Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Counseling process refers to events, characteristics, or conditions that occur during or as a result of the interaction between counselor and client. The therapeutic relationship that develops during counseling sessions is an example of counseling process; completing homework outside of session also constitutes an event that fits within counseling process. Process can refer to what the counselor does with the client as well as how change occurs within the client. In contrast, counseling outcome refers to the results or effects of counseling. Outcomes are those phenomena that change in the client as a direct or indirect result of counseling. Presumably, process influences outcome, although research has been unsuccessful at demonstrating consistent links between measures of process and measures of outcomes.

Measurement of counseling process and outcome has been one of the most vexing tasks in the history of counseling and psychotherapy research. One of the key problems in process and outcome measurement is that while hundreds of process and outcome measures have been created, no consensus exists about what measures or how these measures should be employed in practice or research. Researchers refer to this as the units of measurement issue: With any particular client, or in any particular study, what should be measured? Process researchers have investigated such variables as the amount of talking by counselors or clients, counselor competence, therapist adherence to a role or treatment manual, client experiencing of affect, the strength of the therapeutic bond, client defensiveness or resistance, severity of client problem(s), and language use. As researchers have noted, process clearly signifies many different things.

The remainder of this entry discusses how psychological tests are typically evaluated, describes and evaluates a representative sample of counseling process and outcome measures, and then discusses future directions for research about process and outcome measures.

General Measurement Principles

Process and outcome measures can be evaluated using traditional standards of reliability and validity. Reliability refers to the consistency of measurement and is frequently evaluated through statistical tests of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and inter-rater reliability. Coefficient alpha, the statistic usually employed to assess internal consistency, indicates the extent to which scores on individual test items contribute consistently to the total score. Test-retest reliability refers to the consistency of measurement over time; if the test measures a stable psychological trait, it should yield consistent scores across repeated administrations. Interrater reliability refers to the ability of two or more judges to assess some psychological characteristic or event similarly. The intraclass correlation and kappa statistic are used to indicate the degree of interrater reliability.

Validity has been described both as (a) the extent to which a test measures the construct it is intended to measure and (b) the extent to which evidence exists that test scores can be employed for a particular purpose. The first definition focuses on whether scores on a particular test reflect a particular construct (e.g., depression) as opposed to other constructs (e.g., stress) or systematic sources of error. Social desirability is a frequently noticed source of error for many tests and refers to the tendency to present one's self in a favorable light. In a counseling setting, for example, a new client might underreport such negative behaviors as smoking, drinking, or unsafe sexual behaviors.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading