Differential perceptions of a
college counseling center. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
1971, 18(1), 60-63.

Winer, J., Pasca, A., Dinello, F., & Weingarten, S. Nonwhite student
usage of university mental health services. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 1974, 15(5), 410-412.

Woods, E. Counseling minority students: A program model. Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 1977, 55(7), 416-418.




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