Counseling Program

Counseling Program

The purpose of the study in the research article “Factors That Influence Self-Efficacy of Counseling Students: An Exploratory Study” as stated in the introduction was to examine “whether age, prior work experience, number of courses taken, and number of internship hours have a positive relationship with counseling self-efficacy” (McMillan & Wergin, 2006). This examination focused on comparing Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) and non- CACREP-accredited programs. In short, the study focused on whether students who had more hands on experience, course work, and more life experience were more self confident and better counseling professionals. Of the two groups that were compared and studied a total of 116 students participated who were either enrolled in programs accredited by CACREP and those who were not enrolled in these particular programs.

The distinctions between the two were that the CACREP programs had a minimum number of required courses and internship hours. Although the students who were non- CACREP may or may not have had more training and experience than their CACREP counterparts, the authors still felt there might be a difference in counselor self-efficacy. Although the CACREP group may have had to adhere to distinct standards the non-CACREP group had on average a year or more prior work experience (McMillan & Wergin, 2006). Both programs also required 60 semester credits with 600 clock hours of internship. It would appear that the students who had more work experience were more self-assured in their positions. We would guess the researchers expected to see a difference in counselor self-efficacy of the two groups. Why is this important? Were the researchers trying to determine what or how much experience, courses and internships are necessary to develop self-efficacy in counselors? The hypothesis is not clear, and this is the main aspect of the study that needs to be clarified.

This study on self-efficacy is a quantitative study but lacks an effective approach in defining variables and gathering data. First, the hypothesis is not clearly defined and it is difficult to identify a dependent variable. We are led to believe that enrollment in a CACREP program is the dependent variable but when compared to non-CACREP programs they have many similarities that make it difficult to separate the two. Second, counselor self-efficacy is also a construct that needs an operational definition. The researchers need to clearly define counselor self-efficacy and the relevant variables that are being measured and controlled from the beginning.

The method of this study may have been better served using face-to-face interaction to validate or test the theory rather than test an underdeveloped theory and use self-reported courses and internship hours; furthermore, the sample was small and self-efficacy is a trait that could have been documented in an observable setting. We suggest using human interaction in a natural setting as an instrument of observation to develop the measure of self-efficacy by selecting the aspects of behavior to be observed, clearly defining the behaviors that fall within a chosen category, developing a system of quantifying ...