A Factor Analysis of the Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale

Abstract

This study was conducted in order to add to the empirical data available on the Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale (CERS). Ratings on 404 students from approximately 35 different supervisors were factor‐analyzed using an oblique solution with rotation to simple loadings. Six primary factors were found: general counseling performance (I), professional attitude (II), counseling behavior (III), counseling knowledge (IV), supervision attitude (V), and supervision behavior (VI). A subsequent analysis yielded two second‐order factors; the first was composed of primary factors I, III, IV and the second of primary factors II, V, VI, which closely approximated the original counseling and supervision scales of the CERS. It was concluded that the CERS has generally achieved the purposes intended by its authors. Suggestions for minor changes in item‐scale designations are provided.

The response-shift bias in a counsellor education programme

“…Fuqua et al , 1984). Thus, although they cautioned CERS users about interpreting counsellor self-ratings in relation to Loesch & Rucker's (1977) factors, they did suggest that self-ratings might be usefully discussed in relation to supervisors' ratings.…”

“…Recently Benshoff & Thomas (1992) re-examined the factor structures of the CERS by comparing trainees' self-ratings of their own effectiveness with those reported earlier by Loesch & Rucker (1977) which were based on supervisors' ratings of trainees. Benshoff & Thomas reported different factors, a finding that was consistent with previous research which indicated that different raters produced different ratings (e.g.…”

Evaluation of Supervisees

“…Myrick and Kelly (1971) reported a split-half reliability coefficient of .95, a 4-week test-retest reliability coefficient of .94, and a correlation of .86 for the two subscales; Jones (1974) reported a split-half reliability of .87. Loesch and Rucker (1977) found some support for the counseling and supervision subscales in a factor analysis, but concluded the total CERS score was more valid.…”

“…Total CERS scores were used in this analysis, as recommended by Loesch and Rucker (1977). Scores ranged from 71 to 189 (M = 162.28, SD = 24.99).…”

Cognitive Style in Counselor Education: A Comparison of Practicum Supervisors and Counselors in Training

“…A factor analysis of the 27-item scale yielded six primary factors that loaded on two secondary factors corresponding to counseling and supervisory performance (Loesch & Rucker, 1977). In this study we scored the CERS according to Loesch and Rucker's (1977) procedures to obtain a total score and subscores for counseling and supervision performance.…”