Assessing Comprehensive Developmental School Counseling Programs’ Implementation of the

ASCA National Model

Eric Heidel, PhDJohn Breckner, MA

Jeannine Studer, EdDJoel Diambra, EdD

Tennessee Counseling Association 2012 Conference

Nashville, TN

The ASCA National Model®

Purpose of Study

Create valid & reliable instrument to assess

•Tasks professional school counselors perform congruent with a comprehensive, developmental school counseling program.

Instrumentation

The School Counselor National Model Activity Scale (SCNMAS)– Examines work activities &ASCA National Model

Cross-sectional design 17 items– Derived from five primary aspects of the ASCA School

Counselor Competencies• (delivery, foundation, accountability, and themes)

School Counseling Program Component Scale (SCPCS)

– Hatch & Chen-Hayes, 2008

Instrumentation

The following questions relate to the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the school counseling program in the school in which you currently work. If you are assigned to more than one school, choose the school where do you spend the majority of your time to answer the following questions

  1 = Not at all; 2 = to some extent; 3 = neutral; 4 = to a large extent; 5

= completely

Example Questions

The Delivery System (Model before the 2012 revision)

 

The Delivery Component addresses how the program will be implemented. Indicate whether or not your program includes the following elements that are integral to the Delivery System. This component includes the following four questions.

The Guidance Curriculum consists of structured lessons designed to achieve identified competencies.  

Individual Student Planning consists of activities designed to assist the student establish personal goals and developing future plans.

Responsive Services consists of activities to meet students’ immediate needs such as counseling, consultation, referral or peer mediation.

Systems Support consists of obtaining professional development, collaboration, and engaging in activities to maintain the program.

Methodology—Psychometrics

Data cleaning– Expectation Maximization

Demographics and survey response

Reliability– Cronbach’s alpha

Factor analysis Validity– Convergent and Concurrent

Methodology—Data Collection SCNMAS and SCPCS put into

online survey application ASCA listserv of 31,000 email

addresses Email explaining nature of the

study and informed consent along with link sent to listserv

Download data after 2nd set of emails

Results

Gender– 13.9% male and 86.1% female

Race– 79.5% Caucasian, 7.7% African-American,

5.9% Hispanic, 1.6% Asian, .9% Native American, 1.6% Other, 2.8% Prefer not to answer

Professional Experience– 30.3% one year or less, 35.6% two to

seven years, and 34.1% eight or more years

Results

Cronbach’s alpha (α) = .92 Three factors accounting for

60.23% of the variance–Management – α = .87, 44.36% of

the variance– Delivery – α = .84, 9.54% of the

variance– Themes – α = .84, 6.33% of the

variance

Results

Convergent validity– r = .25 between SCNMAS and

SCPCS, p < .001, r2 = .06 Concurrent validity– Based on experience level– Less experience (0-1 years) vs.

Moderate experience (2-7 years) vs. Most experience (7+ years)

– One-way ANOVA, Bonferroni correction

Results

SCNMAS Composite, p < .001– Less vs. moderate, p < .001– Less vs. most, p < .001–Moderate vs. most, p = .028

Less Moderate Most

60.52(14.2) 58.13(12.8) 58.56(12.8)

Results

Management, p < .001– Less vs. moderate, p < .001– Less vs. most, p < .001–Moderate vs. most, p = .95

Less Moderate Most

25.74(8.2) 23.38(7.4) 23.42(7.4)

Results

Delivery, p = .05– Less vs. moderate, p = .47– Less vs. most, p = .14–Moderate vs. most, p = .01

Less Moderate Most

18.82(4.4) 18.75(4.0) 19.13(4.1)

Results

Delivery, p = .93

Less Moderate Most

15.95(3.2) 15.99(3.2) 16.01(3.3)

Limitations

Only one question was written in the foundation component that included beliefs, philosophies, mission statement, and program competencies.

– “The Foundation Component includes beliefs and philosophy, a mission statement, and program competencies. Indicate whether or not your program includes these elements.”

 1 = Not at all; 2 = to some extent; 3 = neutral; 4 = to a large extent; 5 = completely

Implications SCNMAS – Valid and reliable–Has ability to differentiate between

experience levels– Does an adequate job of assessing

types of school counselor performance within a CDSC program

Implications

Practicing Professional School Counselors Use as an evaluative tool Use in adapting or adjusting program

foci Share with stakeholders

Implications

Educators and Researchers Used for tracking graduate student

activities Used to revise curricular offerings to

address areas school counseling program is not addressing

Revised SCNMAS to include multiple questions in the Foundations component

Implications

School Counselor Trainees Can use instrument to track activities

in clinical experiences Can use instrument to inform

supervisor about a CDSC program Can bridge gap between traditional

and CDSC programs.

Questions/Comments