Perceived counselor social influence and counseling outcomes: Validity of the Counselor Rating Form.

Abstract

This study sought to examine the predictive validity of the Counselor Rating Form (CRF) and to test Strong's model of the impact of counselor social influence on counseling outcomes. Thirty-six clients from a rural midwestern outpatient drug treatment program were asked to rate counselors after their initial interview and then after their final counseling session using the CRF. Precounseling and postcounseling scores were generated for each client using the method of Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS). Scores from precounseling and postcounseling CRF and GAS were used to study the relationship between initial client perceptions and postcounseling outcomes. The major hypothesis that a positive relationship would occur between final perceptions and outcomes was supported (ps < .001). Regression analyses produced a prediction equation using CRF variables that accounted for 35% of outcome variance. Results suggested the research and clinical utility of the CRF and the validity of the social influence model on which its dimensions are based. Additional studies are needed to enhance predictive efficiency and to determine applicability to more diverse client samples.

Social influence research in counseling: A review and critique.

“…For example, LaCrosse (1980) found that the client ratings of expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness at the end of counseling were between 74 and 76 (in a possible range between 12 and 84). In addition, 3 of the studies examined client perceptions of the counselor after only one session and found that counselors were rated very positively at this early point in counseling as well (Heppner & Heesacker, 1982;LaCrosse, 1980;Zamostny, Corrigan, & Eggert, 1981). For example, after one session, the clients' ratings of expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness ranged from 71 to 73 (LaCrosse, 1980).…”

“…Clients seem quickly and consistently to perceive counselors in field settings as very expert, attractive, and trustworthy, sometimes without apparent regard for status and evidential cues (Heppner & Heesacker, 1982, 1983. Moreover, clients seem to change their perceptions of the counselor over time (LaCrosse, 1980), which suggests that research on counselor perceptions in the later stages of counseling may be quite important. …”

“…relationships," and "made me feel better about myself and where I am"). Following Corrigan et al (1980), Heppner and Heesacker (1982) interpreted these results as suggesting that counselor perceptions are initially influenced, at least :in part, by their socially prescribed role as professional helpers :(i.e., legitimate power) rather than particular counselor characteristics.Two of the studies have also suggested that client perceptions of counselors as a whole tend to increase slightly over the course of counseling (Heppner & Heesacker, 1982;LaCrosse, 1980) Strong's, 1968, first phase of counseling) do change throughout the course of counseling; therefore, conceptualization of Strong's first phase of counseling ought not to be restricted to the first counseling sessions. Although Strong conceptualized counseling in terms of the two phases of influence, he did not operationally define the first stage in terms of the number of sessions, such as the initial or fourth session of counseling.…”

“…Subsequently, LaCrosse (1977) found support for a three-factor oblique solution. Likewise, a number of investigators have reported much higher intercorrelations than are expected from such distinct concepts (e.g., Atkinson & Wampold, 1982;LaCrosse, 1980; Zamostny et al., 1981), which leads to speculation about a common "good counselor" factor (LaCrosse, 1977).By using client perceptions from actual counseling, Heesacker and Heppner (1983) factor analyzed the CRF with both oblique and orthogonal solutions. Both factor analyses supported a one-factor model.…”

Spanish Adaptation of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI). Psychometric properties of the patient and therapist forms (WAI-P and WAI-T)

“…Nevertheless, the limited cor-anales de psicología, 2015, vol. 31, nº 2 (mayo) relations found by Horvath (1981) among the three subscales of the WAI-P and the three subscales of the Counselor Rating Form (used by patients to rate the therapist's attractiveness, trustworthiness, and expertise) (LaCrosse & Barak, 1976;LaCrosse, 1980) confirmed the discriminant validity of the three subscales of the WAI-P (Horvath, 1994). In addition, the large, significant correlations seen in later studies between the WAI-P or WAI-T and other measures of alliance provide additional evidence for the convergent validity of both versions of the WAI.…”