See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359109506

Exploring school counseling during the first wave of COVID‐19

Article in Journal of counseling and development: JCD · March 2022

DOI: 10.1002/jcad.12433

CITATIONS READS

8 396

3 authors, including:

Elizabeth Villares Angela Starrett

Florida Atlantic University University of South Carolina
43 PUBLICATIONS 434 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 197 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Elizabeth Villares on 09 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 20 July 2021 Revised: 20 January 2022 Accepted: 24 January 2022

DOI: 10.1002/jcad.12433

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Exploring school counseling during the first wave of COVID-19

Elizabeth Villares1 Angie Starrett2 Dodie Limberg3

1
Department of Counselor Education, Florida
Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA
2
Child Development Research Center, University
of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina,
USA
3
Department of Educational Studies, University of
South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
Correspondence
Elizabeth Villares, Department of Counselor
Education, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades
Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA.
Email: evillare@fau.edu
Abstract
In the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak, school counselors played an essential role
in helping students, teachers, and families pivot to new learning environments and
implemented services to promote students’ academic, social-emotional, and career
development. In this study, we analyzed school counselors’ (N = 589) delivery of
program services and their individual and school characteristics to identify four
approaches to school counseling: reactive, universal, consultative/collaborative, and
comprehensive during the first wave of the pandemic. School counselors in the reac-
tive profile spent most of their time engaged in noncounselor-duties and reported the
highest levels of burnout. Conversely, counselors belonging to the comprehensive
profile devoted the most time to delivering consultation, coordination, counseling,
and curriculum services and limited engagement in noncounseling-related duties.
This study emphasizes the importance of defining the school counselors’ roles and
responsibilities and the extent to which school counselors were able to deliver their
school counselor services during the global pandemic.

KEYWORDS
school counselor roles and responsibilities, COVID-19, burnout, comprehensive school counseling, latent
profiles

INTRODUCTION and predictors to inform strategies for prevention and inter-

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to raise concerns about
its impact on students’ academic achievement, mental health,
and social-emotional well-being (Savitz-Romer et al., 2021;
Strear et al., 2021). The current study expands on previ-
ous research investigating how school counselors managed
their roles and functions in response to the COVID-19 pan-
demic (Limberg et al., 2021; Savitz-Romer et al., 2021).
Accordingly, we conducted a latent profile analysis (LPA)
to empirically derive subgroups from our sample to deter-
mine how each group of practitioners managed the deliv-
ery of their school counseling services 6 months after the
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The LPA is considered
a person-centered approach that groups individuals into dis-
crete categories based on shared characteristics (Spurk et al.,
2019). The practical benefits of conducting an LPA include
obtaining a more detailed characterization of school coun-
selors and identifying variables correlated with specific types
of counselors. Of particular interest was identifying relation-
ship patterns between individual and organizational variables
vention. The authors selected variables of interest from the
extant literature associated with effectively delivering school
counseling services, including counselor burnout (Bardhoshi
et al., 2014; Kim & Lambie, 2018; Mullen & Gutierrez, 2016)
trauma training (Pincus et al., 2020; Wachter Morris et al.,
2021), caseloads (Kearney et al., 2021; Shi & Brown, 2020),
and school characteristics (Fye et al., 2020; Wilkerson &
Bellini, 2006).
Currently, there is a dearth of literature examining school
counselor profiles. For example, a search for LPA studies
investigating school counselor practitioner profiles yielded
one publication. Fye et al. (2018) examined school coun-
selors’ perceived levels of perfectionism and its relationship
with stress, coping processes, and burnout. Results of the
LPA found a three-model solution where school counselors
were grouped as adaptive perfectionists, maladaptive perfec-
tionists, and nonperfectionists. Fye et al.’s (2018) study find-
ings indicated that the samples’ emotional-focused coping
was positively related to their perceived level of burnout.
However, the counselors in the maladaptive group were also

© 2022 by the American Counseling Association

J Couns Dev. 2022;1–12. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jcad 1

2 VILLARES ET AL.
more frequently engaged in avoidant-emotional coping and
reported higher levels of burnout.
In comparison, the adaptive perfectionists were less likely
to experience stress and burnout and more likely to engage
in problem-focused coping. The LPA results emphasize the
importance of school counselors’ awareness of their cop-
ing processes and their relationship with their perceived lev-
els of stress and burnout (Fye et al., 2018). The researchers
also suggested the need for school counselors to engage in
wellness activities, strength-based interventions to reinforce
positive coping strategies, and cognitive reframing. These
issues are particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pan-
demic when counselors are vulnerable to chronic stressors.
School counseling framework
The American School Counselor Association (ASCA)
National Model (2019) provides a framework to deliver a
comprehensive school counseling program. This standards-
based, data-driven approach to school counseling has dom-
inated the profession for several decades (DeKruyf et al.,
2013; Lambie et al., 2019; Zyromski et al., 2021). School
counselors are also encouraged to assume a unified educator–
counselor professional identity (DeKruyf et al., 2013; Levy
& Lemberger-Truelove, 2021). Assuming a nondual identity
empowers school counselors to assert their positions and per-
form the roles and responsibilities that represent their unique
training and are valued by their colleagues and community
(Levy & Lemberger-Truelove, 2021). Additionally, having a
strong professional identity is critical as school counselors
are called upon to address students, teachers, and staff’s aca-
demic, emotional, health, and safety needs (Wachter Morris
et al., 2021). Despite the growing concern over student men-
tal health needs (Lambie et al., 2019), social inequities and
unrest, and challenges stemming from the ongoing pandemic
(Wachter Morris et al., 2021), researchers and practitioners
can use this opportunity to examine school counselor pro-
files to determine how counselors are delivering services and
advocate for changes to effectively meet student needs (Lim-
berg et al., 2021; Strear et al., 2021).
School counselor roles and responsibilities
Historically, the school counseling profession has struggled
to define its roles and responsibilities (Cinotti, 2014; DeKruyf
et al., 2013). Variations across states, districts, and among
school leaders in how school counselors’ work is defined,
how they are supported and supervised (Randick et al., 2018),
as well as their job titles (Baker et al., 2021; Zyromski
et al., 2018), illustrate the inconsistency in utilizing school
counselors to support student outcomes (Blake, 2020). The
ASCA National Model (2019) recommends that school coun-
selors spend 80% of their time delivering direct and indi-
rect services. The model includes appropriate school coun-
selor activities to improve student achievement, attendance,
and discipline. School counseling evidence-based research
demonstrates that when school counselors engage students
in classroom lessons, small groups, and individual planning,
the results indicate positive outcomes for academic, social,
emotional, college, and career readiness (Griffith et al., 2019;
Lemberger-Truelove et al., 2021; Villares et al., 2012; Webb
et al. 2019; Whiston et al., 2011).
Notably, the National Model also delineates inappropri-
ate duties that someone else, with less specialized train-
ing, can oversee (e.g., testing coordinator, performing disci-
plinary actions, covering classes, bus or cafeteria duty, and
data entry; ASCA, 2019). In addition, scholars have consis-
tently reported how school counselors are often tasked with
noncounseling assignments, which reduces their capacity to
reach students and deliver services to meaningfully impact
their growth and development (Blake, 2020; Kim & Lambie,
2018; Lambie et al., 2019; Randick et al., 2018; Shi & Brown,
2020; Wilder, 2018).
Role ambiguity, role conflict, and occupational
stress
School counseling researchers suggest that role ambiguity,
role conflict, and occupational stress are significant factors
contributing to school counselor performance, job satisfac-
tion, and burnout (Bardhoshi et al., 2014; Kim & Lambie,
2018; Wilkerson & Bellini, 2006). Role ambiguity occurs
when a school counselor has vague or inconsistent expec-
tations regarding which duties to perform (DeKruyf et al.,
2013; Ruiz et al., 2018). When school counselors’ roles are
ambiguous, they report performing more clerical and admin-
istrative services (e.g., responding to informal or drop-in
meetings, making schedule changes upon requests, acting on
the principal’s directives) and noncounseling-related duties
(Blake, 2020). Despite their training to recognize and sup-
port students’ mental health (Lambie et al., 2019), school
counselors without adequate support, supervision, and clear
expectations can spend more time putting out fires than pre-
venting them (DeKruyf et al., 2013). Role conflict can arise
from multiple and opposing expectations about school coun-
selor responsibilities. These competing expectations may also
differ from the skills and competencies school counselors
taught in their preparation programs and the reality of their
duties assigned in schools (Ruiz et al., 2018). In addition, role
ambiguity and role conflict contribute to occupational stress,
which stems from perceived stress in the workplace and one’s
inability to effectively cope with personal and professional
demands (Kim & Lambie, 2018).
Individual and organizational factors
impacting program delivery
The current study investigated whether the participants’
perceived level of burnout, trauma training, caseload, and
school characteristics would relate to the delivery of school
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT
counseling services during the first wave of the COVID-19
pandemic. Many researchers have studied the influence of
burnout on school counselors. In a recent study, Kim and
Lambie (2018) investigated 18 studies related to school
counselors’ burnout and occupation stress. The findings
revealed that counselors are at greater risk of burnout when
performing noncounseling activities, working with large
caseloads, receiving limited clinical supervision, delivering
fewer direct student services, and working in schools strug-
gling to meet adequate yearly progress. Also, counselors
can burn out when experiencing more perceived stress and
processing emotion-oriented stress coping. Helping school
counselors navigate personal and professional challenges is
critical for retention (Wilkerson & Bellini, 2006).
The ASCA Ethical Standards (2016) require that school
counselors monitor their emotional, physical, mental health,
and practice wellness. Additionally, counselors must engage
in professional development and personal growth throughout
their careers. The Council for Accreditation of Counsel-
ing and Related Education Programs (CACREP) standards
(2016) require training programs to teach school coun-
selors how to recognize the signs of trauma, the impact
of a crisis, and the characteristics and warning signs of
mental and behavioral disorders (Lambie et al., 2019).
However, school counselors also need to be conscious of
their knowledge, skills, and competencies, engage in pro-
fessional development and stay abreast of current research
and evidence-based interventions. School counselors are
uniquely situated to respond to school crises because of
their understanding of the school systems and their rela-
tionships with their principals, educators, parents, and
community. Thus, counselors can embrace their nondual
identity as both educators and mental health profession-
als when planning preventative services and delivering
targeted services (DeKruyf et al., 2013, Levy & Lemberger-
Truelove, 2021; Lambie et al., 2019; Wachter Morris
et al., 2021).
School counselors work with students in the pre-K to 12
settings. However, as with the counselors themselves, each
school has its own set of unique characteristics. The existing
literature posits that school counselors’ training and demo-
graphic factors (age, years of experience) and school factors
(grade level, caseloads, student to counselor ratios) can influ-
ence their experiences with burnout (Bardhoshi et al., 2014;
Kim & Lambie, 2018; Wilkerson & Bellini, 2006). Under-
standing how these factors contribute to the counselor pro-
files may help identify areas for personal and professional
improvement.
Purpose of the study and research questions
The purpose of this study was to explore the different asso-
ciations between school counselors’ individual and school
characteristics and their delivery of services during the first
wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. By examining school
counselor profiles, the authors aim to assist school coun-
3
selor educators, practitioners, and policymakers to reimag-
ine the role of the school counselor to serve students as
they continue to face academic, social, emotional, career,
and mental health challenges (Pincus et al., 2020). The cur-
rent study adds to the literature on school counselor prac-
titioner profiles based on how they managed their deliv-
ery of services (i.e., roles and functions) during the first
wave of the pandemic and the relationship between coun-
selors’ perceived levels of burnout, trauma training, and
individual and school characteristics. Despite the prior LPA
research regarding school counselors’ perceptions of per-
fectionism and their level of stress, coping, and burnout,
additional information about how school counselors adapted
their delivery of counseling services during the pandemic is
needed. Therefore, this study was guided by three research
questions (RQ):
RQ1: What school counselor profiles will emerge based
on the counseling services they deliver?
RQ2: Do counselors’ individual factors (e.g., counselor
burnout, reported levels of trauma and crisis training,
and years of experience) differ across profile member-
ship?
RQ3: Do school factors (e.g., socioeconomic status [Title
1 status], school level, modality of delivery—online,
hybrid, on-campus, adherence to the ASCA National
Model, and caseload) differ across profile member-
ship?
METHOD
Participant characteristics
This study involved a random sample of school counseling
practitioners (N = 589). To participate, school counselors
needed to work in a school during fall 2020 and be a mem-
ber of ASCA. The sample involved 454 (77.1%) females, 56
(9.5%) males, and 79 (13.4%) did not disclose (DND). The
participants identified as Asian (4, 0.7%), African American
(35, 5.9%), Hispanic (20, 3.4%), multiple races/ethnicities
(18, 3.1%), native American (6, 1%), other (3, 0.5%), White
(411, 69.8%), and 92 (15.6%) DND. Most of the sample
had master’s degrees (462, 78.4%), followed by both (19,
3.2%) Education Specialist or other degree types, Doctor-
ate (14, 2.4%), other degree not listed (19, 3.2%) and 75
(12.7%) DND. Years of experience as a school counselor
ranged from first year (18, 3.1%), 2–5 years (145, 24.6%),
6–10 years (115, 19.5%), 11–15 years (88, 14.9%), 16–
20 years (69, 11.7%), 21–25 years (50, 8.5%), 26–30 (20,
3.4%), over 30 years (9, 1.5%), and 75 (12.7%) DND. When
asked whether the participant had received training in the
ASCA National Model, more than half of the sample received
training either while earning a graduate degree (Masters
= 297, 50.4%; Education Specialist = 4, 0.7%, Doctorate
= 1, 0.2%) or through continuing education (112, 19%).
Ninety (15.3%) participants had not received any training
4 VILLARES ET AL.
in the National Model or were unfamiliar with the frame-
work (7, 1.2%), and 78 (13.2%) DND. Finally, the partici-
pants shared that they received trauma training during their
counseling degree program, at conferences or professional
development, through a school district sponsored event, by
completing the ASCA-U Trauma and Crisis Specialist cer-
tificate, reading professional journals, or attending webi-
nars. When asked to report how many of the trauma train-
ings the participants engaged in, 226 (38.4%) indicated one
type, 175 (29.7%) two types, 84 (14.3%), three types, 19
(3.2%) four types, 1 (.2%) five types of trauma trainings,
77 DND, and 7 (1.2%) had not engaged in any trauma
training.
School characteristics
The participants reported several factors to describe their
school characteristics. Most counselors (266, 45.2%) shared
that they worked at a Title 1 school. Most of the school
counselors were employed in a high school (178, 30.2%),
followed by elementary (144, 24.4%), middle school (106,
18%), kindergarten (K) to grade eight (27, 4.6%), alterna-
tive school (7, 1.2%) or other type of setting (52, 8.8%),
and 75 (12.7%) DND. When asked about caseloads, 313
(53.1%) worked with 251–500 students, 100 (17%) worked
with 1–250 students, 84 (14.3%) had a student caseload
between 501 and 750. Nine (1.5%) counselors reported
caseloads of 751 to 1000, eight (1.4%) worked with over
1000 students, and 75 (12.7%) DND. The modes of pro-
gram delivery included remote learning with limited online
engagement (31, 5.3%), hybrid (247, 41.9%), online only
(121, 20.5%), on-campus (115, 19.5%), and 75 (12.7%)
DND.
Procedures
Six months after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and
approval from the university’s institutional review board,
4,910 practitioners who belonged to ASCA received a
recruitment email from ASCA on behalf of the authors.
The email included an explanation of the study, informed
consent, and a link to an electronic survey. In addition,
the eligible participants received two follow-up emails
spaced 2 weeks apart. The study response rate was
12%.
Measures
Participants completed the measures in SurveyMonkey. The
survey included the School Counselor Activity Rating Scale
(SCARS; Scarborough, 2005), Counselor Burnout Inventory
(CBI; Lee et al., 2007), and a brief demographic question-
naire that took approximately 15 min to complete.
School counselor activity rating scale
The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale (SCARS) is
a widely used 48-item self-report used to measure the fre-
quency an SC performs specific duties. Scarborough’s (2005)
SCARS factor analysis yielded five subscales: Counseling
(individual and group), Consultation (working with teach-
ers, parents, and agencies), Curriculum (classrooms lessons),
Coordination (program planning and educating others on the
school counselor’s role), and Other activities. Frequency is
measured on a five-point Likert rating scale, ranging from 1
(never) to 5 (routinely). Scarborough (2005) reported Cron-
bach’s alphas for each subscale as follows: (a) Counseling,
nine items = 0.85, (b) Consultation, seven items = 0.75, (c)
Curriculum, eight items = 0.93, Coordination, 13 items =
0.84, and Other activities, 10 items = clerical = 0.53, fair
share = 0.84, and administrative = 0.43. In this study, we con-
ceptualize Other activities as noncounseling-related duties.
Counselor burnout inventory
Lee et al. (2007) conceptualizes burnout as a multidimen-
sional construct comprised of interactions between the indi-
vidual and work environment. The CBI is a 20-item self-
report measuring respondents’ perceived levels of burnout
across five domains, with four items per subscale: Exhaus-
tion (physical and emotional exhaustion related to job respon-
sibilities), Negative Work Environment (stress brought on by
the work environment), Devaluing Clients (attitude and per-
ceptions related to clients), Incompetence (negative internal
beliefs and feelings of counselor’s effectiveness), and Dete-
rioration in Personal Life (negative impact on personal rela-
tionships, interests, and work/life balance). The CBI makes
use of a five-point Likert rating scale, ranging from 1 (never
true) to 5 (always true). Lee et al. (2007) reported Cronbach’s
alphas for each subscale as follows: Exhaustion = 0.80–0.86,
Incompetence = 0.73–0.81, Negative Work Environment =
0.83–0.85, Devaluing Client = 0.61–0.83, and Deterioration
in Personal Life = 0.67–0.84. The current study considered
counselor burnout as a single construct (M = 2.37, SD = 0.63,
α = 0.914).
Brief demographic questionnaire
The school counselor participants completed a 12-item demo-
graphic questionnaire to share their individual and school
characteristics. Individual demographic variables included
gender, ethnicity, highest degree earned, years of experi-
ence, professional development related to the ASCA National
Model, and trauma and crisis. In addition, each partici-
pant selected the types of training they engaged in from a
menu of options. The school variables included Title I status,
school level (elementary, middle, high, K-8, K-12), modal-
ity of delivery (online, hybrid, face-to-face), adherence to
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT
the ASCA National Model (ranging from not at all to com-
pletely), and caseloads.
Statistical analysis
We used Mplus version 8.6 to conduct the LPA to identify
distinct subgroups of school counselors based on their scores
on the five subscales (counseling, consultation, curriculum,
coordination, and other activities) of the SCARS. Before run-
ning an LPA, we needed to ensure the sample size was ade-
quate for the analysis. Regarding general guidelines, Nylund
et al. (2007) conducted a simulation study to show that a min-
imum sample size of 500 should lead to enough accuracy in
identifying a correct number of latent profiles. The most rig-
orous way of ensuring adequate sample size is Monte Carlo
simulations for a given power level (Dziak et al., 2014). How-
ever, estimating power for LPA is a complex issue, requiring
knowledge of population parameters from prior work or the-
ory, which was not available for the current study. Given our
sample size of 589 school counselors, we proceeded with the
analysis. The first stage in LPA was to determine the number
of classes with well-defined differentiated profiles across the
sample. Thus, LPA models were fit in a series of modeling
steps starting with the specification of a one-class model. The
number of classes was then subsequently increased until there
was no further improvement in the model, meaning adding
another class would result in meaningless classes (Lubke
& Muthén, 2007). To avoid local likelihood maxima, we
increased the random start values to 1000 (with the best 100
of these starts being retained for final stage optimization),
increased the number of iterations to 100 in the first steps
of the optimization procedure, and checked the replicability
of best log likelihood value (Morin, 2016). Furthermore, a
robust maximum likelihood estimator was used to produce
parameter estimates with standard errors that are robust to
non-normality. Bandalos (2014) showed that this estimator
performed better than the unadjusted maximum likelihood,
having both more power and better control of Type I error.
The adjustment of the models and the decision about model
selection were then judged by the following guidelines pro-
posed by Ram and Grimm (2009). We first compared models
with different numbers of classes using the Bayesian Infor-
mation Criteria (BIC) based on fit statistics. Lower values
on this fit index indicate better model fit, that is, an opti-
mum trade-off between model parsimony and residuals, with
BIC being considered a better fit statistic index than the other
information criteria indices (Nylund et al., 2007). Next, we
examined entropy values, which assess the accuracy with
which models classify individuals into their most likely class.
Entropy ranges from 0 to 1, with higher scores represent-
ing greater classification accuracy. Entropy values superior to
0.70 are preferable, indicating clear classification and greater
power to predict class membership (Muthén, 2001). Then,
we tested the statistical significance to determine whether a
more complex model (k classes) would fit the data signifi-
cantly better than a more parsimonious model (k-1 classes)
5
by using the bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT), which is
generally preferred over the Lo–Mendell–Rubin test (LMR)
(Nylund et al., 2007). The BLRT test provides p-values that
can be used to determine if there is a statistically significant
improvement in fit for the inclusion of one more class. The
sample size of the smallest class was then evaluated, specifi-
cally deciding that models with a class of <1% and/or numer-
ically n <25 should be rejected or rigorously grounded by
theory and research (Bauer & Curran, 2003). Finally, since
LPA is a probabilistic approach, we considered the average
probabilities of class membership (Rost, 2006). The more dis-
tinct the average latent class probabilities for the most likely
class membership are, the more useful and accurate the latent
profile solution will be. Thus, average probabilities equal to
or larger than 0.80 indicate a good class solution (Rost, 2006).
After determining the optimal number of classes, we
tested for significant differences on individual variables and
school characteristics across the profiles. Traditional analy-
ses (e.g., logistic regression, ANOVA) have been questioned
when applied to mixture modeling because they may intro-
duce error and decrease precision by fixing an individual’s
probability of their highest class to 1 and all others to 0.
Different approaches have been proposed to remedy these
problems, such as using the auxiliary variable function in
Mplus (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014). This function allows
for comparisons between classes while accounting for the
participants’ partial membership in classes. Among these
approaches, we utilized the BCH method (Asparouhov &
Muthén, 2014; Vermunt, 2010), which is the most robust
approach and the recommended method for examining rela-
tionships between profiles and continuous variables (coun-
selor burnout, amount of trauma training, and years of expe-
rience in this study). We also selected Lanza’s method
for having an auxiliary variable specified as categorical
(DCAT; Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014; Lanza et al., 2013),
which is the preferred method to accommodate categorical
outcomes (Title I status, school level, modality of deliv-
ery, adherence to the ASCA National Model) across latent
profiles.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alphas, and
bivariate correlations among the study subscales used in the
LPA. Table 2 presents the LPA model fit outcomes for the
sample on the five subscales of the SCARS. The BIC statis-
tics and BLRT tests indicated that a four-class solution was
the best model for allocating cases to profiles in the sample.
In particular BIC increased for the five-class solution. More-
over, the BLRT test was not significant for the six-class solu-
tion, and entropy was lower for both the five– and six-class
solutions. Lastly, the average probability for class member-
ship decreased across the classes in the five- (range from 0.71
to 0.84) and six-class (range from 0.72 to 0.83) solutions.
Table 3 reports profile allocation based on the estimated
posterior probability for the four latent profiles, as well as
6 VILLARES ET AL.

TA B L E 1 Descriptive statistics, reliability, and correlations for latent profile analysis (LPA) variables

Mean (SD) Skewness Kurtosis α 1 2 3 4 5

1. SCARS counseling subscale 2.83 (0.72) 0.17 −0.30 0.825 1
2. SCARS consultation subscale 3.56 (0.69) −0.15 −0.14 0.731 0.501*** 1
3. SCARS curriculum subscale 2.91 (1.15) 0.04 −1.05 0.930 0.490*** 0.307*** 1
4. SCARS coordination subscale 3.02 (0.74) 0.08 −0.26 0.840 0.484*** 0.481*** 0.514*** 1
5. SCARS other activities subscale 2.72 (0.71) 0.29 −0.03 0.630 0.120** 0.255*** 0.059 0.212*** 1
Abbreviation: SCARS, School Counselor Activity Rating Scale (Scarborough, 2005).
**p < 0.01.
***p < 0.001.

TA B L E 2 Model fit of the latent profile analysis (LPA) on the five Subscales of the School Counselor Activity Rating Scale (SCARS)

Log-likelihood (number Mean

No. of classes of replications) BIC Entropy LMR p BLRT p APCM
1 −3447.14 (100/100) 6958.04 - - -
2 −3192.06 (100/100) 6486.12 0.730 <0.001 <0.001 0.922
3 −3138.76 (100/100) 6417.77 0.689 0.030 <0.001 0.857
4 −3108.38 (100/100) 6386.09 0.695 0.031 <0.001 0.819
5 −3089.53 (91/100) 6395.80 0.662 0.088 <0.001 0.781
6 −3075.39 (89/100) 6405.78 0.676 0.361 0.161 0.782
Note: Optimal model is highlighted in boldface.
Abbreviations: APCM, average probability of class membership; BIC, Bayesian Information Criteria; BLRT p, p-value of the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio test; LMR p, p-value of the
Lo–Mendell–Rubin test.

TA B L E 3 Profile allocation based on estimated posterior probability for four latent profiles, mean probabilities of latent profiles, and mean scores on the
types of activities

Average Other
N % probability* Counseling Consultation Curriculum Coordination activities
Reactive approach 141 24.0% 0.88 2.14 (0.08) 2.89 (0.18) 1.73 (0.08) 2.29 (0.14) 2.55 (0.12)
Universal approach 142 24.2% 0.78 2.82 (0.18) 3.43 (0.16) 3.79 (0.21) 3.02 (0.10) 2.47 (0.09)
Consultative approach 161 27.4% 0.76 2.82 (0.28) 3.77 (0.15) 2.29 (0.39) 2.97 (0.16) 2.79 (0.10)
Comprehensive approach 143 24.4% 0.83 3.54 (0.08) 4.13 (0.10) 3.90 (0.19) 3.77 (0.13) 3.04 (0.12)
*Average probabilities of profile membership. Information for the counselor activities is presented as M (SE).

factor mean scores for the five subscales of school coun-
selor activities. Proportions were similar across the profiles.
Figure 1 provides a visual illustration of the conditional
means. Taking into account the factor mean scores for the
five subscales of the SCARS, the four profiles were labeled
as:
(a) Reactive approach (RA)—These counselors in general,
spent less time engaged in all five subscales compared
to other profiles. After consultation, these school coun-
selors, on average, spent most of their time on noncoun-
seling services.
(b) Universal approach (UA)—The counselors in the univer-
sal approach profile spent less time on counseling, con-
sultation, coordination and noncounseling services but an
above average time delivering curriculum. On average,
these school counselors spent the least amount of time
on noncounseling activities compared to the subscales
within the profile and other profiles.
(c) Consultative/Collaborative approach (CCA)—The prac-
titioners in the CCA profile spent lower to average time
was on counseling and coordination. On average, these
school counselors spend most of their time in consul-
tation and very little time on curriculum. These school
counselors also spent slightly above average time on non-
counseling duties.
(d) Comprehensive approach (CA)—The counselors in the
comprehensive approach profile spent above average
time on all five subscales. On average, these school coun-
selors spent most of their time in consultation, followed
closely by curriculum, coordination, and counseling.
Compared to other profiles, the comprehensive approach
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT
FIGURE 1 Latent profile results: Conditional mean scores on the five subscales of the School Counselor Activity Rating Scale (SCARS; Scarborough,
2005).
school counselors spent much more time engaged in
coordination and counseling.
Table 4 reports the relationships between the four school
counselor profiles and individual characteristics (counselor
burnout, amount of trauma training, years of experience,
caseload), as well as school characteristics (Title I status,
school level, modality of delivery, adherence to the ASCA
National Model).
All four omnibus tests for individual characteristics were
significant (p < 0.05). For all pairwise comparisons, we
used a Bonferroni-corrected p-value of 0.008 for significance.
With regard to counselor-reported burnout, school counselors
in the UA profile reported significantly less burnout than
counselors in the RA profile (χ2 (1) = 11.34, p < 0.001).
School counselors in the CA profile reported significantly
more trauma training than counselors in the RA profile (χ2 (1)
= 12.35, p < 0.001). In terms of years of experience, the UA
profile showed a different experience than counselors in the
CCA (χ2 (1) = 39.56, p < 0.001) and CA profiles (χ2 (1) =
35.55, p < 0.001). School counselors in the UA profile were
more likely to be in their first year or only have 2–5 years
of experience than CCA and CA profiles. Even though the
omnibus tests for caseload and trauma training were signifi-
cant, pairwise comparisons were not significant.
Similarly, all four omnibus tests for school characteristics
were significant (p < 0.05). Again, we used a Bonferroni-
corrected p-value of 0.008 to denote significance. School
counselors in the CCA profile were much more likely to be
at a Title I school compared to school counselors in the CA
profile (χ2 (1) = 8.98, p = 0.003). In terms of school levels,
school counselors in the UA profile reported different school
levels than counselors in the RA (χ2 (1) = 62.19, p < 0.001),
7
CCA (χ2 (1) = 77.36, p < 0.001) and CA (χ2 (1) = 15.65, p
= 0.007) profiles. Also, school counselors in the CCA profile
reported different school levels than the counselors in the CA
profile (χ2 (1) = 19.49, p = 0.002). Overall, school counselors
in the UA profile were much more likely to be at an elemen-
tary or K-8 school than any of the other profiles. In comparing
the CCA and CA profiles, counselors in the CCA profile were
much more likely to report being at a high school and much
less likely to report being at an elementary school.
With regard to modality of instruction, school counselors
in the RA profile reported different deliveries compared to
the UA (χ2 (1) = 18.34, p < 0.001), CCA (χ2 (1) = 20.70, p
< 0.001), and CA (χ2 (1) = 15.26, p = 0.002) profiles. Differ-
ences were also seen between the UA and CCA profiles (χ2 (1)
= 16.16, p = 0.001), as well as the CCA and CA profiles
(χ2 (1) = 12.42, p = 0.006). Compared to the other profiles,
school counselors in the RA profile were much more likely
to be entirely online or remote with limited online engage-
ment. In comparing the UA profile to the CCA and CA pro-
files, counselors in the UA profile were more likely to report
being on campus, whereas counselors in the CCA profiles
were more likely to report being in a hybrid capacity.
When considering the counselor’s perceptions of adher-
ence to the ASCA National Model, we found differences
between the RA and CCA profiles (χ2 (1) = 13.00, p =
0.005), as well as the CA profile (χ2 (1) = 30.77, p < 0.001).
We also observed differences between the CCA and CA
profiles (χ2 (1) = 24.78, p < 0.001). School counselors in the
RA profile were much more likely to say their school was not
at all comprehensive, whereas counselors in the CCA and
CA profiles perceived a higher degree of adherence with the
ASCA National Model (2019). School counselors in the CCA
profile were more likely to report being somewhat to mostly
8 VILLARES ET AL.

TA B L E 4 Relations of the four latent profiles to individual and school characteristics

Consultative/
collaborative Comprehensive
Reactive approach Universal approach approach approach
M/ M/ M/ M/ Omnibus
probability SE probability SE probability SE probability SE χ2 (df) p-Value
Individual characteristics
Counselor burnout 2.5a 0.07 2.17a 0.07 2.44 0.07 2.35 0.07 13.36 (3) 0.004
Trauma training 1.47a 0.08 1.73 0.11 1.82 0.10 1.9a 0.09 14.05 (3) 0.003
Experience a,b a b 123.42 (21) <0.001
First year 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.03 - -
2–5 years 0.37 0.24 0.38 0.06 0.15 0.06 0.26 0.06
6–10 years 0.17 0.05 0.23 0.05 0.28 0.08 0.20 0.04
11–15 years 0.20 0.05 0.15 0.04 0.18 0.04 0.17 0.04
16–20 years 0.05 0.10 0.14 0.04 0.15 0.04 0.17 0.04
21–25 years 0.09 0.12 - - 0.16 0.05 0.14 0.04
26–30 years 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.02
30+ years 0.02 0.06 - - 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02
Caseload 30.93 (12) 0.002
1–250 0.22 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.28 0.05 0.18 0.04
251–500 0.64 0.05 0.66 0.06 0.57 0.06 0.58 0.05
501–750 0.14 0.04 0.21 0.05 0.1 0.03 0.2 0.04
751–1000 - - 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01
over 1000 - - 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01
School characteristics
Title I school 0.47 0.11 0.40 0.07 0.63a 0.07 0.4a 0.07 11.03 (3) 0.012
School level a a,b,c b,d c,d 164.42 (15) <0.001
K-5 0.11 0.07 0.70 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.32 0.11
K-8 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.03
6–8 0.24 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.29 0.11 0.28 0.07
9–12 0.55 0.16 0.04 0.04 0.58 0.19 0.29 0.09
6–12 - - 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01
K-12 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.03
Modality of instruction a,b,c a,d b,d,e c,e 58.48 (9) <0.001
On-campus 0.17 0.04 0.41 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.28 0.05
Online 0.38 0.06 0.19 0.05 0.20 0.04 0.19 0.04
Hybrid 0.30 0.07 0.38 0.07 0.68 0.05 0.50 0.05
Remote/limited online 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.02
Adherence to the ASCA a,b a,c b,c 97.77 (9) <0.001
National Model
Not at all 0.22 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.05 0.02
Somewhat 0.49 0.05 0.39 0.08 0.49 0.07 0.29 0.05
Mostly 0.21 0.05 0.39 0.07 0.40 0.07 0.44 0.05
Completely 0.08 0.03 0.13 0.05 - - 0.22 0.05
Note: Information for relations of the four latent classes to categorical outcome variables is presented as probability, standard error (SE). Information for relations of the four latent
classes to continuous outcome variables is presented as mean (SE). Wald test results are represented as chi square value (degrees of freedom). Matching superscripts denote pairwise
significance at Bonferroni-adjusted p-value of 0.008.
Abbreviations: ASCA, American School Counselor Association; p, significance; K, Kindergarten.
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT
adhering to the National Model, compared to counselors in
the CA profile who were more likely to report being at mostly
to completely following the ASCA framework.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship
between school counselors’ delivery of services and their
individual and school characteristics as they carried out their
school counseling programs during the first wave of the
COVID-19 pandemic. To answer RQ1, we identified four
latent profiles and showed patterns of school counselors’
varying levels of program delivery based on the SCARS.
This four-class solution included a similar number of coun-
selors in each profile (see Table 3). Conceptually, the four
profiles observed in the data contribute to our understanding
of how school counselors prioritized their roles and respon-
sibilities and engaged in appropriate and inappropriate coun-
seling duties.
To some extent, our study is consistent with the find-
ings of Savitz-Romer et al.’s mixed-method study (2021).
For example, both national samples faced constraints that
impacted their ability to deliver services to students and
were primarily White female school counselors. However,
the current data demonstrate that 6 months after the onset
of the pandemic, three of the profiles were able to shift or
maintain their use of time toward more appropriate school
counselor activities and less noncounseling-related duties.
Furthermore, prioritizing the counselors’ role in counseling,
consultation, curriculum, and coordination responsibilities
over other activities aligns with the notion that the counselors
were embracing their nondual identities (DeKruyf et al.,
2013; Levy & Lemberger-Truelove, 2021). Conversely, the
RA counselors were less engaged in delivering direct ser-
vices to students. This result supports scholars who posit that
school counselors engaged in noncounseling assignments
enact practices that address adult or school needs, thereby
reducing their capacity to address student needs (Blake,
2020; Kim & Lambie, 2018; Lambie et al., 2019; Randick
et al., 2018; Shi & Brown, 2020; Strear et al., 2021; Wilder,
2018). Relatedly, Shi and Brown (2020) found that the more
time school counselors spent on noncounseling skills, career
planning, and job skills/placements, the less likely students
would enroll in more rigorous advanced placement courses
and 4-year colleges and universities. This finding indicates
how a school counselor’s intentionality of direct student
services can impact student academic outcomes.
Three of the profiles (RA, CCA, and CA) spent consid-
erable time performing consultation activities. Consultation
activities include consulting with school staff, parents, com-
munity members, and administrators, coordinating referrals,
and participating in team meetings. Previous research has
indicated that principals and school counselors share simi-
lar views of the school counselors’ role related to consul-
tation (Ruiz et al., 2018). Furthermore, within the context
of the pandemic, it is reasonable to assume that educators,
9
parents, and administrators would call upon the school coun-
selor to share their expertise on how best to address students’
academic, behavioral, social, emotional, and mental health
needs.
Research questions 2 and 3 investigated whether coun-
selor and school factors would differ across profiles, respec-
tively. The results showed that the school counselors’ per-
ceived level of burnout and years of experience were sig-
nificant. Specifically, the RA counselors reported the high-
est levels of burnout. They also spent the least amount of
time counseling students, while CA counselors reported the
lowest levels of burnout and delivered the most direct ser-
vices to students. Previous researchers found that engag-
ing in noncounseling-related duties increased school coun-
selors’ feelings of burnout (Bardhoshi et al., 2014; Mullen
& Gutierrez, 2016). For example, Bardhoshi et al. (2014)
study revealed that levels of burnout increased when coun-
selors had limited time to work with students, faced bud-
getary constraints, lacked resources and organizational sup-
port, and experienced role ambiguity. This finding appears
to be a reasonable outcome during the initial lockdown
when schools rapidly shifted online, and counselors may
have lacked clear directives, support, and supervision (Savitz-
Romer et al., 2021). However, the current study occurred
the following Fall, 6 months after the onset of the pan-
demic, which may have provided counselors (UV, CCA,
CA) more time to clarify their roles and responsibilities
and adapt their programs accordingly (Strear et al., 2021).
For example, the ASCA model requires that school coun-
selors hold an annual administrative conference to discuss
program priorities, goals, use of time, ratios and caseloads,
advisory council dates and members, roles, and responsi-
bilities, as well as professional development plans (ASCA,
2019). Addressing these professional areas with administra-
tors at the start of the school year helps reduce role ambiguity,
conflict, and occupational stress (Ruiz et al., 2018; Wilder,
2018).
Furthermore, the UA counselors identified themselves as
relatively new school counselors with lower levels of burnout.
Mullen and Gutierrez (2016) found that beginning counselors
were at risk of burnout, unlike Limberg et al. (2016) and
Wilkerson (2009), who reported experiences with burnout
happened over time. The UA counselors spent the most time
delivering the core curriculum, and the additional time pro-
viding lessons to students may have contributed to reducing
their level of burnout (Mullen & Gutierrez, 2016).
Interestingly, we found caseloads and trauma training
nonsignificant, meaning that despite the number of students
assigned to a counselor or the trauma trainings they com-
pleted, these factors did not significantly differ across the
profiles. This finding may reflect the sample’s characteris-
tics. For example, most had a caseload between 250 and
500 students followed by a caseload of 1 to 250 students,
and only seven school counselors reported never having
engaged in any trauma training. According to American
School Counselor Association (n.d.), Arizona, California,
Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Utah, and Puerto
10
Rico have ratios that exceed 500 students per counselor.
Perhaps more participants with caseloads well above the
national average and less frequent trauma training would
have revealed significance when examining the pairwise
comparisons.
Additionally, we found employment in Title 1 schools
and school levels significant. The UA counselors were most
frequently employed at the elementary or K-8 setting and
spent considerable time delivering consultation services. This
result is consistent with Savitz-Romer et al.’s (2021) study
that found their elementary and middle school participants
were more likely than high school counselors to engage
parents in the months after the pandemic started. How-
ever, as we continue to brace for more waves of the pan-
demic, school counselors at all levels are likely to be called
on by parents and teachers for their expertise in social-
emotional and mental health (Pincus et al., 2020; Strear et al.,
2021).
Finally, we found differences between the profiles related
to the school learning format and adherence to the ASCA
National Model. For example, the CCA and CA counselors
aligned the most with a comprehensive school counseling
program. They likely had previously established roles and
responsibilities that allowed the counselors to adjust their ser-
vices during the first wave of COVID-19. Like Strear et al.’s
(2021) findings, the UA, CCA, and CA profiles may have
been relieved of some noncounseling activities due to the
changes in campus, remote, and hybrid instructional options.
However, the counselors in the RA profile appeared to be
most representative of the Savitz-Romer et al. sample who
reported spending less time delivering one-on-one counsel-
ing, engaged in classroom instruction, and small group work.
The RA counselors were also most likely to be working
with students online. The Savitz-Romer et al. (2021) par-
ticipants also faced additional restrictions prohibiting them
from counseling students, signaling the need for school coun-
selors to advocate with their administrators and district lead-
ers to refine their roles and responsibilities to accommo-
date the virtual environment better. The CA counselors also
reported being most aligned with the ASCA National Model.
Savitz-Romer et al. (2021) found that school counselors often
lacked directives from leadership about expectations for their
work or best practices for supporting stakeholders during the
pandemic. Having a comprehensive program before COVID-
19 likely benefited this group of counselors. They would
have had defined roles and responsibilities and could con-
tinue to carry out their program coordination, lessons, and
services as planned while making necessary adjustments for
the virtual environment. Consultation services took most of
the CA’s time, as the CCA group. However, school coun-
selors also devoted time to coordination, counseling, and
curriculum activities. Because students were more likely
to be on-campus, their counselors would not have experi-
enced the same privacy and district restrictions, enabling
them to provide their tier 1 preventative supports face-to-
face.
VILLARES ET AL.
Implications for school counselors
This study has several implications for school counseling
practitioners who continue to work on the front lines support-
ing students and educators as they attempt to regain learning
losses as well as social, emotional, and mental health needs
(Pincus et al., 2020). To begin, school counselors can seize
the opportunity to reexamine their roles and responsibilities
in the school (Lambie et al., 2019). Researchers have noted
that from the onset of the global pandemic, school leaders
suspended some counselor responsibilities as other respon-
sibilities took precedent, and their administrators and col-
leagues gained awareness of their expertise for addressing
students’ social, emotional, and mental health needs (Lim-
berg et al., 2021; Strear et al., 2021). Leveraging these new
insights can be used when discussing the school counselor’s
role. Crafting new job descriptions and clearly delineating the
roles and responsibilities of the school counselor can elevate
feelings of burnout stemming from role ambiguity and con-
flict, thereby reducing occupational stress (Bardhoshi et al.,
2014; DeKruyf et al., 2013; Fye et al., 2018; Kim & Lam-
bie, 2018; Ruiz et al., 2018). To be successful, school coun-
selors need to have positive and supportive relationships with
their school leaders and engage in advocacy to promote more
student-centered services rather than adult-centered needs
(Ruiz et al., 2018; Wilder, 2018). Consistent with previous
research, school counselors must advocate for their roles and
responsibilities to effectively meet students’ developmental
needs (Cinotti, 2014; DeKruyf et al., 2013; Savitz-Romer
et al., 2021).
Additionally, the CACREP (2016) encourages school
counselors’ awareness of responsibilities and roles in emer-
gency response teams. School counselors must recog-
nize the effects of crises, disasters, traumatic events and
assess/manage clients’ signs of suicide and at-risk behav-
iors (Lambie et al., 2019; Wachter Morris et al., 2021). To
effectively manage the new realities of COVID-19, practi-
tioners need to embrace their nondual identities and adapt
their roles and programs to address the academic, social-
emotional, and career needs of all students (DeKruyf et al.,
2013; Levy & Lemberger-Truelove, 2021). Finally, practi-
tioners have an ethical obligation to attend to their per-
sonal and professional needs during these challenging times
(ASCA, 2016). Monitoring feelings and contributing fac-
tors related to burnout are paramount to remaining an effec-
tive school counselor (Fye et al., 2018, 2020; Kim & Lam-
bie, 2018). When appropriate, school counselors should
engage in self-care and wellness activities and seek assis-
tance from others to reduce their occupational stress to
remain emotionally and professionally accessible to stu-
dents, teachers, parents, and the community (Fye et al.,
2020).
Next, as we reimagine a world with COVID-19, school
counselor preparation programs need to provide training
to current and future administrators to promote a better
understanding of the school counselor’s role (Ruiz et al.,
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT
2018; Wilder, 2018). Likewise, school counselors can ben-
efit from learning about the demands on their administrative
leaders to foster supportive relationships and mutual respect.
These trainings can take place as seminars during their pre-
service training or professional development workshops at
the school or district level. Given the robust use of technol-
ogy platforms, national and local experts can now deliver
professional development virtually, which helps to reduce
costs to the districts and professionals. Counselor educa-
tors can also partner with school district leaders to engage
in advocacy efforts to support practitioners and researchers
to understand the global pandemic’s impacts on students’
academic, social-emotional, career, and post-secondary out-
comes. Finally, counselor educators and district leaders can
partner to develop policies and legislators that address the
new complexities of working within the physical and vir-
tual school environments to enhance services for students and
educators who continue to face challenges stemming from
COVID-19.
Limitations and recommendations for future
research
This study had several limitations. First, we conducted the
study 6 months after the onset of the COVID-19 with a
sample of practitioners who were members of ASCA. Thus,
the volunteers could have experienced greater personal and
work-related stress than before the pandemic. Second, most
of the participants were self-described as White females.
Repeating the study with a larger and more diverse sam-
ple of counselors regardless of ASCA membership is war-
ranted. Third, the electronic survey only included self-report
measures, which could introduce participant bias. School
counselors reported their school level; however, they did
not report their geographic location. Future studies should
include this question as counselors across the country experi-
enced the pandemic differently, which may have influenced
the results. Fourth, the sample only completed the survey
once. Future researchers should consider administering the
survey at multiple time points to explore the profiles over
time. Finally, researchers interested in replicating the study
could investigate counselors’ utilization of coping strate-
gies to explore the relationship with their principal, level
of clinical supervision, and the possible impact of coping
and wellness activities on their perceived levels of stress and
burnout.
CONCLUSION
These data represent one of the first to model the hetero-
geneity in counselor activities. By using person-centered
approaches, four distinct types of counselors emerged based
on their activities during the pandemic. Also, personal or
school advantages may (or may not) exist between certain
11
SCARS profiles. For example, these findings provide insight
into the typically overgeneralized finding that years of expe-
rience, caseload, and Title I status create disparities in activ-
ities performed, when in fact, disparities may exist for only
certain types of counselors based on their activities. School
counselors need to prepare to meet their needs proactively.
Utilizing a comprehensive approach, counselors are more
likely to implement a wide range of counseling services, limit
their noncounseling-related duties, and reduce their feelings
of burnout. Effectively meeting student needs requires that
counselors advocate for their roles. Advocating includes edu-
cating principals, educators, and community members about
their titles (Baker et al., 2021; Zyromski et al., 2018), par-
ticipating in professional development, and dedicating them-
selves to providing more student-centered services versus
school-centered (Blake, 2020; Lambie et al., 2019; Savitz-
Romer et al., 2021; Wilder, 2018).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ORCID
Elizabeth Villares https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1897-4335
Angie Starrett https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4818-0931
Dodie Limberg https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9867-4112
REFERENCES
American School Counselor Association (n.d.). Student-to-school-counselor
ratio 2019–2020. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/cd689f6a-
252a-4e0a-ac8b-39b9b66d700d/ratios-19-20.pdf
American School Counselor Association. (2016). ASCA ethical stan-
dards for school counselors. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/
f041cbd0-7004-47a5-ba01-3a5d657c6743/Ethical-Standards.pdf
American School Counselor Association. (2019). The ASCA national model:
A framework for school counseling programs (4th ed.). American School
Counselor Association.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture mod-
eling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Model-
ing: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705511.2014.915181
Baker, E., Zyromski, B., & Granello, D. H. (2021). School or guidance
counselor: How the title influences public perception. Professional School
Counseling, 25(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X20981034
Bandalos, D. L. (2014). Relative performance of categorical diagonally
weighted least squares and robust maximum likelihood estimation. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(1), 102–116.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.859510
Bardhoshi, G., Schweinle, A., & Duncan, K. (2014). Understanding the
impact of school factors on school counselor burnout: A mixed-methods
study. The Professional Counselor, 4(5), 426–443. https://doi.org/10.
15241/gb.4.5.426
Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2003). Over extraction of latent trajectory
classes: Much ado about nothing? Reply to Rindskopf (2003), Muthén
(2003), and Cudeck and Henly (2003). Psychological Methods, 8, 384–
393. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.384
Blake, M. K. (2020). Other duties as assigned: The ambiguous role of the
high school counselor. Sociology of Education, 93(4), 315–330. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0038040720932563
Cinotti, D. (2014). Competing professional identify models in school coun-
seling: A historical perspective and commentary. The Professional Coun-
selor, 4(5), 417–425. https://doi.org/10.15241/dc.4.5.417
12
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Education Pro-
grams. (2016). 2016 standards. https://www.cacrep.org/for-programs/
2016-cacrep-standards/
DeKruyf, L., Auger, R. W., & Trice-Black, S. (2013). The role of school
counselors in meeting students’ mental health needs: Examining issues
of professional identity. The Professional School Counselor, 16(3), 271–
282.
Dziak, J. J., Lanza, S. T., & Tan, X. (2014). Effect size, statistical power,
and sample size requirements for the bootstrap likelihood ratio test in
latent class analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 21, 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919819
Fye, H. J., Cook, R. M., Baltrinic, E. R., & Baylin, A. (2020). Examining
individual and organizational factors of school counselor burnout. The
Professional Counselor, 10(2), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.15241/hjf.10.
2.235
Fye, H. J., Gnilka, P. B., & McLaulin, S. E. (2018). Perfectionism and school
counselors: Differences in stress, coping, and burnout. Journal of Coun-
seling & Development, 96, 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12218
Griffith, C., Mariani, M., McMahon, H. G., Zyromski, B., & Greenspan, S.
(2019). School counseling intervention research: A 10-year content anal-
ysis of ASCA- and ACA-affiliated journals. Professional School Coun-
seling Journal, 23(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X19878700
Kearney, C., Akos, P., Domina, T., & Young, Z. (2021). Student-to-school
counselor ratios: A meta-analytic review of the evidence. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 99(4), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jcad.12394
Kim, N., & Lambie, G. W. (2018). Burnout and implications for professional
school counselors. The Professional Counselor, 8(3), 277–294. https://
doi.org/10.15241/nk.8.3.277
Lambie, G. W., Haugen, J. S., Borland, J. R., & Campbell, L. O. (2019). Who
took “counseling” out of the role of professional school counselors in the
United States? Journal of School-Based Counseling Policy and Evalua-
tion, 1(3), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.25774/7kjb-bt85
Lanza, S. T., Tan, X., & Bray, B. C. (2013). Latent class analysis with
distal outcomes: A flexible model-based approach. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705511.2013.742377
Lee, S. M., Baker, C. R., Cho, S. H., Heckathorn, D. E., Holland, M. W.,
Newgent, R. A., Ogle, N. T., Powell, M. L., Quinn, J. J., Wallace, S. L.,
& Yu, K. (2007). Development and initial psychometrics of the counselor
burnout inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling & Devel-
opment, 40, 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2007.11909811
Lemberger-Truelove, M. E., Ceballos, P., Molina, C. E., & Carbonneau.
(2021). Growth in middle school students’ curiosity, executive function-
ing, and academic achievement: Results from a theory-informed SEL
and MBI school counseling intervention. Professional School Counsel-
ing, 24(1b), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X211007654
Levy, I. P., & Lemberger-Truelove, M. E. (2021). Educator-counselor: A
nondual identity for school counselors. Professional School Counseling,
24(1b), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X211007630
Limberg, D., Lambie, G., & Robinson, E. H. (2016). The contribution
of school counselors’ altruism to their degree of burnout. Professional
School Counseling, 20, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-20.
1.127
Limberg, D., Villares, E., Gonzales, S., Rosen, N., & Starrett, A. (2021).
Exploring the induced disparities of implementing school counseling ser-
vices during COVID-19. Professional School Counseling.
Lubke, G., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Performance of factor mixture models
as a function of model size, covariate effects, and class-specific param-
eters. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10705510709336735
Morin, A. J. S. (2016). Person-centered research strategies in commitment
research. In J. P. Meyer (Ed.), The Handbook of employee commitment
(pp. 490–508). Edward Elgar.
Mullen, P. R., & Gutierrez, D. (2016). Burnout, stress and direct student ser-
vices among school counselors. The Professional Counselor, 6(4), 344–
359. https://doi.org/10.15241/pm.6.4.344
VILLARES ET AL.
Muthén, B. (2001). Latent variable mixture modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides,
& R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in struc-
tural equation modeling (pp. 1–33). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the
number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling.
A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535–
569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
Pincus, R., Hannor-Walker, T., Wright, L. S., & Justice, J. (2020). Covid-
19’s effect on student: How school counselors rise to the rescue.
NASSP Bulletin, 104(4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263652097
5866
Ram, N., & Grimm, K. J. (2009). Growth mixture modeling: A method for
identifying difference in longitudinal change among unobserved groups.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33, 565–576. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0165025409343765
Randick, N. M., Dermer, S., & Michel, R. E. (2018). Exploring the job duties
that impact school counselor wellness: The role of RAMP, supervision,
and support. Professional School Counseling, 22(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/
10.1177/2156759X18820331
Rost, J. (2006). Latent-Class-Analyse [latent class analysis]. In F. Petermann,
& M. Eid (Eds.). Handbuch der psychologischen Diagnostik [handbook
of psychological assessment] (pp. 275–287). Hogrefe.
Ruiz, M., Peters, M. L., & Sawyer, C. (2018). Principals’ and counselors’
lens of the school counselor’s roles. Journal of Professional Counsel-
ing: Practice, Theory & Research, 45(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15566382.2019.1569321
Savitz-Romer, M., Rowan-Keyon, H. T., Nicola, T. P., Alexander, E., &
Carroll, S. (2021). When the kids are not alright: School counseling in
the time of COVID-19. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/
23328584211033600
Scarborough, J. (2005). The school counselor activity rating scale: An instru-
ment for gathering process data. Professional School Counseling, 8(3),
274–283. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42732469
Shi, Q., & Brown, M. H. (2020). School counselors’ impact on school-level
academic outcomes: Caseload and use of time. Professional School Coun-
seling, 23, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X20904489
Spurk, D., Hirschi, A., Wang, M., Valero, D., & Kauffeld, S. (2019). Latent
profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within
vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103445
Strear, M., Duffy, H., & Sunde, A. (2021). When schools go dark, school
counselors shine: School counseling during a global pandemic. American
Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/resource/when-schools-
go-dark-school-counselors-shine-school-counseling-during-global-
pandemic
Vermunt, J. K. (2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved
three-step approaches. Political Analysis, 18(4), 450–469. https://doi.org/
10.1093/pan/mpq025
Villares, E., Frain, M., Brigman, G., Webb, L., & Peluso, P. (2012). The
impact of student success skills on math and reading scores: A meta-
analysis. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 3(1), 3–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2150137811434041
Wachter Morris, C. A., Wester, K. L., Jones, C. T., & Fantahun, S. (2021).
School counselors and unified educator-counselor identify: A data driven
approach to suicide prevention. Professional School Counseling, 24(1b),
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X211011909
Webb, L., Brigman, G., Carey, J., Villares, E., Harrington, K., Wells, C.,
Sayer, A., & Chance, E. (2019). Results of a randomized controlled trial
of student success skills. Journal of Counseling & Development, 97(4),
398–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12288
Whiston, S. C., Tai, W. L., Rahardja, D., & Eder, K. (2011). School coun-
seling outcome: A meta-analytic examination of interventions. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 89(1) 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-
6678.2011.tb00059.x
Wilder, C. (2018). Promoting the role of the school counselor. Journal of
Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 45(2), 60–68.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15566382.2019.1646085
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT 13

Wilkerson, K. (2009). An examination of burnout among school counselors identity. Professional School Counseling, 24(1b), 1–11. https://doi.org/
guided by stress-strain-coping theory. Journal of Counseling & Develop- 10.1177/2156759X211011922
ment, 87, 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2009.tb00127.x
Wilkerson, K., & Bellini, J. (2006). Intrapersonal and organizational fac-
tors associated with burnout among school counselors. Journal of Coun-
seling & Development, 84(4), 440–450. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-
6678.2006.tb00428.x How to cite this article: Villares, E., Starrett, A., &
Zyromski, B., Hudson, T. D., Baker, E., & Granello, D. H. (2018). Guidance Limberg, D. (2022). Exploring school counseling
counselors or school counselors: How the name of the profession influ- during the first wave of COVID-19. Journal of
ences perceptions of competence. Professional School Counseling, 22(1), Counseling & Development, 1–13.
2156759X19855654. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X19855654
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12433
Zyromski, B., Griffith, C., & Choi, J. (2021). Embracing school counselors’
situatedness: Data-based decision making as fulfillment of a complex

View publication stats