Doctoral Dissertation Research in Rehabilitation Counseling

Abstract

This article continues the tradition of reviews documenting doctoral rehabilitation research. Doctoral dissertations completed during calendar years 2008–2010 from recognized doctoral rehabilitation programs were identified and reviewed using the same approach used by Tansey, Zanskas, and Phillips. Analysis of 88 dissertations resulted in a topical index of research topic, methodology, model, and type of statistical analysis that were considered independently and in relation to previous reviews. Among findings, the increase in predictive outcome studies observed in Tansey et al. was also observed in this review. An increase in research on specific clinical populations was also observed. Implications for the practice of rehabilitation counseling, rehabilitation education, and future research are discussed.

Doctoral Dissertation Research in Rehabilitation Counseling: 2012

“…The retrieval method implemented in this review resulted in 12 dissertations being identified as rehabilitation counseling dissertations that were later removed for a 40.0% initial false-positive rate. This rate is similar to that produced in Zanskas et al (2014) but much higher than Tansey, Phillips, and Zanskas (2012), which reported a 15.3% false-positive rate. The false-positives were due primarily to master’s thesis incorrectly being included in the initial sample as well as rehabilitation counseling faculty serving as dissertation chairs for doctoral candidates in related programs (i.e., special education, counselor education, counseling psychology).…”

“…We based the content review for this study on rehabilitation programs listed in the 2011–2012 National Council on Rehabilitation Education (NCRE) Member Directory. Dissertations were collected using a sequential method paralleling the approach used in previous reviews (Tansey, Phillips, & Zanskas, 2012; Tansey, Zanskas, & Phillips, 2012; Zanskas et al, 2014). The ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database was used to search for dissertators by program faculty in each of the identified parent universities.…”

“…These trends suggested an increasing use of predictive outcome studies over this period while also conveying a very limited use of experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Tansey, Phillips, and Zanskas (2012) also noted an increasing use of advanced statistics in dissertation research during the years of 2008–2010. That trend, although not linear, seems to have continued to the latest review of dissertations from 2011.…”

“…Many analyses have been conducted since that time, providing information about trending areas of research, methodological training and sophistication, and future directions for study within a discipline (e.g., Beck et al, 1994, 1996; Leahy et al, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992). Tansey, Zanskas, Phillips, and colleagues again began publishing these summaries of the rehabilitation counseling research after a 16-year gap from 1996 to 2012 (Tansey, Phillips, & Zanskas, 2012; Tansey, Zanskas, & Phillips, 2012; Zanskas et al, 2014). These most recent reviews are a partial replication of the approach used by Leahy et al (1988, 1989) and uses a consistent framework for categorization of dissertation characteristics, allowing for a consideration of trends from 2005 until 2011.…”

Doctoral Dissertation Research in Rehabilitation Counseling

“…As the climax of the doctoral education process, doctoral dissertations reflect both the research interests and sophistication of prospective graduates. Previous doctoral dissertation research has been summarized in peer-reviewed literature to analyze research trends, enhance the accessibility of research, and identify topics for future study (Beck, Janikowski, & Stebnicki, 1994, 1996; Leahy, Habeck, & Fabiano, 1988, 1989; Leahy, Habeck, & Van Tol, 1992; Leahy, Van Tol, & Habeck, 1990; Lofaro, 1981a, 1981b, 1982, 1983a, 1983b; Tansey, Phillips, & Zanskas, 2012; Tansey, Zanskas, & Phillips, 2012). Review of 187 rehabilitation counseling dissertations for the years 2005 through 2010 revealed an increase in both predictive outcome and clinical population studies (Tansey, Phillips, et al, 2012; Tansey, Zanskas, et al, 2012).…”