Zimmer, Diane Dissertation

A Dissertation
entitled
A Comprehensive School Counseling Training on Seasoned School Counselors: A Single
Case Research Design
by
Diane M. Zimmer
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Counselor Education
___________________________________________
Dr. John Laux, Committee Chair
___________________________________________
Dr. Jennifer Reynolds, Committee Member
___________________________________________
Dr. Madeline Clark, Committee Member
___________________________________________
Dr. Yanhong Liu, Committee Member
___________________________________________
Dr. Cyndee Gruden, Interim Dean
College of Graduate Studies
The University of Toledo
May 2019
Copyright 2019, Diane M. Zimmer
This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document
may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author.
An Abstract of
A Comprehensive School Counseling Training for Seasoned School Counselors: A

Single Case Research Design
by
Diane M. Zimmer
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy Degree in
Counselor Education
The University of Toledo

May 2019
The purpose of this single-case research design study was to investigate the
effectiveness of the comprehensive school counseling training based on the American
School Counseling Association National Model developed by the researcher on
enhancing the competency of seasoned school counselors in implementing a
comprehensive school counseling program. The study followed a SCRD ABA design,
with multiple data points collected before, during, and after the training. Baseline data
(A) containing four data points in two weeks were collected prior to implementation of
the training, using the School Counseling Program Implementation Survey. The
intervention phase (B) consisted of the training on implementation of a CSCP following
the ASCA National Model, assessed by SCPIS twice a week for three weeks with six data
points. Follow up, maintenance data (A) were collected three, six, and nine weeks post
intervention, using the SCPIS. Participants’ exhibited substantial growth in competency
levels to implement a CSCP supporting the effectiveness of the training.
Keywords: ASCA National Model, comprehensive school counseling program,
competence, seasoned school counselors, single-case research design.
iii
Acknowledgement
This Ph.D. journey would not have been possible without the support of my
dissertation committee. Each member has helped shape me throughout this process.
First, I would like to thank Dr. Laux for your support and problem solving the past four
years. I will be forever grateful, and I hope I will make you proud of all your time spent
helping me. Dr. Liu, you have encouraged and inspired me with each interaction. I hope
I can work with you on future research projects. Dr. Reynolds your kindness and clarity
were so crucial in figuring out how to apply the single-case research methodology to this
study. Dr. Clark, you helped me push myself to reach a higher level that will only make
me a better professional. Thank you for all your time, knowledge, and guidance.
To my family, who have sacrificed so much for me to realize this dream. I could
not have done any of this without your love and support. Henrik, you have provided
unwavering support to me since the day you walked up to me. I could not be me without
you. Gabrielle, thank you so much for all your support over the years and your constant
love. Hannah, thank you so much for picking up the slack at home when I needed to
travel to school at night. I am so grateful to you for everything. Isabelle, you are the
light and laughter in my life. I know this has been hard on you while I was obtaining this
dream. I hope I have made you all proud of this thing we accomplished together. I am so
blessed to have you all, and you are my everything.
To my brothers and sisters, I thank you for putting up with all my nervous energy
all these years. Thanks to my parents, who showed me how to love deeply and work with
passion. To my friends and family that helped me to laugh and live through it all, you are
my people.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables x
List of Figures xi
List of Abbreviations xii
I. Introduction 1
A. Statement of the Problem 3
B. Purpose of the Study 4
C. Research Question 5
D. Significance of the Study 6
E. Organization of the Study 7
F. Summary 7
G. Definition of Terms 8
II. Review of Literature 11
A. History of School Counseling 11
B. Three Domains of School Counseling Practice 13
C. Professional School Counselor Identity 17
D. Conceptual Framework 18
E. Components of the ASCA National Model 19
a. Foundation 20
b. Management 21
c. Delivery 22
v
d. Accountability 23
F. Themes of the ASCA National Model 23
a. Leadership 24
b. Advocacy 24
c. Collaboration 25
d. Systemic Change 26
G. Responsive Service Delivery 26
H. Intentional Guidance 28
I. School Counselor Competencies 29
J. Seasoned School Counselor 31
a. Knowledge Gap 32
b. Supervision 33
c. Professional Development 33
K. Barriers Impeding Seasoned School Counselors’ Practice 34
a. Role Diffusion 35
b. Lack of Supervision 35
c. Non-counseling Duties 36
L. Empirical Finding of the ASCA National Model 37
a. Effectiveness of a Comprehensive School Counseling Plan 37
b. Existing ASCA National Model Trainings & Outcomes 39
M. Summary 41
III. Methodology 41
A. Overview of the Method 41
B. Research Questions 42
vi
C. Experimental Design 43
D. Participants and Setting 43
a. Participants 44
b. Setting 45
c. Sampling 45
E. Materials 46
a. SCPIS 46
b. Demographic Data Questionnaire 49
F. Recruitment and Consent Procedures 49
G. Methods 49
a. Baseline 51
b. Training Development 51
c. Training with Response Measures 52
1. Day One 52
2. Day Two 53
3. Day Three 53
d. Maintenance 54
H. Treatment Fidelity 54
I. Social Validity 55
J. Data Analysis 55
a. Formative Grapher 56
b. Nonoverlap of All Pairs 56
M. Summary 57
IV. Results 58
vii
A. Seasoned School Counselor Competency 59
a. Research Question 1 58
b. Research Question 2 60
c. Research Question 3 61
d. Research Question 4 62
B. Janice 64
C. Becky 65
D. Linda 68
E. Social Validity 69
F. Summary 71
V. Discussion 72
A. Summary of Findings 72
B. Interpretations of Findings 74
C. Context of Findings 77
D. Implications 81
E. Limitations 84
F. Directions for Future Research 85
G. Summary 86
References 88
Appendices
A. ASCA National Model 99
B. School Counseling Program Implementation Survey 100
C. Permission to Use 101
D. Demographic Sheet 102
viii
E. Recruitment Email 103
F. Informed Consent 104
G. ASCA National Model Training Protocol 106
H. Fidelity of Treatment 109
I. Social Validity Questionnaire 112
ix
List of Tables
Table 1 Participant Mean Scores for Each Phase ........................................................ 60
Table 2 Baseline Phase Data ........................................................................................ 61
Table 3 Intervention Phase Data .................................................................................. 62
Table 3 Maintenance Phase Data ................................................................................. 63
x
List of Figures
Figure 1 Effects of the ASCA National Model Training .............................................. 58
Figure 2 Janice’s Competency ...................................................................................... 61
Figure 3 Becky’s Competency ....................................................................................... 63
Figure 4 Linda’s Competency ........................................................................................ 65
xi
List of Abbreviations
ASCA ........................ American School Counseling Association
CSCP ......................... Comprehensive School Counseling Program
ESSA ......................... Every Study Succeeds Act
IEPs............................ Individualized Education Plans
NCLB ........................ No Child Left Behind
RTI ............................. Response to Intervention
SCRD ......................... Single-Case Research Design

SCPIS ........................ School Counseling Program Implementation Survey
xii
Chapter One
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of seasoned school counselors referring to
school counselors in practice who received graduate training prior to the release of the
American School Counseling Association (ASCA) National Model in 2003 (American
School Counseling Association [ASCA], 2003). Many seasoned school counselors who
have not made the philosophical change from the responsive service-driven model to
intentional program delivery tend to refer to themselves as guidance counselors, even up
till this date (Dahir, Burnham, & Stone, 2009). The traditional practice of seasoned
school counselors is mostly based on the responsive service-driven model focused on
reactive services centered on issues presented daily, quasi-administrative tasks, and
administrator assigned non-counseling duties (Dahir, Burnham, Stone, & Cobb, 2010).
With the introduction of ASCA National model (ASCA, 2003) supported by empirical
findings (Dimmitt & Wilkerson, 2012), the responsive service-driven model has been
replaced with a Comprehensive School Counseling Program (CSCP) featured by
intentional data-driven programming that addresses student holistic development and
learning (ASCA ,2016; Dahir et al., 2009; Hatch, 2014). Seasoned school counselors are
urged to make a concerted effort to be change agents, moving from merely reactive
services to a comprehensive program that builds essential college and career readiness
skills in students (ASCA, 2016). Namely, they need to break away from their traditional
practice and use data grounded on student needs to create intentional data-driven
programming (Hatch, 2008). Naturally, they are expected to provide data on the
1
effectiveness of their CSCP, and most importantly, explain how students are different
because of their services and actions (ASCA, 2012).
Seasoned school counselors who strive to transition from the responsive service-
driven model may struggle to implement a CSCP, due to the lack of formal training on
the ASCA National Model, its conceptual components, and themes to improve delivery
of counseling services and increase positive student outcomes (ASCA, 2012; Dollarhide
& Sakinak, 2017; Hatch & Chen-Hayes, 2008; Struder, Diambra, Breckner, & Heidel,
2011). Additional impediments such as lack of self-efficacy and being assigned non-
counseling tasks are also noted to keep seasoned school counselors from engaging in
accountability activities and data-driven school counseling services (Milsom &
McCormick, 2015). These barriers also placed seasoned school counselors at-
disadvantage for professional evaluation (Graham, Desmond, & Zinsser, 2011).
All practicing school counselors, including seasoned school counselors are
evaluated on a regular basis, by a school principal or another administrator on daily job
performance based on district professional and/or state standards (Graham et al., 2011).
The evaluation generally examines a school counselor’s ability to coordinate
assessments, schedule, advise, write 504 plans, coordinate services for students with
Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), and maintain student records (Lambie & Sias,
2009). All states across the U.S. have developed professional standards and evaluation
guidelines strictly aligning with the ASCA National Model for practicing school
counselors (Carey, Harrington, Martin, & Stevenson, 2012). Seasoned school counselors,
without a solid understanding of the model as well as its conceptual components,
constantly struggle to provide data that demonstrates their performance across domains
(Astramovich, 2016). They also tend to struggle with keeping up with the current issues
2
and evidence-based best practices in the counseling field (Wilczenski, Schmaucher, &
Cook, 2010).
The current literature underscores the need of a training program on the ASCA
National Model for seasoned school counselors that focuses on increasing competence
levels to implement a CSCP to shape the personal/social, academic, and career
development of future students (ASCA, 2012). The evidence supports that seasoned
school counselors can benefit from a training program to improve student achievement
and behavioral outcomes (Carey & Dimmitt, 2012).
Statement of the Problem
Seasoned school counselors who were trained prior to the ASCA National Model
may struggle with grasping the framework and themes that drive the current practice of
the school counseling profession (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). Despite the trend of
school counseling from the responsive service-driven models to CSCPs, little is known
about the competency level of seasoned school counselors to effectively implement a
CSCP following the ASCA National Model. The current literature contained numerous
articles (Carey, Harrington, Martin, & Stevenson, 2012; Carey, Harrington, Martin, &
Hoffman, 2012; Salina et al., 2013) examining how following the ASCA National Model
can help create and implement a CSCP that positively impacts student outcomes, as well
as how the lack of implementation is problematic in the education system (Hatch, 2014).
However, there is limited research examining the competence levels of practicing school
counselors in understanding the ASCA National Model and their ability to create and
implement a CSCP.
The current literature also highlights the lack of training and support to fill the gap
for seasoned school counselors, similar to what teachers receive when new teaching
3
standards and methods are introduced (Dahir et al., 2009). A training on the ASCA
National Model tailored for seasoned school counselors is thus desirable to fill in their
gap of practice. In fact, ASCA has recognized the training needs of practicing school
counselors, with specific training on the ASCA National Model available to licensed
school counselors. Hartline and Cobia (2012) found that school counselors who received
four days of training on the ASCA National Model were able to identify the achievement
gaps and develop interventions to assist marginalized students. Nevertheless, the
enormous cost and schedule limitations of the training keep most practicing school
counselors from attending and benefitting from the program. Given the significant needs
of seasoned school counselors and limitation of current training, the researcher designed
a comprehensive training for school counselors on the ASCA National Model (details
provided in Chapter 3) aligned with the ASCA standards and listed competencies, aiming
to promote seasoned school counselors’ competency of implementing a CSCP. The
current study, followed a rigorous SCRD (ABA) design, was proposed to assess the
effectiveness of the training on enhancing seasoned school counselor participants’
competency in implementing a CSCP.
Only ASCA provides training to districts on the ASCA National Model
components and themes. Currently, ASCA does not have empirical data on the
effectiveness of ASCA National Model training (Jen Walsh, Personal Communication,
January 31, 2019).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate seasoned school counselor
participants’ understanding of the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2012) and their ability
to implement a CSCP impacting positive student outcomes (ASCA, 2012; Carey et al.,
4
2012) assessed by the School Counselor Program Implementation Survey (SCPIS;
Clemens, Carey, & Harrington, 2010). The SCPIS scores for each participant was
assessed online using Qualtrics. The current study incorporated a single-case research
design (SCRD) to evaluate the effectiveness of the training on the ASCA National Model
developed by the researcher, aiming to enhance seasoned school counselors’
understanding of the ASCA National Model and their competencies in implementing a
CSCP (Clemens et al., 2010). Prior to the training, seasoned school counselor
participants were assessed on their competency levels in implementing a CSCP following
the ASCA National Model, with continued assessments throughout the intervention and
completion of assignments to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. Participants
were also assessed after the intervention to evaluate if they maintained the competency to
implement a CSCP.
Research Questions
Previous research has focused on the importance and the benefits of implementing
the ASCA National Model through a CSCP and how it improves student development
and achievement. The researcher found no empirical studies that investigate the
competencies of seasoned school counselor participants in implementing a CSCP. This
current study, therefore, addressed the following four research questions through a SCRD
design:
1. Does participation in comprehensive training on the ASCA National Model
developed and provided by the researcher significantly enhance the
competence levels of seasoned school counselor participants to implement a
CSCP (measured by the SCPIS)?
5
2. How does each participant score during the baseline phase (i.e., Phase A)
assessed twice a week for a total of four data points prior to receiving the
training, using the SCPIS?
3. How does each participant score during the intervention phase (i.e., Phase B)
assessed after each training session and homework assignment for a total of
six assessments, using the SCPIS?
4. How does each participant score during the follow up phase collected at three,
six, and nine weeks post intervention (i.e., Phase A follow up, using the
SCPIS)?
Significance of the Study
Seasoned school counselors stood out as a group of interest, given their
significant lack of training in the ASCA National Model (Holby, 2017). This study helps
to fill the knowledge gap on training and needs of seasoned school counselors. It offers
empirical evidence in regard to the effectiveness of the comprehensive training on the
ASCA National Model developed by the researcher, with the potential to be replicated to
a larger population. Results from this study revealed the professional development needs
of seasoned school counselors and how training can increase competency in
implementing a CSCP. The study also exposed the lack of assessible professional
development for practicing school counselors on the ASCA National Model and little to
no empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the available trainings. Counselor Educators
and school district counselor supervisors can use the comprehensive training or could
facilitate future training opportunities similar to the training in this study to increase the
quality of school counseling services for all students. Seasoned school counselor who
lack the competency needed to implement a CSCP can participate in this comprehensive
6
training to fill the lack of knowledge gap on the ASCA National model. Professional
development on the ASCA National Model is crucial for to seasoned school counselors to
improve professional identity and provide services to address student needs.
Organization of the Study
Chapter One introduces the problem addressed in the study and the justification
for conducting the investigation. Chapter Two provides the current status of research on
the competence levels of seasoned school on implementation of the ASCA National
Model present in the literature (ASCA, 2012; Sheperis, Young, & Daniels, 2017). The
literature review focuses on the changes in the role of a school counselor based on
changes in the profession, competence in implementing the ASCA, and outcomes of
students. Chapter Three presents the methodology the researcher used in this quantitative
single-case research design study, starting with the overview of the method, purposeful
sampling of participants who were trained prior to the ASCA National Model, data
collection, data analytic plan, and strategies the researcher will use to guarantee reliability
and validity (Gast and Ledford, 2014). Chapter Four presents the findings of the SCRD
study on the effects of the ASCA National Model training on participants’ competency in
implementing a CSCP. Chapter Five discusses the impact of the findings in literature and
the implications on the profession.
Summary
Research continues to show the effectiveness of utilizing the ASCA National
Model to improve student outcomes and the need of professional development
opportunities for practicing school counselors. There is a gap in the literature on how to
assist seasoned school counselors in increasing competence and skills to be able to fully
implement a CSCP. This quantitative single-case research design study investigated
7
whether a supportive comprehensive training intervention could impact the competence
level of seasoned school counselors in implementing the ASCA National Model to create
and carry out a CSCP to meet the needs of all students. The researcher was interested in
filling the training gap for seasoned school counselors and the impact it will have on their
competence in understanding the ASCA National Model and their ability to create and
deliver a CSCP. The study was vital to figure out which disparities exist for seasoned
school counselors, how to improve competence in implementation of the ASCA National
Model, and the impact it will have on student outcomes.
Definition of Terms
American School Counseling Association (ASCA). The flagship professional
organization supporting school counselors’ work to assist students with optimal
academic, career, and person/social development to become productive 21st-century
citizens (ASCA, 2012).
ASCA Mindset and Behaviors. “The knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified
in research that students need to achieve academic success, college, and career readiness,
and social/emotional development” (ASCA, 2016 p. 57).
ASCA National Model. “The framework of a comprehensive school counseling
program consists of four components: foundation, management, delivery, and
accountability” (ASCA, 2012, p.xiii) incorporating “the four themes of leadership,
advocacy, collaboration, and systemic change” (ASCA, 2012, p. 1).
Comprehensive School Counseling Program (CSCP). The holistic,
developmental, and preventative school counseling plans designed by school counselors
through the use of data to meet the academic, career, and personal/social needs of all
students. (ASCA, 2012; Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017).
8
Functional Relationship. Evaluate the causal inference between the outcome
variable (i.e., competency level in implementing the ASCA National Model) and the
treatment/intervention (i.e., the ASCA National model training developed by the
researcher; Ray, 2015; Vannest & Ninci, 2014).
Intentional Guidance. The purposeful, planned activities providing leadership,
direction, and knowledge to all students and interventions for students who need more
than others academically, personally, and socially, with a four-tier delivery to students in
a school setting (Hatch, 2014).
Nonoverlap of All Pairs. Nonoverlap method to evaluate the effect size or the
degree of change in the target behavior (i.e., SCPIS score), to show difference between
baseline and intervention phases (Parker & Vannest, 2009; Vannest & Ninci, 2014).
Seasoned School Counselor. Current practicing school counselors who started
out as guidance counselors trained prior to the development of the ASCA National Model
in 2003.
School Counselor Competencies. The knowledge, attitudes, and skills school
counselors need to create and implement a comprehensive school counseling program to
meet the needs of our pre-K-12 students (ASCA, 2012).
Single-Case Research Design (SCRD). A quantitative approach in which
participants serve as their own control with baseline condition and intervention condition
(Gast &Ledford, 2014).
Role diffusion. The process of assuming or being appointed to roles and duties
that other individuals from other fields are equally qualified to perform in the work
environment (Astramovich, Hoskins, Gutierrez, & Bartlett, 2013).
9
Visual analysis of data. Formative assessment to determine if the change in
behavior are reliable, predictable, and verify the prediction that the independent variable
is responsible for the change (Horner, Carr, Halle, McGee, & Odom, 2005)
10
Chapter Two
Literature Review
The review of the literature reveals the status of seasoned school counselors who
have not adapted to a data-driven comprehensive counseling program (CSCP) governed
by the ASCA National Model. This chapter includes a comprehensive review of
literature, including school counseling profession and its history, the ASCA National
Model as the conceptual framework of the current study, seasoned school counselor and
their practice, benefits of a CSCP, intentional guidance, and delivery of counseling
services.
The History of School Counseling
The school counseling profession emerged as vocational guidance in the early
1900s, pioneered by Jesse Davis (1871-1955) and Frank Parson (1854-1908), evolving to
present day with the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2003, 2012) focusing on the optimal
academic, career, and social/emotional development of all students (Dollarhide &
Sakinak, 2017). Personnel providing vocational guidance through the use of assessments
were entitled Guidance Counselors prior to the release and implementation of the ASCA
National Model (Lambie & Williamson, 2004). It had been widely accepted to have
guidance counselors at the high-school level to help with academic placement of students
and their transition to college, military, and/or work, and to prepare good citizens
(Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017; Lambie & Williamson, 2004). The emphasis was on
students’ school-to-career transition versus mental health needs (Dollarhide & Sakinak,
2017). The mental health counseling role of a school counselor grew during the social
progressive movement, commenced by John Dewey (1859-1952) and Carl Rogers (1902-
11
1987), shifting to a student-centered relationship that focuses on social and emotional
needs. This shift gained support through the National Defense Act of 1958. This act
provided funding to improve the education system in America through scholarship for the
training of guidance counselor to help encourage post-secondary education. The
traditional guidance counselor fell in a responsive modality that only served a small
number of students experiencing crises along with focusing on college preparation for a
select few of cognitively gifted students (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017).
According to Dollarhide and Sakinak (2017), prevention and educational
activities started to gain interest during the 1960s and 1970s, with the goal to cultivate
well-rounded students capable of dealing with life stressors and transitions. This trend
catalyzed the foundation of elementary and middle school counseling. The role of a
“guidance counselor” who directed students throughout their development was firmly
established from kindergarten to graduation from high school was solidified (Dollarhide
& Sakinak, 2017). Despite the addition of the preventive/educational services, the
primary role and tasks of school counselors, as well as terminologies used to describe the
profession stayed to be debated during the 1980s and the 1990s, leading to the
development of the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2003, 2012). In response to
standards based education, ASCA then refined the role of a school counselor to meet the
needs of all students by closing the opportunity and achievement gap (Hatch & Chen-
Hayes, 2008). To safeguard the career, academic, and personal/social development of all
students, the ASCA formally launched its National Model in 2003, to provide the
structure of a CSCP (Hatch, 2014). The ASCA National Model emphasizes a school
counselor’s role in implementing a core curriculum through a CSCP, including individual
student planning and responsive services, ensuring the delivery of academic, career, and
12
social/emotional competencies to all students (ASCA, 2012; Astramovich et al., 2013;
Hatch & Chen-Hayes, 2008).
The political arena made corresponding change in regard to the role of a school
counselor, when President Obama signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Act in
December 2015 (ESSA, 2015), replacing the previous version of this bill, the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB, 2002), which was unworkable for school districts (ESSA, 2015).
Some of the highlights of ESSA are that it advances equity for marginalized students,
requires high academic standards for students, measures student progress, supports the
development of innovative evidence-based interventions, and focuses on the lowest-
performing schools (ESSA, 2015). Schools need to show progress with all students,
remediations, and interventions, especially the disadvantaged students to close the
achievement gap; school counselors are thus accountable for how they use their time and
the interventions used to help these students who struggle more (Dollarhide & Sakinak,
2017). The school counseling profession is called to use the conceptual framework of the
ASCA National Model to address the need of all students, particularly those who are
underrepresented (ASCA, 2012: Hatch, 2014).
Three Domains of School Counseling Practice
School counselors work to assist students’ academic, career, personal/social
development, following the ASCA National Standards (ASCA, 2012; Dollarhide &
Sakinak, 2017). School counselors recognize that interconnectedness and the need for
growth in all three areas are critical to the success of the whole student (ASCA, 2012,
2014, 2017). Through the three domains, school counselors prepare students for the
identity development into adulthood (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017).
13
Learning and achievement is the number one goal in the school environment,
since schools are evaluated on student outcomes with the priority being academic
achievement (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). School counselors perform a fundamental
role to ensure students’ adequate preparation including cognitive abilities, academic
skills, and attitudes needed to be successful in life after graduation (ASCA, 2017;
Nagaoka et al., 2013). They have a clear understanding of the importance of academic
achievement on the student’s current and future quality of life and connect them with
services to support this endeavor (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). In particular, school
counselors play a vital role in facilitating academic engagement and achievement for
underrepresented college students and marginalized populations with the creation of a
leadership program and small counseling groups to empower these students (Padilla,
2013). For example, Padilla and Hipolito-Delgado (2015) examined how school
counselors work with Hispanic students for their academic engagement and success
through supportive relationships, educational techniques to cultivate confidence-building,
and broaching tough topics regarding racial barriers.
School counselors recognize that career development is a key function of identity
formation of each student, to link their essential life skills of decision making and
problem solving (Dollarhide & Sakinak). School counselors work with all students to
realize their unique talents to access high quality career opportunities regardless of
background (ASCA, 2017; Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). Career development starts in
the elementary school and continues throughout the lifespan with students understanding
themselves, the world of work, and how to prepare to attain the ideal career (Dollarhide
& Sakinak). School counselors work with students and families providing the social
capital (human/intangible resources such as life skills and school support) needed to
14
assist students in selecting an appropriate postsecondary path breaking socio-economic
barriers (ASCA, 2017). The social capital theory explains how students acquire
information about higher education and the college application process, and how they
create goals impacting the attainment of a college degree (Cholewa, Burkhardt, & Hull,
2015). For instance, school counselors may facilitate social interaction between students
with individuals with college degrees will increase their awareness of postsecondary
options. Underrepresented college students have a different experience and may not have
access to social groups relaying information on the pursuit of higher education (Cholewa
et al., 2015). These students lack a clear understanding of what college is, the distinction
between different types of institutions, and the college decision-making process (Tovar,
2015). School counselors can use the social justice approach along with the ASCA
National Model to create a CSCP that fosuces on equity, in order to provide the needed
support to close the achievement gap for underrepresented college students (ASCA,
2012).
Moreover, school counselors are dedicated to supporting the social/emotional
needs of students and value the important role this domain plays in every facet of life
(ASCA, 2017; Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). They receive unique training and skills
which position them as direct mental health specialist in the school setting (Robertson,
Lloyd-Hazlett, & Zambrano, 2016). School counselors strive to promote a positive
environment that all students feel comfortable and provide services that help students
develop the skills necessary to handle the social/emotional stressors in their lives (ASCA,
2017). A school counselor is in a unique position to develop positive relationships with
students, teach coping skills, work with caregivers, and assist in interventions to promote
wellness (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). In addition to assisting students with a healthy
15
sense of self and with relationships, school counselors also work with students who are
dealing with loss, trauma, and mental illness (DeKruyf, Auger, and Trice-Black, 2013).
They encourage students to express feelings, solve problems, develop personal awareness
and attitudes towards domestic violence and empowers them by creating safety plans
(Thompson & Trice-Black, 2012). Additionally, school counselors assist students to
manage and cope with the realities in their lives in a safe environment to thrive, through a
CSCP (ASCA, 2014; Dollarhide & Sakinak).
School counselors deal with a wide array of crisis situations on a regular basis and
need to provide services to address these complex needs of students across the three
domains (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). School counselors are expected to screen and
support students with mental health needs appearing during adolescents such as
depression and anxiety (DeKruyf et al, 2013). For example, Boccio (2015) created a
comprehensive Student Suicide Risk Assessment Level Protocol (SSRAP) for school
personnel to use when evaluating a student’s suicide potential. When presented with an
urgent suicidal concern, the SSRAP guides a school counselor with a framework and
questions to address when working with a student and their family. Children exposed to
violent acts struggle socially, academically, and behaviorally, but can benefit from
individual or group counseling (Thompson & Trice-Black, 2012). School counselors with
grief counseling preparation can help students deal with grief and loss as a normal part of
counseling across the life span (Ober, Granello, & Wheaton, 2012).
School counselors who focus their CSCP on the academic, career, and
personal/social development of students will prepare them for the identity achievement
into adulthood (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). They strive to create safe spaces for
16
students to explore new experiences in learning, social lessons, and career opportunities
which lead to wholeness (ASCA, 2014, Dollarhide & Sakinak).
Professional School Counselor Identity
School counseling has been historically viewed as a specialty area by the Counsel
for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs Standards (CACREP,
2015), following its accreditation standards (CACREP, 2015). The CACREP Standards,
along with ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014) and ASCA Ethical Standards for School
Counselors (ASCA, 2016) currently guides school counselor preparation.
CACREP sets the standards guiding the preparation of school counselor trainees
for the demands of the helping professions, focusing on quality counselor preparation and
professional involvement to ensure counseling identity formation of counselor trainees
(Urofsky, 2013). The 2016 CACREP standards address the current needs in the
profession and direct counselor education preparation programs to incorporate current
needs into the curriculum for counselor trainees (CACREP, 2015; Urofsky, 2013).
CACREP accredited school counseling programs prepare school counselor trainees in the
following eight common core areas: Professional Orientation and Ethical Practice; Social
and Cultural Diversity; Human Growth and Development; Career Development;
Counseling and Helping Relationships; Group Counseling and Group Work; Assessment
and Testing; Research and Program evaluation to develop counselor trainees;
Foundations of School Counseling; Contextual Dimensions of School Counseling; and
Practice of School Counseling (CACREP, 2016).
The ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014) provides a framework to professional
counselors, counselor educators, and counselors in training with ethical behaviors while
focusing on the mission to “enhance the quality of life in society by promoting the
17
development of professional counselors, and advancing the counseling profession”
(ACA, 2014 p. 2). Professional development for school counselors is so important to
improve the lives of students (ACA, 2014). In addition to the ACA Code of Ethics,
school counselors follow the ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors to navigate
ethical situations and make informed decisions (ASCA, 2016).
The ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors state practicing school
counselors need to focus on the developmental needs of students through the design and
delivery of a CSCP (ASCA, 2016). The ethical guidelines encourage membership in
professional organizations and the focus on up-to-date school counselor competence.
School counselor need to participate in professional development (ASCA, 2016).
Conceptual Framework
The ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2003, 2005, 2012) serves as the conceptual
framework of this study (see Appendix A). ASCA launched the first National Model in
2003 to provide uniformity to school counseling programs nationwide (ASCA, 2003).
Since then, ASCA has revised and published two more editions of the ASCA National
Model (2005, 2012) consisting of four interconnected components: foundation,
management, delivery, and accountability (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). The ASCA
National Model (ASCA, 2003) serves as a hub of school counseling, as it guides school
counselors’ understanding of the foundation, management of different roles and
responsibilities, delivery of direct and indirect services, and the importance of
accountability as core components of a CSCP. The ASCA National Model also combines
the leadership, advocacy, collaboration, and systemic changes to effectively address the
academic, career, and personal/social needs of all students. The revised ASCA National
Model (ASCA, 2012) provided more guidance on the four themes of leadership,
18
advocacy, collaboration, and systemic change and offered specific counseling topics
when detailing the four components (ASCA, 2012; Hatch & Chen-Hayes, 2008). Other
additions include: program goals, professional school counselor competencies, and
ASCA ethical standards in the foundation component; school counselor competency
assessment, use of time assessment, and school data profile in the management
component; interaction between school counselor and student based on elements,
strategies, and methods in the delivery component; and under the accountability
components new analysis tools for school data, use of time, small group results and
program goals (ASCA, 2012).
The ASCA National Model (2003, 2005, 2012) has standardized the role of a
school counselor over the last fifteen years, providing an overarching structure for all
CSCPs. The responsive service-driven model which only served some students has been
replaced by the CSCP featured by a spectrum of preventative, as well as reactive services
for all students; and the title guidance counselor has been substituted by professional
school counselor (ASCA, 2012; Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017; Hatch, 2014). Aligning
with the ASCA National Model, the ASCA Mindsets and Behaviors for Student Success:
K-12 College and Career Readiness Standards for Every Student (ASCA, 2014) offers
practical guidance for school counselors, with necessary knowledge, skills, abilities, and
attitudes that students need to “achieve academic success, college and career readiness,
and social/emotional growth and development” (ASCA, 2014, p.1).
Components of the ASCA National Model
The four components of the ASCA National Model provide guidance to school
counselors on the daily structure, while the themes provide professional depth
(Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). The foundation component of the ASCA National Model
19
concentrates on the program, students’ outcomes due to the CSCP, and the professional
competence a school counselor needs in order to create and implement a CSCP (ASCA,
2012). The management component of the model provides the assessments and tools
school counselors need to create, implement, and evaluate a CSCP (ASCA, 2012;
Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). The delivery component focuses on direct and indirect
school counseling services for all students (ASCA, 2012). Last but not least, the
accountability component evaluates changes in students as a result of a CSCP (ASCA,
2012). Further elaborations are provided about each of the four ASCA National Model
components.
Foundation. The purpose of the foundation component “…is to establish the
focus of the comprehensive school counseling program based on the academic, career,
and person/social needs of the students in the school” (ASCA, 2012, p. 21). It is
comprised of three sections: program focus; the development of the whole student with
the necessary self-confidence, sense of belonging, and wellness needed to engage in
behaviors for future success; and the professional school counselor competencies
essential to a CSCP (ASCA, 2012, 2014). Built on the beliefs and values of the
professional school counselor, along with the mission of the school, the ASCA National
Model and the ASCA Mindsets and Behaviors for Student Success: K-12 College and
Career Readiness Standards for Every Student, the school counselor establishes the
foundation for their CSCP to promote the success of every student (ASCA, 2012, 2014).
The primary role of the school counselor pertains to the learning and development
of students in the social/emotional, academic, and career realms to access opportunities
and be successful in the global economy (Dahir et al., 2009; Dollarhide & Sakinak,
2017). Based on the research conducted by The University of Chicago Consortium on the
20
non-cognitive factors related to student academic success, the ASCA developed a guide
for the profession to effectively prepare students (ASCA, 2014; Nagaoka et al., 2013)
Research indicates students need more than academic knowledge to be prepared for
college and career achievement, students need skills such as perseverance, motivation,
management, and self-regulation for long-term success (Nagaoka et al., 2013).The ASCA
Mindsets and Behaviors for Student Success: K-12 College and Career Readiness
Standards for Every Student guide seasoned school counselors working in the field with
the necessary knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes students need to “achieve
academic success, college and career readiness, and social/emotional growth and
development” (ASCA, 2014, p.1).
Management. The management component of the ASCA National Model
provides “organizational assessments and tools designed to manage a school counseling
program” (ASCA, 2012, p.41). School counselors are expected to collect, analyze, and
use data to make decisions about the counseling services and interventions to address the
needs of students and evaluate student outcomes (Milsom & McCormick, 2015). School
counselors can use the assessments to evaluate the strengths of the school counseling
program and areas needing improvement by maintaining a weekly calendar, completing a
use of time analysis, meeting with an administrator to complete the annual agreement,
and feedback from an advisory council (ASCA, 2016). Scarborough (2005) assessed how
school counselors use their time in counseling-related activities and highlighted that
assessment tools serve as a critical part of the management component, as they provide a
clear idea of the direct counseling services provided by school counselors (Scarborough,
2005).
21
Delivery. The delivery component of the ASCA National Model describes “the
services and strategies school counselors provide to students and interactions they have
with others as they work to promote student achievement, equity, and access for all
students” (ASCA, 2012, p. 83). ASCA (2012) recommends that school counselors spend
80% of their time on the delivery of direct or indirect services to students. The delivery of
direct services to students comes through a core curriculum, individual student planning,
and individual counseling to ensure students’ development in the academic, career, and
personal/social domains (ASCA, 2012; Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). School counselors’
core curriculum is a written instructional program with lesson plans delivered based on
the Mindset and Behaviors document to every student provided development skills to
help with academic achievement, career planning, and personal growth (ASCA, 2012;
ASCA, 2016).
In order to manage the enormous task of creating a CSCP, school counselors will
measure the needs within their school and use intentional strategies to provide direct and
indirect services to students. The ASCA National Model (2012) states school counselors
can provide individual and group counseling services to assist students to overcome
academic, career, and personal/social issues which are short-term and goal-focused in
nature. School counselors use counseling to remove barriers which get in the way of
students’ school success. School counselors collaborate with outside community mental
health counselors in assisting students’ long-term therapy needs. In delivering the CSCP,
school counselors constantly build strong working relationships with all stakeholders
(e.g., parents, teachers, administrators…) of the school system through indirect services
to address the needs of all students (Young, Dollarhide, & Baughman, 2015). Some
indirect services are on the behalf of the student with other individuals such as teachers,
22
director of admissions, recruiters, vocational training program, dual enrollment
counselors, and clinical counselors to help with student achievement (ASCA, 2012:
ASCA 2017).
Accountability. The purpose of the accountability component is “to analyze the
data that have been collected and make program decisions based on analysis…” (ASCA,
2012, p 99). Three sections are covered under this component, including data analysis,
program results, and evaluation and improvements. School counselors need to realize that
data is part of every step of a school counseling program, starting with development and
continuing with delivery and capturing outcome data (Young & Kaffenberger, 2015).
Evaluating the effectiveness of a CSCP and student outcomes can provide school
counselors with the evidence of what school counseling services can do to best help
students succeed and where to focus their efforts (Dimmitt & Wilkerson, 2012). School
counselors need to develop accountability skills to determine whether students are
learning and demonstrating essential life development skills pertaining to all academic,
career, and personal-social areas, as well as their development in multicultural awareness
(Sink, 2009, p. 69).
Themes of the ASCA National Model
The emerging themes in school counseling are leadership, advocacy,
collaboration, and systemic changes (ASCA, 2012). School counselors are leaders when
they create a CSCP to formulate solutions to problems with stakeholders to promote
student achievement (ASCA, 2012). School counselor advocate for student needs to
ensure each student has the opportunity to reach their full potential (ASCA, 2012).
Collaboration happens when “school counselors work with stakeholders, both inside and
outside the school, as part of a comprehensive school counseling program” (ASCA,
23
2012, p.6). System change occurs “through careful data driven implementation, an ASCA
National Model program can have a positive impact on many other parts of the school’s
system that lead to student achievement and overall success” (ASCA, 2012, p 8). The
themes are intertwined and interchangeable to bring about the changes necessary to
guarantee all student regardless have an equitable access to an excellent education
through a CSCP (ASCA, 2012).
Leadership. School counselors are leaders creating an evidence-based CSCP to
help with the optimal student personal/social, academic, and career development (Sink,
2009). Mason (2010) investigated 305 school counselors and found the counselors who
report higher on the leadership scale also report higher on implementation of a CSCP.
Young, Dollarhide, and Baughman (2015) conducted a qualitative study on leadership
characteristics important to the school counseling profession with 1,376 school
counselors, and five themes were stressed, including leadership attributes, relationship
attributes, communication and collaboration, exemplary program design, and advocacy.
Leadership skills such as reliability, setting a good example, and treating people with
respect are essential in creating a positive climate to implement a CSCP (Mason, 2010).
The school counseling program advisory council made up of students, parents, teachers,
administrators, and community members who can assist school counselors in the needed
leverage to advocate for counseling services to meet the needs of students and impact
school improvement (Mason, 2010).
Advocacy. School counselors can use their role to advocate for educational
support and systemic change to create a warm and supportive environment for all
students, including all underrepresented populations in higher education (Lerma,
Zamarripa, Oliver & Cavazos Vela, 2015). School counselors are urged to stand up for
24
injustices by partnering with stakeholders to eliminate barriers (Padilla, 2013). In
fulfilling the advocacy role, school counselors create programming to help those who are
underserved feel included, promote a collectivist approach to success, provide
information to first-generation college-seeking students, and to provide additional support
to ensure equality. In urban settings, school counselors promote programming to
cultivate college readiness to increase the percentage of students who can go to college
and obtain an advanced degree (Saviz-Romer, 2012). For example, school counselors
can provide a safe space for LGBTQ students by offering support, creating an openness
while broaching tough topics, and promoting equality in career counseling (Roe, 2013).
Also, school counselors help academically resilient, low-income middle school students
by forming meaningful relationships, building on the cultural wealth of students, and
providing mental health services in school to remove systematic barriers to assist students
from disadvantaged backgrounds to achieve long-term success (Williams, Steen, Albert,
Delay, Jacobs, & Nagel, 2015).
Collaboration. School counselors collaborate with all school stakeholders
including students, administrators, teachers, families, and community members meet to
focus on the needs of the school during times of crisis, promote a positive environment
for all students, and enhance all students’ academic achievement (ASCA, 2014;
Astramovish, 2016). To illustrate procedures of school counselor collaboration, Bryan
and Henry (2012) outlined a seven-stage partnership leadership model for school
counselors to follow: a) preparing to partner, b) assessing the needs and strengths, c)
coming together, d) creating a shared vision and plan, e) taking action, f) evaluating and
celebrating progress, and g) maintaining momentum. School counselors can follow this
25
model to build the necessary relationships with stakeholders to maximize services to
promote positive student outcomes and strengthen their CSCP (Bryan & Henry, 2012).
Systemic change. Systemic change is evident when every student feels
comfortable to come to the school counselor with any problem one is experiencing
(ASCA, 2012; Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). Under the theme of systemic changes, social
justice and advocating for marginalized students is an important role of professional
school counselors as agents of change. The social justice school counseling approach
uses the ASCA National Model to create a counseling program to address inequities,
oppression, and sociocultural barriers limiting student achievement (Dollarhide &
Saginak, 2017; ASCA, 2012). Social justice is a theoretical construct with an emphasis
on the realities of oppression, privilege, and social inequalities (Chang, Barrio Minton,
Dixon, Myers, & Sweeney, 2012). Marginalized groups are circuitously oppressed by a
small group of privileged individuals, leading to social inequalities (Chang et al., 2012).
School counselors can be systemic change agents by promoting awareness, knowledge,
and skills of stakeholders when working with LGBTQ+ students to remove barriers that
interfere with student confidence and sense of belonging (American School Counselor
Association, 2012). School counselors use their role to change the school environment
and remove barriers to provide equitable opportunities for all students, especially
historically marginalized populations (Young et al., 2015).
Responsive Service-Driven Model
In comparison to the ASCA National Model, seasoned school counselors were
trained under the responsive service-driven model of developmental guidance and
counseling (Keys, Bernak, & Lockhart, 1998). The responsive service-driven model
focuses on individual and crisis counseling of students or targeted high academic
26
achievement of selective students (Keys et al., 1998). Under this model, school
counselors usually worked with the selective highest-achieving college-bound students
and the lowest-achieving students, leaving many students with no services at all (ASCA,
2012; Mason, 2010). Seasoned school counselors informed by the responsive service-
driven model tend to fall into the old roles and functions of a guidance counselor.
Burkard, Gillen, Martinez, and Skytte (2012) added evidence that responsive services
provided by school counselors only benefit certain groups of students, without a systemic
curriculum considering the needs of all students. In order to foster the transformation
from a service-driven model to a CSCP following the ASCA National Model, seasoned
school counselors will need to learn new skills to implement a CSCP to address the
complex needs of all students (Hatch & Chen-Hayes, 2008; Keys et al., 1998).
The responsive service-driven model only provided some services to selective
groups of students, whereas the ASCA National model aims to provide direct services to
all students in the form of guidance core curriculum, individual planning, and responsive
services (ASCA, 2012). In contrast to the responsive service-driven model, the ASCA
National Model solidifies the idea that all students can benefit from school counseling
services through a CSCP, to increase academic achievement, personal and social
development, and to create a career plan to obtain independent, fulfilling employment in
the future (ASCA, 2012).
Responsive services, as an essential part of the responsive service-driven model,
are mostly conducted in the form of individual and group counseling or crisis response
(Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). These services are provided to meet the immediate needs
of students to resolve academic, career, and personal/emotional concerns involving
interventions to address issues that inhibit students from achieving their maximal growth
27
(Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). The Response to Intervention (RTI) illustrates an example
of responsive services, where school counselors can provide intensive interventions for
certain individuals (e.g., students with certain diagnoses and special needs) and varied
assistance for others with intervention needs (e.g., grief, crisis, or simply additional
support to navigate an emotional overload (Hatch, 2014).
Distinct from the responsive service-driven model, the CSCP highlights a
preventive feature based on the ASCA National Model. It reduces the need for
responsive services, through providing essential knowledge and skills covering the three
domains in large-group format such as guidance curriculum (ASCA, 2012, Dollarhide &
Sakinak, 2017; Hatch, 2014). The CSCP also underscores the needs assessment prior to
offering individual or group counseling based on student needs prior to issues arising
(ASCA, 2012).
Intentional Guidance
Intentional guidance plays a significant role on whether or not a CSCP is
successfully implemented. It aims to provide leadership, direction, and knowledge to all
students. Hatch (2014) explains intentional guidance as purposeful, planned activities that
provide leadership, direction, and knowledge to all students; in additions it provides
interventions for students who need more than others academically, personally, and
socially, through a four-tier delivery to students in a school setting (Hatch, 2014).
According to Hatch, the first level provides the core curriculum and student planning
provided to all students to envision the daily life they want to construct for themselves.
The second level comprises responsive services provided to students who need additional
support to improve school success carried out as individual or group interventions. At the
third level, school counselors work with a student to come up with an individualized
28
solution which helps him/her achieve the life he/she wants; students at this level need
more intensive individualized interventions. The fourth level impacts a small number of
students who need additional interventions beyond what a school counselor can offer in a
school setting to deal with chronic issues which interfere with their learning and
development (Hatch, 2014).
Hatch’s model of intentional guidance using a four-tier system to implement a
CSCP helps school counselors manage this task (Hatch, 2014). The multi-tiered system
of support framework has been accepted in the school setting and can be used in
implementing a CSCP since both share similar goals (Olsen, Parikh-Foxx, Flowers &
Algozzine, 2017). School counselors can benefit from using this framework to achieve
better time management and higher job satisfaction (Olsen et al., 2017).
School Counselor Competencies
School counselor competencies consist of three areas of knowledge, abilities and
skills, and the attitudes needed to implement a CSCP to address academic achievement,
career planning, and personal and social development of all students (ASCA, 2012). The
competencies are organized to focus on the entire school counseling program and the four
components of the ASCA National model. The ASCA school counselor competencies
can be used to prepare school counselor trainees or as a self-assessment and evaluation
tool for practicing school counselor (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). Many states have
implemented standards and evaluation for school counselors based on the ASCA
National Model and this tool could be useful with professional development (Carey et al.,
2012). School counselor competencies are manifested through a school counselor
implementing all four components of ASCA National Model.
29
Establishing the foundation for a school counseling program must be performed
by a school counselor with the knowledge and ability to establish a clear program focus
based on beliefs, vision statement, mission statement, and program goals (ASCA, 2012).
Critical to the process is possessing the fundamental knowledge and attitude to undertake
the initiative to evaluate the current program, take steps to plan with stakeholder, and
develop goals to fully implement the CSCP (ASCA, 2012).
In order to create a CSCP, a school counselor also needs to focus on the
management component of the ASCA National Model which provides the resources
(ASCA, 2012). School counselors need to have the awareness and ability to use the tools
to lead, manage one’s time, assess counseling program, and be able to create action plans
(ASCA, 2012). The tools such as a needs assessment, school profile, and support of an
advisory committee allow a school counselor to use data to be able to make decision to
improve student services (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017).
School counselors need the knowledge, abilities, skills, and the attitudes to deliver
the ASCA National Model and provide services to promote positive student outcomes
(ASCA, 2012). School counselors need to be equipped with knowledge and ability to
create and teach a core curriculum; possess communication skills to work with student on
individual planning; and possess a wide-range of counseling techniques to provide
responsive services to students with social/emotional needs (ASCA, 2012). School
counselors need to develop the connections to collaborate, consult, and make referral to
outside service providers (ASCA, 2012).
The ASCA accountability component also entails school counselors’ knowledge,
abilities, skills, and attitudes to analyze data and outcomes of a CSCP to make decision
(ASCA, 2012). School counselors employ skills to close the gap using process,
30
perception, and outcome data (ASCA, 2012). Process data is evidencing a program or
service occurred (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). Perception data shows how a student
changed as a result of a school counseling intervention (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017).
Outcome data shows the impact of a school counseling service provided such as
improved grades, graduation rates, and test scores (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017).
Possessing the competency to use data effectively can impact necessary services to
students and change outcomes (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017).
Seasoned School Counselors
The current literature addressed practicing school counselors as a whole, with
very little attention directed to seasoned school counselors, despite many within-group
differences (e.g., knowledge base; realities; barriers). Hatch and Chen-Hayes (2008)
stated that the success of the ASCA National Model rests with practicing school
counselors’ openness to acquire new skills, replace archaic practices, and design and
implement a CSCP. Seasoned school counselors, who started out as guidance counselors
and were trained prior to the development of the ASCA National Model are at a
disadvantage and struggle with role diffusion, defined as “the process of assuming or
being appointed to roles and duties that other individuals from other fields are equally
qualified to perform in the work environment.” (Astramovich et al., 2013, p 176).
Holby (2017) investigated the experiences of ten high school counselors (nine of
whom are seasoned school counselors) in implementing a CSCP in schools located in
Pennsylvania. Only one out of the nine seasoned school counselors in the study reported
to be competent in incorporating the ASCA National Model and achieving RAMP status
with comprehensive school counseling program. The study highlighted lack of
professional development, resources, and administrative support as primary impediments
31
for seasoned school counselors in implementing the ASCA National Model. Participants
in the study all expressed an emphasis on services targeting for the career domain over
the academic and social/emotional domains. Dahir, Burnham, and Stone’s (2009) study
showed similar findings with high school counselors in Alabama regarding the level of
implementation of the CSCP. It is thus highly recommended to offer professional
development for seasoned school counselors to gain competence in implementing a
CSCP dealing with the three domains (Holby, 2017).
Seasoned school counselors can be leaders, advocating for the optimal personal,
academic, and career development of all students, with a well-written CSCP (Sink, 2009).
However, they were found to lack the abilities, self-efficacy, support, and training on
how to use data to create, implement, and evaluate a CSCP (Young & Kaffenberger,
2015). School counselors who lack the self-efficacy to address the needs of marginalized
students and, therefore, deliver less guidance programming than school counselors with
higher self-efficacy (Mullen & Lambie, 2016). It is essential for seasoned school
counselors to reevaluate their beliefs about their roles in a school setting and in the
importance of all the components of the ASCA National model, utilizing data and the
tools to create an overarching plan to improve student outcomes (ASCA, 2012; Hatch,
2014; Hatch & Chen-Hayes, 2008; Salina et al., 2013).
Knowledge gap. Young and Kaffenberger (2015) recommend special training on
accountability for school counselors. Despite the recognition of the importance of
utilizing data, seasoned school counselors have received limited training in the ASCA
National Model and what it entails to create a CSCP. Seasoned school counselors were
not trained on the ASCA National Model, thus lack the skills needed to implement a
CSCP to be afforded the opportunity to gain the competence to fully implement a CSCP
32
(Hartline & Cobia, 2012). They thus need to acquire strong program and data analysis
skills to meet the current accountability demands to be able to show the effectiveness of
their CSCP to positively impacts student outcomes (ASCA, 2012; Astramovich, 2016).
Seasoned school counselors may struggle with grasping the framework and themes of the
ASCA National Model, as they often refer to themselves as guidance counselors who
primarily provide directive, responsive guidance (Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017), which
was claimed to be short sighted and fail to incorporate data to drive services and
interventions (Olsen, Parikh-Foxx, Flower, & Algozzine, 2017). Furthermore,
Astramovich’s (2016) study with 241 school counselors revealed that knowledge gap in
seasoned school counselors was associated with their lack of competencies in utilizing
data and evaluating a CSCP.
Supervision needs. School counselors are not required to practice under
supervision, to be affiliated with a professional organization, or to participate in
professional development. This could negatively impact the competencies needed to
carry out the current demands of the school counseling role (Wilczenenski et al., 2010).
A significant number of seasoned school counselors currently practice as school
counselors as well as site supervisors for school counselor trainees, although their
knowledge base may not be adequate for trainees’ needs in creating and implementing a
CSCP. The lack of a clear understanding of the foundation, delivery, management, and
assessment of the ASCA National Model (2012) framework and the infused themes of
leadership, advocacy, collaboration, and systemic changes impacts a seasoned school
counselors’ ability to provide intentional guidance that addresses the academic, career,
and personal/social needs of the 21st century student (ASCA, 2012; Hatch, 2014).
33
Professional development. Professional development assists with enhancing the
competence level of seasoned school counselors; it is associated with positive counseling
interventions for students, enhancing the academic, career, and personal/social
development of students (Mullen & Lambie, 2016). Targeted professional development
can provide the knowledge, confidence, and skills to assist with seasoned school
counselors’ philosophical shift from the responsive service driven model to
implementation of a CSCP (Dahir et al., 2009). Astramovich (2016) recommends regular
professional development opportunities to improve program evaluation and data analysis
competence, which could help seasoned school counselors to create data-driven CSCP. A
school counselor could use the ASCA School Counselor Competencies as a safe,
professional self-reflection tool to guide one’s professional development progression and
pinpoint areas for improvement (ASCA, 2012). Scarborough and Luke (2008) highly
recommend engaging in professional development, belonging to state and national school
counselor associations, and having mentors to assist with optimal implementation of a
CSCP.
Barriers Impeding Seasoned School Counselors’ Practice
The transition to the ASCA National Model was not rolled out in a way to impact
practicing school counselors and was slow to diffuse to the state and local mandates
(Hatch, 2008). At the time of the transition in 2003, the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Service Administration (SAMHSA) appraised 110,000 school counselors who
were practicing in the United States but ASCA only had 12,000 members nation-wide
(Hatch & Chen-Hayes, 2008; SAMHSA, 2003), namely eight out of nine school
counselors did not belong to ASCA, nor did they receive training on implementation a
CSCP (Hatch & Chen-Hayes, 2008). The transformation of the school counseling
34
profession indicated significant differences in terms of knowledge base, as well as
competencies needed for the practicing school counselor in the field (Hatch & Chen-
Hayes, 2008). Several major barriers were detected that have impeded seasoned school
counselors’ implementation of a CSCP.
Role diffusion. Seasoned school counselors struggle to implement the
recommended roles and responsibilities of practice due to lack of support by the school
culture, as well as other external demands (Lambie & Williamson, 2004). Role diffusion
is commonly seen in seasoned school counselors who strive to fulfill all school counselor
roles and additional tasks assigned by administrators (Astramovich et al., 2013). The
professional identity of school counseling may have changed, but the daily expectations
for a school counselor in the school setting have not been changed accordingly due to
daily tasks assigned to school counselors. Without required supervision and professional
development for practicing school counselors, role diffusion continues to be problematic
(Hatch, 2008). Lambie and Williamson (2004) recommend the following four steps to
advocate for school counselor role and responsibilities: a) educate principals on the
implementation and maintenance of a CSCP; b) eliminate the teaching requirement for
licensing; c) provide clinical supervision in the school to mentor and mold school
counselors; and d) advocate to reassign non-counseling duties in order for school
counselors to work with the students and families emotional or mental health needs.
Lack of supervision. In addition to the knowledge gap related to the ASCA
National Model and the new professional identity, the lack of supervision experience
introduced another barrier impeding seasoned school counselors’ professional growth.
Once school counselors complete their training and obtain their license, they directly
enter the school system and practice as full-time school counselors, belong to
35
professional organizations, or participate in professional development focused on
counseling (ASCA, 2012). Despite the lack of supervision experience, many practicing
school counselors, particularly seasoned school counselors, serve as site supervisors for
school counselor trainees through practicum and internship courses (Uellendahl &
Tenenbaum, 2015). Their knowledge gap would thus in turn impact the development of
school counselor trainees. The lack of supervision by site supervisors who are
knowledgeable in the ASCA National Model directly impacts service delivery and the
continued growth and formation of counseling interns and newly-licensed school
counselors on the road to excellence (Dollarhide & Miller, 2006).
Non-counseling related duties. Despite preference of direct interactions with
students, school counselors inevitably spend substantial time performing non-counseling
related duties (Studer, Diambra, Breckner, & Heidel, 2011). A study by Burkard, Gillen,
Martinez, and Skytte (2012) on challenges to implement a CSCP at a Wisconsin high
school revealed that school counselors spent a large amount of time on assigned non-
counseling tasks, such as testing and scheduling. Similarly, Dahir, Burnham, Stone, and
Cobb (2010)’s study highlighted a number of non-counseling duties such as statewide
testing, record keeping, and building the master schedule as primary inhibitor of school
counselor’s implementation of CSCP. The enormous non-counseling duties assigned by
administrators such as record keeping and test administration resulted in less individual
student planning, support, and other preventative and interventional services
(Astramovich et al., 2013). The continued practice of non-counseling duties is closely
linked to seasoned school counselors’ role diffusion and struggling between core school
counseling duties and assigned duties. With many additional non-counseling related
duties, some essential roles of school counselors (e.g., providing individual mental health
36
services within scope of practice) are gradually taken away and re-assigned to others
(e.g., school social workers) on the school campus (Robertson, Lloyd- Hazlett, &
Zambrano, 2016).
School counselors were found to struggle with additional barriers, including
placement in multiple schools (provide duties at more than one school building), working
in isolation, and not having administrative support (Studer et al., 2011). Specifically,
school counselors often work in isolation in a school setting without an environment that
supports professional development and identity (Dollarhide & Miller, 2006). Those
barriers constantly impact seasoned school counselors’ ability to implement a CSCP, as
stakeholders in a school district often determine the roles of school counselors in shaping
duties that are more clerical than clinical (Dollarhide & Miller, 2006)
Empirical Findings of the ASCA National Model
Effectiveness of the Comprehensive School Counseling Plan (CSCP). A
Comprehensive School Counseling Program (CSCP) is a holistic, developmental, and
preventative school counseling plan designed by school counselors, through the use of
data, to meet the academic, career, and personal/social needs of all students (ASCA,
2012; Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017). Aligning with the ASCA National Model as well as
its four themes, the CSCP plays a paramount role in students’ development and school
outcomes. The CSCP has gained empirical evidence that supports its significant impact
on school improvement initiatives and student outcomes. Mullen and Lambie (2016)
found that the increased preventive, programmatic service delivery led by school
counselors’ benefits student outcomes such as improving academic success, college and
career readiness. Previous research (Carey et al., 2012; Martin & Carey, 2014) showed
that schools implementing a well-designed CSCP demonstrated a significant increase in
37
student achievement and a significant decrease in problematic behaviors assessed through
the numbers of office referrals, absences, and failing grades. In two studies (Carey et al.,
2012; Martin & Carey, 2014) of rural and suburban schools in Nebraska, schools that
implemented a CSCP reported higher rates of ACT enrollment and overall scored higher
on the students’ ACT. In another study (Carey et al., 2012) on ASCA implementation in
Utah high schools and student outcomes, the authors found that a longer time that CSCP
program had been implemented was associated with students’ higher attendance rate and
lower suspension rate. Several other benefits were noted from the study (Carey et al.,
2012) in relation to a solid implementation of a CSCP, such as higher ACT scores, higher
rates of students taking the ACT, and higher graduation rates. The number of hours
devoted to guidance curriculum provided to students was correlated with the graduation
rates. Furthermore, the number of hours devoted to a guidance curriculum (a core
component of a CSCP) provided to student was correlated with graduation rates (Carey et
al., 2012).
Likewise, Dimmitt & Wilkerson (2012) conducted a study of 51 middle and high
schools in Rhode Island to investigate if there is a relationship between CSCP counseling
activities and student outcomes, using the School Accountability for Learning and
Teaching (SALT). The results revealed a significant correlation between the
implementation and delivery of CSCP and critical markers of student success (Dimmitt &
Wilkerson, 2012). Salina et al. (2013) offered further evidence on the impact a CSCP
through a case study which found that implementation of a CSCP significantly increased
graduation rates from 49% in 2009 to 78% in 2011 at Sunnyside High School located in
the State of Washington. The finding together demonstrated that CSCPs are key to
creating a preventative, welcoming environment for all students and providing services
38
for students with additional needs (Goodman-Scott, Betters-Bubon, & Donahue, 2016).
Sink (2009) recommends using a positive strength-based approach to assess a CSCP by
using the following dimensions: conducting program audits and needs assessment to
figure out what is lacking, evaluating whether students are learning important life skills,
and gauging how to improve services through collaboration with stakeholders.
Existing ASCA National Model trainings and outcomes. ASCA provides
training to districts on the ASCA National Model components and themes. Currently,
ASCA does not have empirical data on the effectiveness of ASCA National Model
training (Jen Walsh, Personal Communication, January 30, 2019). Review of the
literature revealed no studies on a training of the entire ASCA National Model but several
studies focused on a component of the model.
Astramovich, Coker, & Hoskins (2005) designed a training curriculum from the
ASCA National Model (2003) to train 28 practicing school counselors on program
evaluations in two separate groups. The three-hour didactic training encouraged
participants to hypothesize the program evaluation needs at their school sites. The first
group was selected from convenience sampling from a recruitment email and then five
were purposefully selected to ensure representation across grade levels. The second
group was from school district focused on 23 elementary school counselors. The first
group had a two week follow-up after the training to evaluate their ability to carry out the
program evaluation skills learned in the school setting. Only two had engaged in
evaluation activities and the three had not due to lack of time. All participants felt the
training was helpful but recommended multiple trainings with application activities in
between for future professional development.
39
Milsom and McCormick (2015) conducted an individualized mentoring
intervention with four school counselors to increase their confidence to work with data.
The ASCA National Model expects school counselors to use data to make decisions and
evaluate the outcome of the CSCP (ASCA, 2012). The participants worked with the
mentor on the accountability activities they wanted to engage in. The mentor spent time
with each participant in-person or through email to collect, analyze and share data. On
pre/post assessments by participants which reported a higher level of positive attitude and
more uses of accountability activities after participating into the mentoring program. The
results suggested that appropriate mentoring interventions can help school counselors
apply what they learn about data collection tools put it into practice.
Hartline and Corbia (2012) investigated the ability of school counselors to
identify gaps for marginalized students, develop interventions, evaluate effectiveness, and
share results after participation in a four day training on the components of CSCP based
on the ASCA National Model. At the end of the first day of training, school counseling
teams were asked to identify one gap in achievement within their school. Trish Hatch
conducted the next two days of training on the components of the ASCA National Model,
guidance action curriculum, intentional guidance action plans, results reports and
advocacy. The fourth day was later in the year and focused on advisory council,
management agreement, integration of technology, and use of time analysis. After the
training, the teams completed a closing the gap summary. Analyzing the results of 100
closing the gaps reports revealed school counselors’ ability to identify the gap and
develop interventions but still lacked the ability to evaluate the effectiveness and report
results. Initial exposure to new knowledge and skills is not enough for most school
counselors to be able to implement them.
40
Summary
There is extensive literature on the importance of implementing a data driven
CSCP and how the lack of it is problematic in the education system, yet there is very little
research directly focusing on training seasoned school counselor on the ASCA National
Model (Carey et al., 2012; Hartline & Corbin, 2012; Milsom & McCormick, 2015).
Review of the literature revealed that existing research has focused on theoretical
explanation of the ASCA National Model, improving student outcomes through a CSCP,
and the importance of using data (Astramovich, 2005; Carey et al, 2012; Young &
Kaffenberger, 2015). No studies have been found that examined the competency levels of
seasoned school counselor in implementing a CSCP. This study investigates the impact
of the comprehensive training on the ASCA National Model on seasoned school
counselors’ competence in implementing a CSCP. The results show the importance to
the profession and for countless students.
41
Chapter Three
Methodology
Overview of the Method
This study investigated the impact of a comprehensive training program on the
professional competency levels of seasoned school counselors in implementing a CSCP.
The researcher designed the instruction based on the four components and four themes of
the ASCA National Model with the assistance of an expert panel. The effectiveness of the
training was measured using a single-case ABA design focusing on the change between
phase A (baseline) and phase B (intervention) and return to phase A (maintenance) with
data collected at three, six, and nine weeks post-intervention (Sheperis, Young, &
Daniels, 2017). The study measured participants' competencies assessed at various points
of time with the School Counseling Program Implementation Survey (SCPIS).
Measurements occurred during the baseline prior to being trained, throughout the
intervention, and during the maintenance phase to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
training as a tool to increase participants’ competency levels. This research method was a
practical option to assess the effects of the intervention with this small, unique, and
underrepresented population of seasoned school counselors (Lenz, 2015). The researcher
incorporated the recommended quality indicators for this methodology (Gast & Ledford,
2014; Horner, Carr, Halle, McGee, Odom, & Wolery, 2005; Plavnick & Ferreri, 2013).
Research Questions
The following research questions were appropriate for the SCRD method to
examine the causal or functional relationship the independent variable has on the change
of the dependent variable (Horner et al., 2005).
42
1. Does participation in the American School Counseling Association National
Model (independent variable) training significantly enhance the competence
levels of seasoned school counselor participants to implement a
Comprehensive School Counseling Program, (measured by the SCPIS
(dependent variable)?
2. How does each participant score during the baseline phase (i.e., Phase A)
assessed twice a week with a total of four data points before receiving the
training, using the SCPIS?
3. How does each participant score during the intervention phase (i.e., Phase B)
assessed after each training session and homework assignment for a total of
six data points, using the SCPIS?
4. How does each participant score during the maintenance phase collected at
three, six, and nine weeks post-intervention (i.e., Phase A)?
Experimental Design
The study used an SCRD ABA design to analyze the effects of the comprehensive
training on the ASCA National Model. SCRD is a systematic, reliable, and continued
appraisal over time that assessed the change that occurs in an individual’s targeted
behavior based on the manipulation of treatment or intervention (Gast & Ledford, 2014;
Lenz 2015; Sherperis et al., 2017). Participants were assessed before the training,
establishing a baseline (A) and during the training (B) with continuous assessments
(Gast & Ledford, 2014; Ray, 2015; Sherperis et al., 2017), followed by maintenance
data after removal of the training (A). Data was collected on Qualtrics via scores on the
SCPIS and measured during baseline (phase A), during the intervention (phase B), and
at three, six, and nine-weeks post-intervention. The collection of baseline data was
43
needed until stability was reached, minimally four data points. The strength of the ABA
design is the in-depth nature to analyze the effectiveness of an intervention on the target
behavior (Gast & Ledford, 2014). A weakness of the ABA design is the competency
skills obtained during the intervention phase would be difficult to reverse (Gast &
Ledford). The nonrandomized small sample size of three may not allow for
generalizability to the larger population (Ray, 2015).
Participants and Setting
Participants. Three seasoned school counselors trained prior to the ASCA
National Model in 2003 participated in the study. Five seasoned school counselors were
recruited based on the inclusion criteria [i.e., practicing school counselors with at least
fifteen years of school counseling experience who are responsible for implementing a
CSCP and delivering services to students (Sheperis et al., 2017)]. Participants were given
an informed consent form explaining the nature of the research, what is expected from
participants, confidentiality, privacy, the length of the study, their rights, the potential
risks of participating in this study, and implications of the research (Sheperis et al., 2017).
One person did not meet the inclusion criteria and therefore was not enrolled but did
participate in the training along with the participants. Two participants dropped out of the
study because of scheduling conflicts. The three participants met inclusionary criteria.
The rich description of the three participants who started scored under the
exclusion criteria during the baseline phase, and finished the study as follows. Janice is a
52-year-old White female who received her Master’s in School Counseling in 1995 from
a CACREP-accredited program. She has worked in a public high school setting for the
last 18 years as a school counselor. She reports spending a majority of her time on
system supports and non-counseling duties. Before the training, she had started a written
44
comprehensive school counseling plan. Becky is a 50-year-old White female who
received her Master's in School Counseling in 2000 from a CACREP-accredited
program. She has worked 19 years as a school counselor, 10 of which were at the high
school level, the last nine of which have been at the elementary level. She spends the
majority of her day on responsive services, system support, and non-counseling duties.
She does not have a written comprehensive school plan nor does she have a core
curriculum. Linda is a 54-year-old White female school counselor who received her
school counseling degree from a CACPEP-accredited program in 1994. She has worked
30 years in education at a public career education center working with upper-grade level
students. She spends the majority of her time providing responsive services, system
support, and non-counseling duties. She does not have a written comprehensive school
counseling plan or a core curriculum.
Setting. The training took place at the Educational Service Center (ESC) of
Lorain County. The location was centrally located for the individuals invited to
participate in the study and provided the technology needed for the training. The director
of professional development assisted with access to the setting to support the
comprehensive training of seasoned school counselors on the ASCA National Model.
The superintendent stayed late on Thursday evenings to accommodate the training.
Sampling. A non-randomized convenience sampling technique was used to select
participants who possessed specific characteristics, were available, and were willing to
participate (Creswell, 2012). The target population in this study was seasoned school
counselors who are part of professional networking groups connected to the North Point
ESC, Lorain County ESC, and the Medina County ESC (Creswell, 2012). The researcher
sent recruitment emails to the members of the ESC school counselors networking groups.
45
The non-randomized convenience sample method was suitable to the study since
participants needed to possess specific characteristics to qualify as a seasoned school
counselor to evaluate the effects of the ASCA National Model Training in implementing
a CSCP (Creswell, 2012). The recruitment email secured five participants, and the
training was scheduled. After the training was scheduled, two dropped out due to
scheduling conflicts. Since three participants are enough for a SCRD, a decision was
made to move forward with the scheduled intervention (Gast & Ledford, 2014).
Materials
It is common to use only one instrument in SCRD counseling research to measure
a change in the targeted behavior (Ray, 2015). For example, Ikonomopoulos, Cavazos
Vela, Smith, and Dell’Aquaila’s (2016) SCRD study of counseling students' self-efficacy
change throughout the practicum class utilized a single measurement the Counselor
Activity Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES). Likewise, Ray (2015) championed the use of a
single, valid and reliable self-report instrument for multiple repeated measurements.
SCPIS. The School Counseling Program Implementation Survey was used to
determine inclusion criteria and evaluate the effectiveness of the training (Elsner &
Carey, 2005: Clemons, Carey, & Harrington, 2010). A fifty or below shows that a
participant has not fully implemented the ASCA National Model in their school
counseling program and could benefit from the training (Clemons et al., 2010). Seasoned
school counselor who were not formally trained on the ASCA National Model may have
acquired knowledge needed to implement a CSCP through professional materials. Since
the SCPIS can be used to evaluate a program and show areas for future professional
development. If an individual scored a 40 it would show that the ASCA National Model
46
implementation is in development. If an individual scored a 60 it would show that the
ASCA National Model has been partially implemented.
Elsner & Carey (2005) created the initial SCPIS survey for the Center of School
Counseling Outcome Research upon reviewing the literature on the characteristics of the
ASCA National Model and related CSCP programs. Sixty school counselors completed
the survey and through internal consistency analysis five items were eliminated due to
low item-to-scale correlation reducing the initial item pool from 25 to 20 items. The
SCPIS’s Cronbach alpha coefficient evaluation for the remaining twenty items in this
sample was considered good for internal consistency with an .81 (Clemons et al., 2010).
Clemens et al. (2010) performed principal components factor analysis on their data with a
sample of 201 school counselors and a sample of 136 school counselors. The analysis
found that a three-factor model best explained the lion’s share of variance and was
supported by the scree plot. The three-factors were a) seven items measuring
programmatic orientation on planning, management, and accountability of a CSCP; b)
seven items weighing specific school counseling services, and c) three items measuring
school counselors' use of computer software. The three factor analysis showed strong
internal reliability with the Cronbach alpha range of .79 to .83 making this an appropriate
measure for this study (Clemons et al., 2010). The survey consists of 20 items with a 4-
point Likert scale, with 1 = not present, 2 = development in progress, 3 = partially
implemented, and 4 = fully implemented.
The instrument was used in two studies as it was designed (Carey, Harrington,
Martin, & Hoffman, 2012; Carey, Harrington, Martin, & Stevenson, 2012) and was
modified to use in another study (Olsen, Parikh-Foxx, Flowers, & Algozzine, 2017). The
SCPIS was used to assess each participant’s competency levels in implementing a CSCP
47
throughout phase A (baseline) and phase B (intervention). Although the SCPIS was
developed to assess the extent a school counseling program aligns with the ASCA
National Model program, it can also be used to evaluate a program to focus improvement
(Clemens, Carey, & Harrington, 2010).
The SCPIS can be used by individual school counselors to evaluate their
programs, assess the degree of ASCA National Model implementation, and assess needs
for improvement (Clemens et al., 2010). The SCPIS has been used frequently in
measuring school counselors' implementation of a CSCP following the ASCA National
Model and associated activities. For example, Carey, Harrington, Martin, and Stevenson
(2012) utilized the SCPIS in their study on Utah high schools’ implementation of the
ASCA National Model related to student outcomes and found the SCPIS to have
acceptable reliability and construct validity representing the elements of ASCA National
Model Implementation. Carey, Harrington, Martin, and Hoffman (2012) utilized the
SCPIS in the evaluation of the outcomes of the implementation of the ASCA National
Model in rural and suburban Nebraska. Results of the hierarchical linear regression
analysis showed the school counseling services subscale focused on student development
which predicted the reduction of suspensions and office referrals and an increase in
standardized test scores. Similarly, Olsen, Parikh-Foxx, Flowers, and Algozzine adapted
the SCPIS to measure the rate of ASCA aligned activities conducting an online survey
with 341 school counselors. The results indicated that the respondents are occasionally
performing the functions of program orientation at 60%, use of computer software and
data at 78%, and counseling services at 84%. The SCPIS is included in Appendix B and
permission to use SCPIS from the leading author is included in Appendix C.
48
Demographic Data Questionnaire. The researcher created a demographic data
sheet (Appendix D) to collect and report rich descriptions of the participants (Gast &
Ledford, 2014; Sheperis et al., 2017). Each participant wrote in their responses on the
demographic sheet. The demographics sheet gathered data on participants’ age, gender,
race, education, experience as a school counselor, current school setting such as public,
private, charter, grade level, the year of graduation from their master’s program, work
time allocation across school counseling activities, and whether they have a written
CSCP.
Recruitment and Consent Procedures
The researcher sent a recruitment email (see Appendix E), communicated through
email and by phone to set up one-on-one meetings, then met with each potential
participant in-person to provide information about the study, level of involvement,
possible gains, and gave informed consent (see Appendix F). Participants completed the
demographic information sheet and created a numerical four-digit code for themselves
(Appendix D). Each completed the SCPIS online through Qualtrics (Appendix B) twice
a week for two weeks to establish a consistent baseline. Participants used a four-digit
identifier on all data sources to safeguard identities. The exclusion criteria of the study
eliminated seasoned school counselor participants who do not need the training if they
received a SCPIS score of 50 or above during the baseline phase. These individuals have
the required competency level to implement a CSCP, as per the SCPIS and do not need
the intervention (Clemons et al., 2010).
Methods
First, the author’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the study to collect
data from human subjects. The researcher had individual meetings with participants
49
explaining the research study, the investment of time, the ASCA National Model
Training, the SCPIS online survey, homework assignments, training fidelity checklist,
and social validity questionnaire.
After recruitment, rich descriptions were gathered on each participant through the
write in demographic questionnaire to establish external validity to ensure replication
(Gast & Ledford, 2014; Horner et al., 2005). The participants serve as their comparison
condition starting with baseline, throughout the ASCA training phase, and then
maintenance (Lenz, 2015). The online SCPIS was administered twice a week for two
weeks during the baseline phase to establish a pattern of response that can be used to
predict performance (Horner et al., 2005).
The intervention phase consisted of three in-person, three-hour training sessions,
which occurred weekly for three weeks. During this phase, participants were assessed
twice a week, once at the end of each training and again after completion of assignments
on individual school counseling programs, resulting in a total of six assessments per
participant. The online SCPIS continued throughout the training or treatment phase twice
per week for three weeks, once after the training and once after completion of the
homework assignments. It was also used during the maintenance phase once at three, six,
and nine weeks to assess competency retainment.
The training took place at the Lorain County Education Service Center. The large
lecture room was able to be rearranged to encourage small group discussion with a focal
point for PowerPoint presentations. The space allowed for three hours of professional
development without outside interruptions. A detailed description of the setting is
necessary to keep the rigor of the study and allow for future replication (Horner et al.,
2018).
50
Baseline. The researcher assessed the participants’ competencies of implementing
a CSCP to acquire a baseline score of program implementation. The SCPIS was
administered four times to establish stability in the baseline phase (Ray, 2015).
Individually, participants completed the SCPIS with a total of four data points. The
survey was completed twice a week for two weeks to establish a baseline for each
participant on their competence in implementing a CSCP (Clemens et al., 2010). The
participants assessed their CSCPs and the degree to which they align with the ASCA
National Model, as measured by SCPIS. All three participants scored below 50 on the
SCPIS: Counselor 1 scored 32, 35, 38 and 34 (M= 34.25, SD= 3.30); Counselor 2 scored
36, 38, 32, and 31 (M= 37.83, SD= 9.47) ; and Counselor 3 scored 38, 44, 48, and 48
(M= 46, SD= 4.72).
Training Development. The ASCA National Model served as the conceptual
framework for the development of the training protocol (Appendix E), which focused on
four interconnected components (i.e., foundation, management, delivery, and
accountability), the four themes [(i.e., leadership, advocacy, collaboration, and systemic
change, and the input of experts in the school counseling profession; ASCA, 2012;
Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017; Hatch & Chen-Hayes, 2008)]. The training touched on a
spectrum of school counselor competencies, such as setting up program goals, abiding by
professional ethical standards and the Mindset and Behaviors, use of time assessment,
and incorporation of data (ASCA, 2012; ASCA, 2014). The researcher worked with an
expert panel of three members who possess intensive knowledge and education in the
ASCA National Model, train others in implementing a CSCP, and have at least two years
of experience in implementing a CSCP. The initial training protocol and training
materials were sent to each panel member for review. The author worked with each
51
member individually adjusting the objectives and materials used for each training day.
After all the suggested adjustments were made then a new training protocol and material
list was sent to the panel for final review. The consultation with the panel of experts in
the school counseling profession provided the feedback necessary and modifications were
made to ensure the training was complete and valid (Dimmitt, Carey, McGannon, &
Hennington, 2005). Based on panel feedback, adjustments were made to the training
protocol, homework assignments, and treatment validity checklists prior to IRB approval.
Training with response measures. Participants received three three-hour ASCA
National Model training sessions. Take-home assignments allowed participants to apply
the skills to continue to develop their written CSCP. The participant completed the
SCPIS survey assessing their competence to implement CSCP at the end of each training
session and after completion of the assignments. Each participant had six data points
from the intervention phase. The professional development intervention for seasoned
school counselors on the ASCA National Model consisted of three three-hour training
sessions held three weeks in a row and each week participants were given an assignment
to complete. Training specifics are included in Appendix G; however, they are
thoroughly explained below so as to provide transparency about the independent variable
(Ray, 2015).
Day one. The intervention was a lecture and small group discussion format using
PowerPoint, which can be used again in the future to ensure replication. The training
highlighted the history of school counseling, compared and contrasted the service
delivery model with the ASCA National Model, and reviewed the four components and
modeling the use of the tools provided (ASCA, 2012; Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017).
Participants were given a homework assignment to create a data-driven classroom lesson
52
based on the Mindset and Behaviors (ASCA, 2014) and an outline for a small group
activity based on student needs. At the end of the training, participants completed the
SCPIS survey online and the treatment fidelity sheet handout. After completion of the
homework, participants completed the SCPIS again before the next training session.
Participants were allowed to complete the homework assignment and the follow-up
SCPIS based on their availability, as long as it was completed prior to the start of the next
training session.
Day two. The intervention started with a verbal review of their lesson and the
outline of small group activity. The instructor demonstrated the tools provided by ASCA
in each component for school counselors to use to collect school data to continue to shape
a CSCP. A lecture and group discussion based on the themes of the ASCA National
Model was highlighted to increase knowledge. Each participant shared how each theme
applied to their school. Next, the three domains of the ASCA standards were reviewed,
and participants were instructed to create a list of the counseling services in each domain
that they currently implement at their schools. Participants realized they were already
actively engaged in school counseling programming in each of the domains. Placing the
services they were already providing in the ASCA National Model Framework helped
them grow in confidence. Participants were given a homework assignment to add an
activity in each domain for each grade level for each grading period and complete the
school data profile. At the end of the training, the participants completed the SCPIS
online and the treatment fidelity sheet. After completion of their homework, they finished
the SCPIS online, before the next training session.
Day three. The intervention started by reviewing the homework assignment.
After was a lecture and group discussion focused on the use of data to drive a CSCP,
53
participants examined a case study and used the data to drive decisions on school
counseling services to address the needs of the students. Participants learned how to
access the accountability tools provided by ASCA, on the different types of data to gather
on their schools, learn how to use, and analyze this data. At the end of the training, the
participants completed the SCPIS online and the treatment fidelity sheet. For homework,
the participants had to create an outline of a three to five year strategic plan to implement
their CSCP. After completion of their homework, they finished their final SCPIS online
assessment for the intervention phase.
Maintenance. The maintenance phase was used to determine if the removal of
the ASCA National Model training had an impact on the participants’ competency levels
in implementing a CSCP. The follow-up data included three data points (i.e., three, six,
and nine weeks after the training), assessed by the SCPIS.
Treatment Fidelity
Treatment fidelity refers to procedural confidence critical to assess whether an
intervention is responsible for the change in observed behavior (Gast & Ledford, 2014).
Reporting the treatment fidelity of implementation of the training must be clear and
replicable (Horner et al., 2005). The researcher maintained the treatment fidelity
throughout the intervention by following the training protocol approved by the expert
panel, having the participants complete a treatment integrity checklist, and keeping a log
of any changes or threats to internal validity (Holt, Limberg, Ohrt, & Schmit, 2015).
After each day of training was completed, both the participants and the researcher
examined the sections of the fidelity of the treatment checklist to confirm that all
objectives were satisfied completely. The fidelity checklists for the three days of training
54
are included in the Appendix H. Participants and the researcher checked the fidelity of
treatment items at 100%.
Social Validity
In addition to the effects of the ASCA National Model Training on the seasoned
school counselor competency in implementing a CSCP, it is essential in an ABA design
to assess the social validity of the intervention (Gast & Ledford, 2014). Wolf (1978)
proposed the construct of social validity to measure the importance of the intervention
and the target behavior on the degree of influence indicated by participants. Holt,
Limberg, Ohrt, and Schmit (2015) suggested three questions to ask to assess social
validity in SCRD: a) is the intervention relevant and of interest to the client or society? b)
was it feasible and necessary and c) if they were satisfied with what they learned during
the training to implement the skills in the future. In this study, the participants were
asked to answer an open-ended response questionnaire (see Appendix I) to document
their perceptions of the impact of training (Holt et al., 2015). The open-ended questions
asked participants what aspect of the ASCA National Model training did they find the
most and least helpful when implementing their CSCP. They were asked for any
suggestions to improve the training. They were asked if the ASCA National Model was
important in their daily role as a school counselor. They were asked about their
understanding of the ASCA National Model and if they would use it in the future.
Data Analysis
Two methods of analysis were used to determine the effects the training had on
the dependent variable (i.e., seasoned school counselors' competencies in implementing a
CSCP). The first method, as is standard with data collected using SCRD, was visual
analysis (Horner et al., 2005). The graphing display for each participant on the dependent
55
variable (scores on the SCPIS) was graphed over time starting with the collection of the
first data point and continued until the collection of the last data point. The data was
analyzed to observe changes in level, trend, and variability from baseline to intervention
to maintenance. The second method is nonoverlap effect size to quantify change between
the baseline and treatment phase (Sherperis et al., 2017). Nonoverlap of all Pairs was
used in the current study and will be explained further in future paragraphs (Parker &
Vannest, 2009).
Formative Grapher. The researcher used the Formative Grapher created by
Cole (2017), an open-source application for Microsoft Excel, to create and update the
single-subject graphs throughout the data collection points of this study. This tool creates
a formative assessment of each participant's SCPIS scores (Vannest & Ninci, 2014) by
displaying behavioral data path levels and trends between data points (Cooper et al. 2007;
Gast & Ledford, 2014). The researcher used Formative Grapher to create the line graph.
The horizontal x-axis represented the passage of time, and the vertical y-axis represented
the change in SCPIS scores (Cooper et al. 2007). There was a minimum of 4 data points
for the baseline phase and 6 data points for the intervention phase and 3 data points for
the follow-up phase. Then data paths were created to show a behavioral change in each
participant. The behavioral data path levels and trends between data points allowed the
researcher to conclude the conditions impacting behavior change (Cooper et al. 2007).
Nonoverlap of All Pairs. This SCRD allowed the researcher to evaluate the
effect size or the degree of change in the target behavior (i.e., SCPIS score), with the use
of the Nonoverlap of All Pairs (NAP) method to show difference between baseline and
intervention phases (Parker & Vannest, 2009; Vannest & Ninci, 2014). With NAP when
there is no overlap between phases this is an indicator of performance change or effect
56
size, in SCRD (Parker & Vannest, 2009). NAP showed the number of nonoverlapping
pairs in this study. An overlap counts as one point, tie as a .50 point, and no overlap as 0.
Parker and Vannest (2009) study found NAP to outperform the other nonoverlap of pair
methods since every data point is paired in the intervention phase against every data point
in the baseline phase. With the NAP index, the researcher looked at the number of
comparison pairs showing no overlap, divided by the total number of possible
comparisons. To determine the total number of overlapping pairs (total = N), the 4 data
points in phase A are multiplied by the 6 data points in phase B with the total number of
possible comparisons for this study was 24 (Parker&Vannest, 2009).
Summary
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention of a
comprehensive training based on the ASCA National Model on the seasoned school
counselors’ competencies to implement a CSCP or target behaviors using clinical
judgment to evaluate a functional relationship or causal inference between the outcome
variable (i.e., competency level in implementing the ASCA National Model) and the
treatment/intervention (i.e., the comprehensive training on ASCA National model
developed by the researcher; Ray, 2015; Vannest & Ninci, 2014). The recommended
quality indicators were used to ensure a robust SCRD design focused on the area of
participants, setting, the dependent and independent variables, baseline, treatment,
experimental control to secure internal and external validity, and social validity (Horner
et al., 2005). The information gained from the participants in this study on competency
development based on the training provided can be used to strengthen the professional
development for practicing school counselors and counseling education programs, and it
can impact the counseling profession and the students they serve.
57
Chapter Four
Results
The author uses Chapter 4 to present the findings of the comprehensive training
on the ASCA National Model on seasoned school counselor participants’ competency to
implement a comprehensive school counseling program between phase A (baseline),
phase B (intervention), and followed by maintenance data phase (Gast & Ledford, 2014;
Horner et al.; Sheperis, Young, & Daniels, 2017). The data below will show the
competency levels of the participants prior to the training, during baseline, and after the
training. The presentation of the research questions (RQ) and results is as follows: RQ4,
RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3. RQ4 is a culmination of RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3. Figure 1 shows the
results of RQ4 and competency level change for the seasoned school counselors’ ability
to implement a CSCP.
Seasoned School Counselors’ Competency
Research Question 1. Research Question one asked, “Did participation in the
comprehensive training on the American School Counseling Association National Model
(independent variable) developed and provided by the researcher significantly enhance
the competence levels of seasoned school counselor participants to implement a
Comprehensive School Counseling Program, measured by the School Counseling
Program Implementation Survey (dependent variable)?” As is evidence in Figure 1, all
counselors increased their scores on the SCPIS from baseline to training and maintained
the increased levels three, six, and nine weeks post training. The thirteen data points of
the dependent variable (scores on the SCPIS) were graphed using Formative Grapher
over time for each counselor analyzing patterns of the data compared in terms of changes
58
in level, trend, and variability from one phase to the next (Gast & Ledford, 2014). The
sessions on the graph represent the four baseline data points listed as B1, B2, B3, & B4;
the training and homework for session 1 i.e.,T1, H1, 2 i.e, T2, H2, and 3 i.e., T3 and H3;
and maintenance M1 at three weeks, M2 at six weeks, and M3 at nine weeks. The
findings of the SCRD study based on the research question above establish a causal or
functional relationship between the independent variable, the training, and the increased
change of the dependent variable, the SCPIS score shown in Table 1 (Horner et al.,
2005). The visual graph analysis of the impact of the training for all participants and the
NAP effect size are presented below.
Effects of the Comprehensive Training on SCPIS Scores
Baseline Training Maintenance

80
Janice
70 Becky
Linda
60
50
SCPIS Scores
40
30
20
10
B1 B2 B3 B4 T1
H1 T2 H2 T3 H3 M1 M2 M3
Sessions
Figure 1. Participants: School Counseling Program Implementation Scores for the three
phases of the study (two weeks of baseline, three weeks of treatment, and nine weeks of
the maintenance phase).
59
The calculation of the percentage of non-overlapping of data was used to compare
scores between baseline and intervention phases to determine the degree of performance
change in the SCPIS scores of participants (Gast & Ledford, 2014). The NAP effect size
for the study supports the visual graph above with line graphs of all three counselors. The
total possible number of overlapping pairs comparisons for this study is 24 for each
participant and multiplied by three (Parker & Vannest, 2009). Thirteen overlaps existed
between the 6 data points in the training phase and four baseline data points with an
effect size of 82%. It is resulting in moderate effectiveness of the study based on Scruggs
and Mastropier (1998) guidelines to interpret effect sizes when using a nonoverlap data
analysis like NAP.
Table 1
Participant Mean Scores for Each Phase
Mean Janice Becky Linda
Baseline Mean 34.75 34.35 44.5
Interventions Mean 53.33 37.83 47.33
Maintenance Mean 71.66 47.33 71___

Note. Mean data from all three participants for all three phases.
Research Question 2. Research question two asked, “How did each participant
score during the baseline phase (i.e., Phase A), assessed twice a week with a total of four
data points before receiving the training, using the School Counseling Program
Implementation Survey?” Twenty is the minimum score a participant could score on the
SCPIS survey with no characteristics of ASCA National Model program implementation
present. Eighty is the highest possible score with all characteristics fully implemented.
The SCPIS baseline scores were low and relatively stable across all counselors as shown
60
in Table 2. Linda had the highest baseline mean score of 44.5. The other counselors had
similar baseline mean scores. Janice’s baseline mean score was 34.75 and Becky’s
baseline mean score was 34.25. Each experienced a different trend in their overall SCPIS
during the baseline phase, and each scored within the recommended .25% range of the
median level of all data points in a condition ensuring stability (Gast & Ledford, 2014).
For all counselors, there were no remarkable differences in SCPIS scores during the
baseline phase, solidifying stable baseline scores for each participant. Participant
baseline scores above were consistent with what they reported on their demographic
sheets.
Table 2
Baseline Phase Data
Data Point Janice Becky Linda
B1 32 36 38
B2 35 38 44
B3 38 32 48
B4 34 31 48___
Mean 34.75 34.25 44.5_

Note. The baseline phase data from all three participants.
Research Question 3. Research question three asked, “How did each participant
score during the intervention phase (i.e., Phase B), assessed after each training session
and homework assignment for a total of six data points, using the School Counseling
Program Implementation Survey?” As can be seen from the graph presented in Figure 1,
two of the three counselors increased their competency scores during the treatment phase
and continued with the trend. The third counselor, Becky, decreased once the training
61
started and remained below the baseline mean until the middle of the phase. The amount
of change within the condition was different for each participant based on the first and
last data points figuring the absolute level of change in the phase. Janice’s change was
30. Becky’s change was 19. And, Linda’s change was 17. All three improved during this
phase but with different trends as seen in Table 3 below. After the first day of training
(data point 5) and after the completion of the take-home (data point 6), two of the three
counselors had increased their SCPIS scores. Becky’s trend changed in a positive
direction after the 8th data point. All three counselors continued to increase their SCPIS
scores after the last training session (data point 9) and after the completion of the take-
home assignment or last data point of the intervention phase. Throughout the training
there was a positive, linear trend for all participants. Each participants’ scores were
higher at the end of phase 2 than at the beginning, even though Becky’s scores did not
increase immediately.
Table 3
Intervention Phase Data
T1 37 30 52
H1 43 30 52
T2 53 28 59
H2 58 44 57
T3 62 46 66
H3 67 49 69__
Mean 53.33 37.83 59.16

Note. The intervention data from all three participants for the SCPIS scores from training and homework of day 1, day 2, and day 3.
62
Research Question 4. Finally, Research Question four asked, “How did each
participant score during the maintenance phase collected at three, six, and nine weeks
post-intervention (i.e., Phase A)?” During the maintenance phase, after the training
ended, all three participants continued to increase or maintain the competencies they
acquired to implement a comprehensive program shown in Table 4. Linda’s competency
continues to increase during the maintenance. Janice and Becky have stable scores that
are higher than baseline and intervention indicating they maintained the knowledge
gained during training.
Table 4
Maintenance Phase Data
M1 74 46 68
M2 67 50 70
M3 74 46 75__
Mean 71.66 47.33 71__

Note. The maintenance phase data for all three participants.
The results below show the performance of each participant before the
intervention and during and after the training. The effect size for each participant was
calculated. Figure 2 shows the results of RQ1 and competency level change for Janice’s
competency to implement a CSCP.
63
Janice
Janice's Competency
80
70
60
50
SCPIS Scores
40
30
20
10
B1 B2 B3 B4 T1 H1 T2 H2 T3 H3 M1 M2 M3
Sessions
Figure 2. Janice: School Counseling Program Implementation Scores for the three phases
of the study (two weeks of baseline, three weeks of treatment, and nine weeks of the
maintenance phase).
Janice’s baseline scores ranged from 32 to 38 and there was little variability (SD
= 2.5) and no discernable trend. Her performance during baseline level was stable with a
median of 34.5 with an 8.625 stability envelope with low variability and a mean baseline
of 34.75. Janice’s trend for this phase was an increase in the second and third data
collection and a slight decrease in the fourth.
Janice’s intervention, scores ranged from 37 to 67 and (SD= 11.46) Counselor 1
performance during the training was a mean score 53.33. Scores increased from baseline
64
levels once the training started for Counselor 1. Each data point showed an increase with
each data collection with a 37 at the end of the day one of the training and 43 after the
assignment, scored a 53 at the end of day two of the training and 58 after the end of the
assignment, and 62 at the end of day three of the training and 67 after the assignment.
All intervention SCPIS scores were well above the mean baseline of 34.74.
Janice’s maintenance phase scores ranged from 67 to 74 and (SD= 4.04). Scores
increased from the intervention level even after the training ceased. Counselor 1
performance during the maintenance phase was a mean score of 71.66. The trend
fluctuated during this phase with an increase to 74 at three weeks, return to a 67 at six
weeks, and an increase to 74 at nine weeks at or above her final treatment phase score.
Janice’s scores remained well above her baseline mean score of 34.75.
The NAP effect size supports the visual graph, as 96% of the paired data points
between Phase A (baseline) and Phase B (training) were nonoverlapping. Only one
overlap existed between the six data points in the training phase and four baseline data
points with an effect size of 96%. This resulted in a significant increase in SCPIS for
Janice, even after the trained ended.
Becky
The results below show the performance of Becky before the intervention and
during and after the training. The effect size for Becky was also calculated and will be
explained after her visual analysis. Figure 3 shows the results of RQ1 and competency
level change for Becky’s competency to implement a CSCP.
65
Becky's Competency
80
70
60
SCPIS Scores
50
40
30
20
10
B1 B2 B3 B4 T1 H1 T2 H2 T3 H3 M1 M2 M3
Sessions
Figure 3. Becky: School Counseling Program Implementation Scores for the three phases
maintenance phase).
During baseline, scores ranged from 31 to 38, and there was little variability (SD
= 3.30) with a discernable trend. Becky performance during the baseline phase was
stable with a median 34 with an 8.5 stability envelope with low variability and a mean of
34.25. She exhibited a trend of an increase after the second data point and decrease the
third and fourth data collection. This decrease continued into phase 2 and did not change
until the eighth data collection, which is noteworthy.
During intervention, Becky scores ranged from 28 to 49, with an (SD= 9.47) with
performance during the treatment phase was a mean score of 37.83 and a discerning
trend. The trend during the training showed a decreased scored of 30 at the end of day
66
one of the training and 30 after the assignment both below the baseline mean of 34.25.
She scored a 28 below the baseline mean of 34.25 at the end of the second day of training
and then an increase to a 44 after the assignment. Her scores continued to increase to a 46
at the end of day three of training and 49 after the assignment. Despite the initial decrease
from the mean baseline score of 34.25, Becky’s score turned around in the middle of the
phase with a final mean score of 37.83 showing overall growth.
During maintenance, scores range from 46 to 50, and there was little variability
(SD=2.30) and no discernable trend. Becky’s performance during the maintenance phase
was a mean of 47.33, and the trend was stable with 46 at three weeks, 50 at six weeks,
and 46 at nine weeks remained relatively stable compared to the last score of the
treatment phase data point of 49 and well above the baseline mean score 34.25.
The NAP effect size supports the visual graph and the lowest effect size of all
three participants. The total possible number of overlapping pairs comparisons for this
study is 24 (Parker&Vannest, 2009). Each comparison yielded 1.0 because 12 no
overlaps exist between the 6 data points in the training phase and four baseline data
points with an effect size of 50%. It is resulting in an increase in the SCPIS score with a
debatable effective treatment for Becky (Lenz, 2013).
Linda
The results below show the performance of Linda before the intervention and
during and after the training. The effect size for Linda was also calculated and will be
explained after her visual analysis. Figure 4 shows the results of RQ1 and competency
level change for Linda’s competency to implement a CSCP.
67
Linda's Competency
80
70
60
SCPIS Scores
50
40
30
20
10
B1 B2 B3 B4 T1 H1
T2 H2 T3 H3 M1 M2 M3
Sessions
Figure 4. Linda: School Counseling Program Implementation Scores for the three phases
maintenance phase).
Linda’s baseline scores ranged from 38 to 48 and there was little variability (SD =
4.72) and no discernable trend. Her performance during the baseline phase was a mean of
44.5 and a median of 46 with a stability envelope of 11.25 with low variability. She
exhibited an upward trend with the same score for the third and fourth data points.
Linda’s intervention scores ranged from 52 to 69, and there was little variability
(SD= 7.08). Her performance for the phase was a mean of 59.16 and with an upward
trend. Upon the start of the training, her scores increased from baseline levels with a 52
after day one and after the assignment, a 59 after day two of the training, 57 after the
assignment, 66 after day three, and a 69 after the assignment.
68
Linda’s maintenance phase scores ranged from 68 to 75 and (SD=3.60), and her
performance was a mean of 71. Scores increased from the intervention level even after
the training ceased. The trend was an increase in SCPIS score throughout this phase well
above the baseline mean of 44.5
The NAP effect size supports the visual graph for Linda. The total possible
number of overlapping pairs comparisons for this study is 24 (Parker&Vannest, 2009).
Each comparison yielded 1.0 because no overlap existed between the 6 data points in the
training phase and four baseline data points with an effect size of 100%. Resulting in a
significant increase in SCPIS for Counselor 3 even when the trained ended.
Social Validity
In addition to the effectiveness of the ASCA National Model training, Wolf ‘s
(1978) construct of social validity measured the importance of the intervention and the
participants’ target behavior. In the five open-ended response questions, the participants
were encouraged to give feedback on the training, what they found most helpful and least
helpful, suggestions for improvements, and the importance of the ASCA National Model
in their daily role of a school counselor. Counselors’ responses to the social validity
questionnaire at the end of the training revealed all found the training to helpful,
professionally important, and felt more confident in the ASCA National model and how
to use it in the future.
In response to the aspects of the ASCA National Model training, they found most
helpful when implementing their CSCP. Janice found “using the mindset and behaviors
to write lessons that include many areas.” Becky expressed “ the whole thing was
extremely helpful. I think the one thing that meant the most was that this is an individual
CSCP. I am no longer waiting for my colleagues to get on board, but I am going to lead".
69
Linda listed “the needs assignments, chart of mindset and behavior of student success,
and the binder information on the ASCA model.”
In response to what was not helpful. Janice expressed “nothing I believe once I
learn the components of the model it is going to improve my school program. This model
has greatly increased my confidence in my school counseling abilities”. Becky stated, “it
was helpful.” Linda stated, " right now not the results report -too many other things to
concentrate on right now.”
In response to suggestions to improve the training. Janice suggested, “maybe a
little more time to practice the use of the model but I imagine it will happen with daily
use.” Becky recommended “ more time together and more elementary school
counselors.” Linda listed “instructor was very helpful and knowledgeable, background
and history were good, step by step – maybe more-or examples of a plan.”
In response to the importance of the ASCA National Model in the daily role as a
school counselor. Janice wrote, “yes, it is going to change my direction and success rate.”
Becky recorded “absolutely.” Linda scripted “yes – and I did not feel this way before the
training. It opened my eyes to the importance of ASCA.”
In response to understanding the ASCA National Model and if they use it in the
future. Janice wrote “yes!!!,” Becky “yes!,” and Linda “ yes - very much so.” Last,
counselors’ opinions of the usefulness of the training, did they find the intervention to be
socially valid, and whether they will use the ASCA National model in their counseling
program.
In review of social validity, all three Counselors' had favorable opinions regarding
the personal use of the training and stated they would use the ASCA National model in
their counseling program. All three stated they felt more confident in their understanding
70
of the model and believed it is vital in their daily role as a school counselor. The format
seemed acceptable to improve competency along with changed attitudes suggesting all
three participants should increase counseling services to students (Gast & Ledford, 2014;
Wolf, 1978; and Mullins & Lambie, 2016).
Summary
In this chapter, visual and NAP results were presented regarding the effectiveness
of the ASCA National Model Training on seasoned school counselors’ competency to
implement a CSCP. The results support the overall effectiveness of the training with all
three participants showing growth supporting a functional relationship between the
training and the increase in competency based on their SCPIS score. The overall study
has a moderate effect size of 82%. The intervention was very effective for Janice with a
very effective effect size of 96%. The intervention had a debatable effectiveness for
Becky with an effect size of 50%. The intervention was very effective for Linda with an
effect size of 100%. The results will be discussed further in the next chapter.
71
Chapter Five
Discussion
The central purpose of this study was to explore the effects of the comprehensive
training on the ASCA National Model on seasoned school counselors’ competency in
implementing a CSCP. This ABA study was designed to investigate if seasoned school
counselors would increase their competency in implementing a CSCP and, if so, would
they retain the competencies learned during the training post-intervention. Further, the
author sought to understand the counselors’ opinions of the training’s usefulness, whether
or not they found the intervention to be socially valid, and if they will use the ASCA
National model in their counseling programs. In this chapter, the author presents the
study’s findings and contextualizes these findings with literature. Further, she presents
the implications of the results for the counseling profession. The study’s limitations are
acknowledged. Chapter five closes with suggestions for future researchers and a project
summary.
Summary of Findings
As anticipated, the training was effective in raising the competency in
implementing a CSCP as evidenced by an increase in SCPIS scores for all three
participants (Astramovich, 2016; Hartline & Cobia, 2012; Milsom & McCormick, 2015).
Overall the competency scores of the three seasoned school counselors measured by the
SCPIS was the lowest during the baseline phase. Two of the three seasoned school
counselors' SCPIS competency scores increased throughout the intervention phase
showing the effect of the ASCA National Model training. One did not increase until the
halfway point through the intervention phase. Based on comments from the participant
72
during the training, the more she learned about the model, the more she realized she was
not implementing it. The researcher hoped participants would retain the competency
learned during the training but did not expect the mean scores of the participants to
increase during the maintenance phase.
Every participant showed a significant increase by the end of the intervention
phase. For Janice and Linda, the change occurred right after the start of the training,
while Becky’s scores continued to decrease until the three data point of the intervention
phase and then increased significantly with a mean average for the phase of 37.83 over
the mean average for the baseline phase of 34.25. It was not until Becky started listing
all the services she was already providing to the students in her school and placing them
into the ASCA National Model framework that her score started to increase. Even with
her decrease in the beginning of the intervention phase her score still increased 19 points
from the baseline phase. Janice showed the most growth visually of 30 points and she
continued to verbalize this experience to others. Linda’s score was the highest of the
three from the baseline phase but she still gained 17 points during the intervention phase.
The results support a functional relationship between the intervention and counselors'
increased competency to implement a CSCP.
The maintenance phase outcomes for the counselors’ competency growth to
implement a CSCP was more variable but still demonstrated a mean increase for all
participants. The level of growth during this phase was unanticipated but it could be
explained by the participants using the competencies learned during the training in their
school counseling programs and sharing the data with others. Linda was taking what she
learned and sharing it with the other counselors in her school. Janice shared with me
how this impacted her new goals for her counseling program this year and next. She has
73
already implemented numerous school-wide programs using the ASCA Mindset and
Behaviors. By incorporating the accountability tools provided by ASCA in daily practice
and the increase confidence in competence the participants are implementing more
counseling services (Hartline & Cobia, 2012; Milsom, & McCormick, 2015; Mullins &
Lambie, 2016).
Interpretations of Findings
Research supported the knowledge gap on the ASCA National Model which
served as the conceptual framework of the study (Astramovich, Coker, & Hoskins;
Hartline & Cobia, 2012; Milsom, & McCormick, 2015). Some seasoned school
counselors have a lack of understanding in the foundation, delivery, management, and
assessment of the ASCA National Model (2012) framework and the infused themes of
leadership, advocacy, collaboration, and systemic changes. This impacts their ability to
provide intentional guidance that addresses the academic, career, and personal/social
needs of the 21st century student (ASCA, 2012; Hatch, 2014). The inclusion criteria of
the participants required the school counselors to be trained before the ASCA National
Model. Seasoned school counselors were not trained on the ASCA National Model, thus
lack the knowledge of the overarching structure and competence needed to fully
implement a CSCP (Hartline & Cobia, 2012). Holby’s (2017) study highlighted the lack
of professional development and resources as primary impediments in implementing the
ASCA National Model.
The comprehensive training was created to fill the gap of the specific population
of seasoned school counselors. All three participants had a positive attitude and
willingness to learn about the ASCA National Model to enable them to create a written
CSCP. School counselors see the value in regular professional development
74
opportunities and would benefit from mentoring to design, implement, and evaluate data-
driven school counseling programs (Astramovich, 2016). Similar to what Milsom and
McCormick ( 2015) found that participants care about the accountability component of
the ASCA National Model but lacked the training and the confidence to engage, so they
did not. All three participants had a mean baseline score of 34 to 44.5 below the study
exclusion criteria score of 50 showing they could benefit from professional development.
One concern was that Becky’s SCPIS score even after the training did not go above a 50.
Based on her comments the more she learned about the ASCA National Model the more
she realized she was not implementing it in her CSCP.
During the first day of training participants came engaged and ready to learn
about the history of school counseling, the service delivery model, ASCA National
Model, reviewed the four components and modeled the use of the tools provided by
ASCA. Participants expressed that the majority of their time spent on responsive service
delivery. Responsive services provided by school counselors only benefit certain groups
of students, without a systemic curriculum considering the needs of all students (Gillen,
Martinez, and Skytte, 2012). Participants worked on the mission statement, program
goals, list of all interventions, school improvement goals, and completed the School
Counseling Program assessment. Allowing the school counselors to work on projects
together with other counselors created an environment where individuals were prepared
to work, share resources, and receive help (Milsom & McCormick, 2015). The assigned
homework had participants create a classroom lesson plan for their students based on the
ASCA Mindset and Behaviors (2014) and an outline for a needed small group activity
(ASCA, 2012). Becky verbalized how much she was learning about the ASCA National
Model and was not doing it in her school counseling program.
75
During the second day of training, participants shared their homework
assignments and reviewed the components of the ASCA National Model. The class
continued with a review of the themes, intentional guidance with the multi-tier system of
delivery by Hatch (2014), and completed a list of delivery of services in each domain for
each grade level for each quarter in your written comprehensive school counseling
program. Becky’s SCPIS score continued to go down for the first three data points of the
intervention phase, and it is suspected it was based on learning all that she did not know.
Once she completed the list of services for each of the three domains delivered to her
students each academic quarter, she realized what she was doing fit into the ASCA
National Model. This was a turning point for her increasing her engagement and
confidence. Now all three participants were providing feedback and examples of what
they do in their program that fits into the four components and themes. The participants
needed to complete the ASCA school data template for homework.
During the third day, the participants shared the data they had collected from their
schools, created a data-driven core curriculum, close the gap and small group action
plans, and could examine the process, perception, and outcome data they would use to
evaluate effectiveness. A needs assessment created by the researcher and other school
counselors were shared. Each participant started sharing school counseling interventions
that could be implemented to address student needs using the multi-tiered intentional
guidance. Each participant was able to explain how they would use data to create
programming and show the effectiveness of their services.
Similar to what Milsom & McCormick (2015) found that once participants gained
experience and confidence in one area, they were more open to try another. It was
apparent that the participants were figuring out how to merge what they are doing in their
76
school counseling program with the model to create a CSCP. Each counselor was
assisting one another and grew as a result. Young and Kaffenberger (2015) found that
effective professional development occurs when the training matches the participants'
goals, the opportunity to practice the newly learned skills, and coaching. This was the
same experience that was occurring during the session where the participants were
teaching and supporting each other with the tools from ASCA. They felt comfortable
using them and the ASCA National Model. Participants were given the assignment to
create a three-year strategic plan for their CSCP with an outline of what they want to
accomplish in year one, two, and three.
Young and Kaffenburger (2015) found that participation in ongoing professional
development had a significant relationship with the frequency of analyzing data to
increase college and career readiness. Professional development can increase knowledge
but without continued support, it might not translate to consistently using what they
learned at their schools. The ongoing training and the opportunity to apply what was
learned with the homework assignment enabled mastery performance of the tools
provided by ASCA and the continued support could explain why all three participants
SCPIS scores continued to increase during the maintenance phase after the intervention
ended (Milsom & McCormick, 2015).
Context of Findings
This study’s literature review identified three gaps; skills gaps in practicing
school counselors, lack of accessible training in the field, and lack of empirical evidence
of current training. Only ASCA provides training to districts on the ASCA National
Model components and themes. Currently, ASCA does not have empirical data on the
effectiveness of ASCA National Model training (Jen Walsh, Personal Communication,
77
January 31, 2019). A review of the literature revealed no studies on training covering the
entire ASCA National Model, but three studies focused training on the accountability
component of the model. These three studies are reviewed below with an focus on how
they relate to the present findings.
Astramovich, Coker, and Hoskins (2005) designed a field-based training
curriculum based on the ASCA National Model (2003) to train 28 practicing school
counselors on program evaluations in two separate groups. Their three-hour didactic
training encouraged participants to hypothesize the program evaluation needs at their
school sites. The first group was selected from convenience sampling from a recruitment
email, and then five respondents were purposefully selected to ensure representation
across grade levels. The second group was from the school district focused on 23
elementary school counselors. The first group of five counselors had a two-week follow-
up after the training to evaluate their ability to carry out the program evaluation skills
learned in the school setting. From the five who had follow-up only two had engaged in
evaluation activities, and the three had not due to lack of time. All participants felt the
training was helpful but recommended various trainings with application activities in
between for future professional development.
Comparing the previous literature, the participants had not been formally trained
prior, valued the professional development, and had started to implement the skills taught
in the training (Astramovich et al., 2005). The design and population were different. The
comprehensive training on the ASCA National model addressed the recommendations
from the five follow-up participants in creating a training that is consecutive and
delivered multiple times and allowed for application of skills with the homework
78
assignments, and follow-up with the multiple weekly training sessions (Astramovich et
al., 2005).
Milsom and McCormick (2015) conducted an action research project exploring
the impact of individualized mentoring intervention on four school counselors’
confidence to work with the accountability component of the ASCA model. The
participants worked with the mentor on the accountability activities they wanted to
engage in such as a needs assessment. On pre/post assessments, the participants reported
a higher level of positive attitude and more use of accountability activities after
participating in the mentoring program. The results suggested that appropriate mentoring
interventions can help school counselors apply what they learn about data collection tools
put it into practice.
When comparing the four elementary school counselors in the previous research
study the population was small and not very diverse similar to the present study (Milsom
& McCormick, 2015). The participants experienced positive growth in response to the
mentoring and are more open to engaging in other accountability activities in the future.
The current sample also showed positive growth as the result of the professional
development and stated they will use the ASCA National Model in their counseling
programs. The participants were showing understanding of the four components and how
to use the tools provided by ASCA with their school counseling programs.
Hartline and Corbia (2012) investigated the ability of school counselors to
identify gaps for marginalized students, develop interventions, evaluate effectiveness, and
share results after participation in a four-day training on the components of CSCP based
on the ASCA National Model. The population was 300 school counselors and 116
administrators making up 116 school counseling teams. After the training, 100 teams
79
completed the closing the gap summary. Analyzing the results of 100 closing the gap
summaries from a rubric created by the researcher, the finding suggested school
counselors had the ability to identify the gap and develop interventions but could not still
evaluate the effectiveness and report results. Initial exposure to new knowledge and skills
is not enough for most school counselors to be able to implement them.
The previous research varied greatly from the population and resources in this
current study (Hartline & Corbin, 2012). The results were positive for some of the goals
of the study but the participants still needed further training to evaluate the effectiveness
of their closing the gap interventions to marginalized students (Hartline & Corbin, 2012).
Professional development like the one in the current study, that allows participants to
apply what they learn to their school counseling programs with follow-up support might
have shown different results.
During the research study, one new research article was published on the factors
that impact school counselors’ ability to implement the ASCA National Model using
Clemons SCPIS (Fye, Miller, & Rainey, 2018). Results found the assignment of non-
counseling duties, principal support, and lack of knowledge of principal on the
appropriate roles of school counselors all impacted the level of implementation (Fye et
al., 2018). The finding of Fye’s (2018) study support the barrier listed in the literature
review of this current study of why seasoned school counselors have not transitioned to
the ASCA National Model.
The previous study (Fye et al., 2018) differed from the current on design and a
population of 252 practicing ASCA members who completed the online SCPIS survey
along with a questionnaire on 16 predictor characteristics of a school counselors to
implement the ASCA National Model. The reasons why school counselors do not
80
implement are consistent with the research and what participants from the current study
stated.
In this section, the results of the comprehensive training on the ASCA National
Model and the gaps in the knowledge, training, and evidence of training effectiveness in
current literature were addressed. A consistent theme throughout the literature was the
need for effective professional development opportunities to improve competency and
increase services to students (Mullins & Lambie, 2016). Next, possible suggestions on
how the profession can use this information to improve the lives of school counselors and
the students they serve.
Implications
Finding from the current study suggest a training on the ASCA National Model
designed for seasoned school counselors does increase competency in implementing a
CSCP. Previous studies have explored the importance of a data-driven CSCP with
positive student outcomes. Research also shows the lack of knowledge of practicing
school counselors and the need for professional development. The research gap occurred
trying to find empirical studies on effective training for professional school counselors.
Results from this study reveal the needs of seasoned school counselors and can facilitate
future professional development opportunities to increase the quality of school
counseling services for all students while improving the professional identities of
seasoned school counselors.
If seasoned school counselors have deficiencies in competencies then this training
could address it. School counselors need to be open to learning about the ASCA National
Model, complete a program evaluation, and create a strategic plan to design and
implement a CSCP. The foundational aspect of the ASCA National Model is to examine
81
and evaluate your school counselor competencies and focus on professional development
needs to best serve your students. The ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors
state practicing school counselors need to focus on the developmental needs of students
through the design and delivery of a CSCP (ASCA, 2016). The ethical guidelines
encourage membership in professional organizations and the focus on up-to-date school
counselor competence. School counselor need to participate in professional development
opportunities that provide them with the skills needed to use data to create programming
to help students achieve optimal career, academic, and social-emotional development
(ASCA, 2016). Join professional networking groups at the local level, join their state
professional organization, and join the American School Counseling Association. Attend
conferences, take time to build a program, and request specific training from district
supervisors.
School counselor can carry out the themes of the ASCA National Model to be
leaders, advocates, and change agents by collaborating with others to maximize program
effectiveness for the students they serve (ASCA, 2012; ASCA, 2016). The ASCA
National model provides the framework to implement a CSCP but seasoned school
counselors need to take the lead to seek out the professional development supported by
their districts to fill their knowledge gap such as the one described in the study.
School counselors’ need to assess their professional competency each year.
Participating in a comprehensive training on the ASCA National Model can help improve
their competency levels to improve their CSCP. It is their professional responsibility to
seek out resources and training opportunities to improve their counseling programs to
impact positive student outcomes.
82
Counselor educators and school district counselor supervisors could use this
comprehensive training for their practicing school counselors or could create training
programs focused on specific activities such as creating a needs assessment or analyzing
data to help practicing school counselors (Astramovich et al., 2005; Milsom &
McCormick, 2015). Professional development for seasoned school counselors is crucial
to improve the lives of students (ACA, 2014).
Counselor educators can follow the CACREP standards to guide the preparation
of school counselor trainees for the demands of the helping professions, focusing on
quality counselor preparation and professional involvement to ensure counseling identity
formation of counselor trainees (Urofsky, 2013). A significant number of seasoned
school counselors currently practice as school counselors as well as site supervisors for
school counselor trainees, although their knowledge base may not be adequate for
trainees’ needs in creating and implementing a CSCP. The research supports the need for
professional development and mentoring to assist seasoned school counselors who will
work with school counselor trainees and/or new school counselors so all can make the
most of the experience ( Astramovich et al., 2005; Milsom & McCormick, 2015).
School district leaders can use the findings from this study to use professional
development time to focus on training seasoned school counselors on the ASCA National
Model to improve their CSCP on professional development days. An increase in
competency and confidence of seasoned school counselors correlates with positive
outcome data of all students based on counseling program interventions of disadvantaged
students to close the achievement gap (Carey et al., 2012; Dollarhide & Sakinak, 2017;
Mullins & Lambie, 2016). Improving professional development for seasoned school
counselors will impact the life-long development of the whole student.
83
ASCA can use the findings from this study to make systemic changes for the
future of the profession. First, by linking with the administrator preparation program to
educate principal trainees on the ASCA National Model and how it can align with the
mission of their schools. Second, reach out to seasoned school counselors to encourage
them to join the association and provide training tailored to their needs. ASCA has
updated its list of professional development activities and shows a list of certified ASCA
Trainers on their website for RAMP level school counselors but could be intimidating for
seasoned school counselors. ASCA could provide a price break for seasoned school
counselors to encourage engagement, build a connection through email, provide small
activities for them to try to build confidence and connect them with the ASCA National
Model. It is time to unite, support, and empower the profession.
Limitations
Special care has gone into the design of the study, but several limitations exist
with the methodology and research design. The single-case design provides experimental
controls for most internal validity threats by controlling for extraneous variables by using
the same items and conditions multiple times (Gast & Ledford, 2014; Horner et al.,
2005). The demonstration of at least three different points of time with one participant or
across three participants will control the internal validity threats (Horner et al., 2005).
Several threats to external validity exist for the SCRD method such as the selection of
individual participants, only reporting successful scores, and attribution (Horner et al.,
2005). These threats were controlled by clearly defining specific selection and exclusion
criteria and including all participants who have completed the baseline and intervention
phases (Horner et al., 2005). Also, having multiple participant involvement allows for the
replication of similar experimental effects with similar participants establishing external
84
validity (Gast & Ledford, 2014; Horner et al., 2005). Reporting the fidelity of
implementation of the training must be clear and able to replicate (Horner et al., 2005).
Additional factors could be potential limitations of this study. For example, due to
the cost of training provided by ASCA, the researcher created the training based on the
key objectives of the ASCA delivered professional development listed on the website
with the support of an expert panel. The participants of this study were seasoned school
counselors from one Midwest state, thus their results may not be generalizable to
different states. Similarly, the sample size of three school counselors does provide an in-
depth analysis of changes within individual participants, but may not allow for
generalizability to the larger population. The researcher could not increase rigor by using
a multiple baseline design, since participants received the same intervention at the same
time (Ray, 2015). Another limitation is that during the small training session,
relationships could be established and could influence results, which could be inflated
due to the relationship the participant has with the researcher (Sheperis et al., 2017).
Timing to carry out the intervention at the beginning of the school year after-school four
to seven pm on Thursday evening when we were able to use the ESC without a cost and
when seasoned school counselors were available is another limitation of this study and
may not be an issue for future research. The last limitation is using the same self-report
measurement 13 times with the same participants might have a facilitative effect
impacting results (Gast & Ledford, 2014).
The participants who participated in this study were highly motivated to be
engaged and fill the gap. It could be possible that not all seasoned school counselors
would be as enthusiastic. One individual participated in the training but did not meet the
85
inclusion criteria so she was not part of the study. Social validity questionnaire had open
questions but participants responded to them like closed questions.
Directions for future research
Future research will address the specific limitations of the study. The researcher
would like to replicate the study with a larger more diverse group of seasoned school
counselor participants, including people of color, males, and middle school counselors.
Future research would improve the social validity questionnaire to acquire more helpful
feedback from participants. The researcher would also like to run the training during the
summer to allow more school counselors to participate. The researcher is also interested
in exploring the use of professional learning communities for practicing school
counselors to fill the knowledge gap, provide mentoring, and increase self-efficacy levels
of seasoned school counselors in the implementation of CSCP.
Summary
The purpose of this quantitative single-case research design study investigated
whether a supportive comprehensive training intervention on the ASCA National Model
could impact the competence level of seasoned school counselors in implementing a
CSCP to meet the needs of all students. Seasoned school counselors who met the
inclusion criteria and agreed to participate completed four SCPIS surveys during the
baseline phase, completed six SCPIS during the intervention phase, and three SCPIS
during the maintenance phase. The summary of the research questions used to examine
the causal or functional relationship the training has on the change of the SCPIS scores:
1) Did participation in the comprehensive training on the ASCA National Model, 2)
Score during baseline, 3) Score during intervention, and 4) Score during maintenance
significantly enhance the competence levels of seasoned school counselor participants to
86
implement a Comprehensive School Counseling Program, measured by the School
Counseling Program Implementation Survey (dependent variable).
All counselors increased their scores on the SCPIS from baseline to training and
maintained the increased levels three, six, and nine weeks post training. The findings of
the SCRD study based on research questions established a causal or functional
relationship between the independent variable the training and the increased change of
the dependent variable the SCPIS score. The NAP effect size for the study supports the
visual graph above with line graphs of all three counselors with an effect size of 82%. It
is resulting in moderate effectiveness of the study.
Professional development is the key to the fill the knowledge gap of seasoned
school counselors who were not trained on the ASCA National Model. Counselor
educators, school district counselor supervisors, and professional organizations could
utilize this training or use the results of this study to create programming to build school
counselor competency to implement a comprehensive school counseling program.
The participants of this study valued the professional development, engaged
actively in the three three-hour training sessions, and completed their homework
assignments. All participants helped one another during the training and kept in contact
with each other and the researcher. The participants considered the training to be socially
valid. The comprehensive training on the ASCA National Model was a wonderful
learning experience and could be replicated to help the knowledge gap for additional
seasoned school counselors.
87
References
American School Counselor Association (2014). Mindsets and Behaviors for Student
Success: K-12 College and Career Readiness Standards for Every Student.
Alexander, VA: Author.
American School Counselor Association (2003). The ASCA National Model: A
framework for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: Author
framework for school counseling programs. Second Edition. Alexandria, VA:
Author
framework for school counseling programs, Third Edition. Alexandria, VA:
Author
American School Counselor Association (2016) ASCA National Model Implementation
Guide: Foundation, Management, and Accountability. Alexandria, VA: Author
American School Counselor Association (2017) School counselor and academic
development. Retrieved from
https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/PositionStatements/PS_Acade
micDevelopment.pdf
American School Counselor Association (2017). School counselor and career
development. Retrieved from
https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/PositionStatements/PS_Career
Development.pdf
American School Counselor Association (2017). The school counselor and
social/emotional development. Retrieved from
88
https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/PositionStatements/PS_
SocialEmotional.pdf
Astramovich, R. L. (2016). Program evaluation interest and skills of school
counselor. Professional School Counselors, 20, 54- 64.
doi:10.5330/1096-2409-20.1.54
Astramovich, R.L., Coker, J. K. & Hoskins, W. J. (2005). Training school
counselors in program evaluation. Professional School Counseling, 9 (1),
49-54.
Astramovich, R. L., Hoskins, W. J., Gutierrez, A. P., & Bartlett, K. A. (2013).
Identifying role diffusion in school counseling. The Professional
Counselor, 3, 175-184. doi: 10.15241/rla.3.3.175.
Boccio, D. E. (2105). A school-based suicide risk assessment protocol. Journal
of Applied School Psychology, 31, 31-62. doi:
10.1080/15377903.2014.963272
Bryan, J. & Henry, L. (2012). A model for building school-family-community
partnerships: principles and process. Journal of Counseling and Development, 90,
408-420. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2012.00052.x
Buckhard, A. W., Gillen, M., Martinez, M. J., & Skytte, S. ( 2012) Implementation
challenges and training needs for comprehensive school counseling programs in
Wisconsin high schools. The Professional School Counseling, 16, 136-145.
doi: 10.1177/2156759X0001600201.
Carey, J. & Dimmitt, C. (2012) School counseling and student outcomes: Summary of six
statewide studies. The Professional School Counselor, 16, 146-153.
doi: 10.5330/PSC.n.2012-16.146
89
Carey, J., Harrington, K. Martin, I., & Hoffman, D. (2012). A statewide evaluation of the
outcomes of the implementation of ASCA National Model school counseling
programs in rural and suburban Nebraska high schools. Professional School
Counselor, 16, 100-107. doi: 10.1177/2156759X0001600202.
Carey, J., Harrington, K., Martin, I., & Stevens, D (2012). A statewide evaluation of the
outcomes of the implementation of the ASCA National Model school counseling
programs in high schools in Utah. Professional School Counseling, 16, 89-99.
doi: 10.1177/2156759X0001600202.
Chang, C. Y., Barrio Minton, C. A., Dixon, A., Myers, J. E., & Sweeney, T. J. (Eds.).
(2011). Professional counseling excellence through leadership and advocacy.
New York: Routledge.
Cholewa, B., Burkhardt, C. K., & Hull, M. F. (2015). Are school counselors impacting
underrepresented students’ thinking about postsecondary education? Professional
School Counseling, 19, 144-154. doi: 10.5330/1096-2409-19.1.144.
Clemens, E. V., Carey, J.C., & Harrington, K. M. (2010). The school counseling
program implementation survey: Initial Instrument Development and Exploratory
Factor Analysis. The Professional School Counseling, 12, 125 -133. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X1001400201
Cole, David. (2017). Formative Grrapher (Version 1.11) . 10.13140/RG.2.2.18860. An
open-source application for Microsoft Excel 2010, 2013, and 2016 (Mac)
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Person Education, Inc.
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (2015). 2016
CACREP Standards Manual, Alexandria, VA: Author.
90
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Dahir, C., Burnham, J. & Stone, C. (2009). Listen to the voices: School Counselors and
comprehensive school counseling program. Professional School Counseling,
12(3), 182-192. doi/10.5330/PSC.n.2010-12.182
Dahir, C. A., Burnham, J. J., Stone, C. B., & Cobb, N. (2010). Principals as partners:
Counselors as collaborators. NASSP Bulletin, 94 (4), 286-305.
doi:10.1177/0192636511399899
DeKruyf, L., Auger, R. W. , & Trice-Black, S. (2013) The role of the school counselors
in meeting students’ mental health needs: Examining issues of professional
identity. Professional School Counseling, 16, 271-282.
doi: 10.1177/2156759X0001600502.
Dimmitt, C., Carey, J., McGannon, & Hennington, (2005). Identifying a school
counseling research agenda: A delphi study. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 44, 214-228.
Dimmitt, C. & Wilkerson, B. (2012). Comprehensive school counseling in Rhode Island:
Access to services and student outcomes. Professional School Counseling, 16,
125-135. doi: 10.1177/2156759X0001600205.
Dollarhide, C. T., & Miller, G. M. (2006). Supervision for preparation and practice of
school counselors: pathway to excellence. Counselor Education and Supervision,
45, 242-252. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2006.tb00001.x.
Dollarhide, C. T. & Saginak, K. A. (2017). Comprehensive school counseling programs:
K-12 delivery systems in action. United States: Pearson
91
Elsner, D., & Carey, J. (2005). School counseling program implementation survey.
Unpublished assessment instrument.
Encyclopedia Britannica https://www.britannica.com/topic/National-Defense-Education-
Act
Fye, H. F., Miller, L. G., & Rainey, J. S. (2018) Predicting school counselors’ supports
and challenges when implementing the ASCA National Model. Profession School
Counseling, 21, 1-11. doi: 10.117/2156759X18777671
Gast, D. L. & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Single Case Research Methodology, Second
Edition, New York, NY; Routledge
Goodman-Scott, E., Betters-Buhon, J., & Donohue, P. (2016). Aligning comprehensive
school counseling programs with positive behavior interventions and supports to
maximize school counselors’ effort. Professional School Counseling 19, 57-67.
doi:10.5330/1096-2409-19.1.57
Graham, M. A., Desmond, K. J., & Zinsser, E. (2011). State mandated principals’
training-does it make a difference? An examination of principals’ perception of
the American School Counselors Association (ASCA) National Model, State-
specific models of school counseling and the roles of the school counselor.
Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 3, 95-109
Hartline, J. & Cobia, D.C. (2012). School Counselors: Closing Achievement Gaps and
writing results reports. Professional School Counseling, 16, 71-79.
doi: 10.1177/2156759X1201600109.
Hatch, T. A., (2008). Professional challenges in school counseling: Organizational,
institutional and political. Journal of School Counseling, 6, 1-33.
92
Hatch, T. (2014). The use of data in school counseling. Thousand Oaks, California:
Corwin.
Hatch, T. & Chen-Hayes, S. F. (2008). School counselor beliefs about the ASCA
national model school counseling program components using the SCPCS.
Professional School Counseling,12, 34-42. doi: 10.5330/PSC.n.2010-12.34.
Holby, N. (2017). School counselors and their experiences implementing a
comprehensive program (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1970167672?pq-origsite=gscholar
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The
use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in speciation
education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165-179.
doi:10.1177/001440290507100203.
Hott, B. L., Limberg, D., Ohrt, J. H., & Schmit, M. K. (2015) Reporting results of single-
case studies. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93, 412-417.
doi: 10.1002/jcad.12039.
Ikonomopoulos, J., Cavazos Vela, J., Smith, W. D., Dell’Aquila, J. (2016). Examining
the practicum experience to increase counseling student’s self-efficacy. The
Professional Counselor, 6, 161-173. doi: 10.15241/ji.6.2.161
Keys, S.G., Bernak, F., & Lockhart, E. J. (1998). Transforming school counseling to
serve the mental health needs of at-risk youth. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 76, 381-388.
Lambie, G. W. & Sias, S. M. (2009). An integrative psychological developmental model
of supervision for professional school counselor in training. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 87, 349-356.
93
doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2009.tb00116.x.
Lambie, G. W. & Williamson, L. L (2004). The challenge to change from guidance
counseling to professional school counseling: A historical proposition.
Professional School Counselor
Lenz, S. A. (2015). Using single-case research design to demonstrate evidence for
counseling practice. Journal for Counseling and Development, 93, 387-393.
doi:10.1002/jcad.12036
Lenz, S. A. (2013). Calculating effect size in single-case research: A comparison of
nonoverlap methods. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 46, 64-73 doi:1177/0748175612456401
Lerma, E., Zamarripa, M. X., Oliver, M., & Cavazos Vela, J. (2015) Making our way
through: Voices of Hispanic counselor educators. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 54, 162-174. doi: 10.1002/ceas.12011.
Martin, I. & Carey, J. (2014). Development of a logic model to guide evaluation of the
ASCA national model for school counseling programs. The Professional
Counselor, 4, 455-466. doi: 10.15241/lm.4.5.455
Mason, E. (2010). Leadership practices of school counselors and counseling program
implementation. NASSP Bulletin, 94, 274-285 doi: 10.1177/0192636510395012
Mason, E. C. M., Land, C., Brodie, I, Collins, K, Pennington, C., Sands, K., Sierra, M.
(2017) Data and research that matter: Mentoring school counselors to publish
action research. Professional School Counseling, 20,184-193.
doi: 10.5330/1096-2409-20.1.184.
Milsom, A. & McCormick, K. (2015) Evaluating an accountability mentoring approach
for school counselors. The Professional School Counselor, 19, 27-35.
94
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5330/2156759X1501900102
Mullins, P. R & Lambie, G.W. (2016). The contributions of school counselors’ self-
efficacy to their programmatic service delivery. Psychology in Schools, 53, 306-
320. doi:10.1002/pits.21899
Nagaoka, J., Farrington, C.A., Roderick, M., Allenworth, E., Seneca Keyes, T., Johnson,
D. W., & Beechum, N. O. (2013). Readiness for college: The role of noncognitive
factors and context. Voices in Urban Education, 38, 45-52.
Ober, A. M., Granello, D. H., & Wheaton, J. E. (2012) Grief counseling: An investigation
of counselors’ training, experience, and competencies. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 90, 150-159. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-6676.2012.00020.x
Olsen, J., Parikh-Foxx, S., Flowers, C., & Algozzine, B. (2017). An examination of
factors that relate to school counselors’ knowledge and skills in a multi-tiered
system of support. Professional School Counseling, 20, 159-171.
doi: 10.5330/1996-2409-20.1.159
Padilla, A. (2013). Empowering Chicana/o and Latina/o students: A framework for high
school counselor. Vistas Online, Article 96.
Padilla, A., & Hipolito-Delgado, C. P. (2015) Empowering Chicana/o and Latina/o high
school students: A guide to school counselors. Professional School Counselor, 19,
176-187. doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-19.1.176
Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K. (2009). An improved effect size for single-case research:
Nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40, 357-367.
doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006.
95
Plavnick, J.B., & Ferreri, S.J. (2013). Single-case experimental designs in educational
research: A methodology for causal analyses in teaching and learning.
Educational Psychological Review, 25, 549-569.doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9230-6
Qualtrics (2013). Qualtrics software. Provo, UT; Qualtrics Research Suite. Retrieved
from http://www.qualtrics.com
Ray, D. C. (2015). Single-case research design and analysis: counseling applications.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 93, 394-402. doi:10.1002/jcad.12037
Robertson, D. L., Lloyd-Hazlett, J., & Zambrano, E. (2016). Program directors’
perception of school counselor roles. Journal of Professional Counseling,
Practice, Theory, and Research, 43, 1-12.
doi: 10.1080/15566382.2016.12033952.
Roe, S. (2013). “Put it out there that you are willing to talk about anything”: The role of
the school counselors in providing support to gay and bisexual youth.
Professional School Counseling, 17, 153-162.
doi: 10.5330/prsc.17.1.5728601842662000.
Savitz-Romer, M. (2012). The gap between influence and efficacy: College readiness
training, urban school counselors, and promotion of equity. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 51, 98-111. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2012.00007.x.
Salina, C., Girtz, S. Eppinga, J., Martinez, D., Blumer Kilian, D., Lozano, E., Adrian
Martinez, A. P., Crowe, D., De La Barrera, M., Madrigal Mendez, M.,
and Shines, T. (2013). All Hands On Deck: A Comprehensive, Results-Driven
Counseling Model. Professional School Counseling 17, 63-75.
https://doi.org/10.5330/PSC.n.2014-17.63
96
Scarborough, J. L. (2005). The school counselor activity rating scale: An instrument for
gathering process data. Professional School Counselor, 274-283.
Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1998). Summarizing single-subject research: Issues
and applications, Behavior Modifications, 22, 221-242.
Sheperis, C.J., Young, J.S., & Daniels, M.H. (2015). Counseling research: Quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed method. (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Sink, C. A. (2009). School counselors as accountability leaders: another call for action.
Professional School Counseling, 13, 68 -74. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-13.68
Studer, J., Diambra, J., Breckner,J., & Heidel, R., (2011). Obstacles and successes in
implementing the ASCA national model in schools. Journal of School
Counseling, 9, (2).
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2003). School mental
health services in the United States, 2002-2003. School Questionnaire, Appendix
C. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved March 3,2018,
from https://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA05-4068/SMA05-4068.pdf
Thompson, H. E. & Trice-Black, S. (2012). School-based group interventions for
children exposed to dom:estic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 233-241.
doi: 10.1007/s10896-012-9416-6.
Tovar, E. (2015). The role of faculty, counselors, and support programs on Latino/a
community college students’ success and intent to persist. Community College
Review, 43, 46-71. doi:10.1177/0091552114553788.
Uellendahl, G. E., & Tenenbaum, M. N. (2015). Supervision training, preparation, and
interests of California Site Supervisors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 54,
274-287. doi: 10.1002/ceas.12026.
97
Urofsky, R. L (2013). The council for accreditation of counseling and related educational
programs: Promoting quality in counselor education. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 91, 6-14.doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-13.68
U.S. Department of Education (2015) Legislation for Every Student Succeed Acts.
Retrieved https://www.ed.gov/ESSA
Young, A., Dollarhide, C. T., & Baughman, A. (2015). The voices of school counselors:
Essential characteristics of school counselor leaders. Professional School
Counseling, 19, 36-45. https://doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-19.1.36
Young, A, & Kaffenberger, C. (2015). School counseling professional development:
Assessing the use of data to inform school counseling services. Professional
School Counseling, 19, 48-56. doi: 10.5330/1096-2409-19.1.46
Vannest, K. J. & Ninci, J. (2015). Evaluating intervention effect size in single-case
research designs. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93, 403- 411.
doi:10.1002/jcad.12038.
Wilczenski, E. L., Schmaucher, R. A., & Cook, A. L. (2010). School counseling
principles: Mentoring and supervising. Alexandria, VA: American School
Counselor Association.
Williams, J., Steen, S., Albert, T., Dely, B., Jacobs, B. & Nagel, C (2015). Academically
resilient, low-income students’ perspectives of how school counselors can meet
their academic needs. Professional School Counselor, 19, 155-165.
doi: 10.5330/1096-2409-19.1.155.
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or How
applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied BehaviAnalysis,
11, 203-214.
98
Appendix A
American School Counseling Association National Model
99
Appendix B
School Counseling Program Implementation Survey (SCPIS)
Please rate each statement below in terms of the degree to which it is currently implemented in your School’s
School Counseling program. Circle your response using the following Rating Scale:
1 = Not Present; 2 = Development in Progress; 3 = Partly Implemented; 4= Fully Implemented
1. A written mission statement exists and is used as a foundation by all counselors. 1 2 3 4
2. Services are organized so that all students are well served and have access to them. 1 2 3 4
3. The program operates from a plan for closing the achievement gap for minority 1 2 3 4
and lower income students.
4. The program has a set of clear measurable student learning objectives and 1 2 3 4
goals are established for academics, social/personal skills, and career development.
5. Needs Assessments are completed regularly and guide program planning. 1 2 3 4
6. All students receive classroom guidance lessons designed to promote academic, 1 2 3 4
social/personal, and career development.
7. The program ensures that all students have academic plans that include testing, 1 2 3 4
individual advisement, long-term planning, and placement.
8. The program has an effective referral and follow-up system for handling student crises. 1 2 3 4
9. School counselors use student performance data to decide how to meet student needs. 1 2 3 4
10. School counselors analyze student data by ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic level 1 2 3 4
to identify interventions to close achievement gaps.
11. School counselor job descriptions match actual duties.
1 2 3 4
12. School counselors spend at least 80% of their time in activities that directly benefit 1 2 3 4
students.
13. The school counseling program includes interventions designed to improve the 1 2 3 4
school’s ability to educate all students to high standards.
14. An annual review is conducted to get information for improving next year’s programs. 1 2 3 4
15. School counselors use computer software to: access student data 1 2 3 4
analyze student data 1 2 3 4
use data for school improvement 1 2 3 4
16. The school counseling program has the resources to allow counselors to complete 1 2 3 4
appropriate professional development activities.
17. School counseling priorities are represented on curriculum and education committees. 1 2 3 4
18. School counselors communicate with parents to coordinate student achievement and 1 2 3 4
gain feedback for program improvement.
100
Appendix C
Permission to Use SCPIS
The School Counseling Program Implementation Survey

Sat 2/17, 12:27 PM
Hi Diane,
You are welcome to use the survey in your dissertation study. The article published in
PSC has all the validation work my colleagues and I did on the instrument. However, you
may wish to look at studies that have used in since to find additional information on its
psychometric properties.
Best,
Elysia Clemens
ZM
Zimmer, Diane Marie <Diane.Zimmer@rockets.utoledo.edu>
Sat 2/17, 12:25 PM
Elysia.Clemens@unco.edu
Dr. Clemens,
My name is Diane Zimmer and I am currently a doctoral candidate at the University of
Toledo. I am in the process of working on my dissertation proposal - A single case
research design study of seasoned school counselors' (those trained prior to the ASCA
model) program implementation. I am interested in using your School Counseling
Program Implementation survey as my instrumentation to measure the competence of
seasoned school counselors' competence in creating and implementing a
comprehensive school counseling program.
I am a licensed professional school counselor working the last two decades assisting
youth and their families in the areas of career, academic, and personal/social in public
education. I am passionate about the impact an effective comprehensive school
counseling program can have on the sense of belonging of all students.
Could I have your permission to use your survey in my research? In your article in The
Professional School Counselor you mentioned internal consistency but stated data was
still out in regard to reliability. Do you have additional information about the reliability
and validity of your survey?
Thank you for your time and consideration. I realize I am asking a huge favor but I want
to continue to help the profession have the greatest impact on students.
Be Well,
Diane Zimmer
101
Appendix D
Demographic Sheet
Demographic Information
Participant’s Four Digit Identifier:
Age:
Gender:
What is your Ethnocultural Identity?
Masters in School Counseling Date Received
CACREP Program Y or N
Prior Work Experience:
Grade Level:
Public or Private Setting: Traditional, Charter, Online:
Percentage of Work Time Spent: Please divide your time spent on the following
activities
Core Curriculum
Responsive Services
Individual Student Planning
System Support
Non-counseling
100 % of your work time 100
Do you have a written comprehensive school counseling plan? Yes ___ No___ started
____
102
Appendix E
Recruitment for Research Participation Request
Fellow School Counselors,

You are invited to participate in a research study examining seasoned school counselors’
competency in implementing a comprehensive school counseling program.
Please consider participating in this study if you:
• Are a practicing professional school counselor
• Earned your degree prior to 2003
• Are responsible for implementing a CSCP
Benefits
• Increase competence in the ASCA National Model
• Improve your CSCP
• Professional Development Hours
• Opportunity to be a part of research that improves professional development &
counselor preparation
• Learn about the Single-Case Research Design and how it can be used
Potential Risks
• Time commitment to complete online surveys, three days of training, assignments
related to your CSCP, and online follow-up surveys.
• Very low risk of breach of confidentiality or psychological harm.
If you are interested in being a part of this research opportunity, please contact me for a
personal meeting describing the project, and to provide demographic information and
sign the informed consent form. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and information you provide will
be kept confidential and will only be shared with members of the research team. The
training will be at a central location for participants. Participants will be provided
refreshments during the training sessions.
If you have questions, please contact me at 419-706-1624 or email me at
diane.zimmer@rockets.utoledo.edu. You can also reach out to my dissertation chair, Dr.
John Laux at john.laux@utoledo.edu.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Diane Zimmer, Doctoral Candidate
103
Appendix F
Adult Research Subject Informed Consent Form
College of Health and

Human Services
2801 Bancroft HH3100A
Toledo, Ohio 43606
Phone: 419-530-7879
ADULT RESEARCH SUBJECT - INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Effects of the ASCA National Model Training on Seasoned School Counselors’
Competency in Implementing a Comprehensive School Counseling Program
Principal Investigator:
Dr. John Laux, Dissertation Chair/Faculty Investigator, (419) 530-4705;
Diane Zimmer, Doctoral Candidate/Student Investigator, (419) 706-1624
Purpose: You are invited to participate in the research project entitled, Effects of the
ASCA National Model Training on Seasoned School Counselors’ Competency in
Implementing a Comprehensive School Counseling Program which is being conducted at
the University of Toledo under the direction of Dr. John Laux. The purpose of this study
is to analyze the impact of an ASCA National Model training program on seasoned
school counselors’ ability to implement a comprehensive school counseling program.
Description of Procedures: This research study will take place at the Educational
Service Center of Lorain County. You will be asked: background information about
yourself as a practicing school counselor; to complete the School Counseling Program
Implementation Survey twice a week for five weeks and follow-up at three, six, and nine
weeks; participate in a three day, three hour training program, with weekly assignments.
After you have completed your participation, if requested the research team will debrief
you about the data, theory, research area under study, and answer any questions you may
have.
Potential Risks: There are minimal risks to participation in this study, including loss of
time and confidentiality.
Potential Benefits: The direct benefit to you if you participate in this research may be
that you will learn more about the ASCA National Model framework to enable you to
improve your comprehensive school program while providing a service to the counseling
profession. Practicing school counselors and future counselor educators will be able to
improve school counseling preparation and professional development based on the results
of this research.
104
Confidentiality: The researchers will make every effort to prevent anyone who is not on
the research team from knowing that you provided this information, or what that
information is. Each participant will create a unique four number identifier to be used on
the background sheet, surveys, treatment fidelity sheets, and social validity sheet.
Although we will make every effort to protect your confidentiality, there is a low risk that
this might be breached.
Voluntary Participation: Your refusal to participate in this study will involve no penalty
or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled and will not affect your
relationship with The University of Toledo. In addition, you may discontinue
participation at any time without any penalty or loss of benefits.
Contact Information: Before you decide to accept this invitation to take part in this
study, you may ask any questions that you might have. If you have any questions at any
time before, during or after your participation you should contact a member of the
research team (Dr. John Laux / Phone # (419) 530-4705 and Diane Zimmer / Phone #
(419) 706-1624).
If you have questions beyond those answered by the research team or your rights as a
research subject or research-related injuries, the Chairperson of the SBE Institutional
Review Board may be contacted through the Office of Research on the main campus at
(419) 530-2844.
Before you complete the background form and first School Counseling Program
Implementation Survey, please ask any questions on any aspect of this study that is
unclear to you. You may take as much time as necessary to think it over.
CONSENT SECTION – Please read carefully
You are making a decision whether or not to participate in this research study. By
continuing and completing the background form and first SCPIS you indicate that you are
at least 18 years of age, you have read the information provided above, you have had all
your questions answered, and you have decided to take part in this research.
This Adult Research Informed Consent document has been reviewed and approved by
the University of Toledo Social, Behavioral and Educational IRB for the period of time
specified in the box below.
Approved Number of Subjects:
105
Appendix G
Comprehensive Training Protocol
Day One
1. Ice Breaker- Who is in the room activity?
2. Review the history of the school counseling profession, compare and contrast a
service-centered paradigm to a program-centered paradigm to explain the
rationale for CSCP.
3. Overview of the components of the ASCA National Model-Foundation,
Management, Delivery of Services, and Accountability.
a. The foundation component of the school counseling program starts with the
program focus, what you want students to gain, and the professional competencies
of a school counselor. Participants will create a vision statement, a mission
statement, and program goals using data, list of all interventions, school
improvement goals, and smart goals. Participants will also learn about the mindset
and behaviors you want all students to reach from CSCP. Examine the
professional competencies and the ASCA Code of Ethics and highlight areas of
importance which need further attention.
b. ASCA provide the management tools to assist school counselors in assessing

needs, program results data – process, perception, and outcome, development an
action plan, lesson plans, and calendar to assist all students to meet their optimal
development in academic, social, and career. Discuss the development of an
advisory board and how this supportive team can create with a unified vision to
improve student achievement.
c. The delivery component includes direct and indirect counseling services. Direct
focuses on the school counseling core curriculum, individual student planning and
responsive services. Indirect concentrates on referrals, consultation, and
collaboration.
d. The purpose of the accountability component to help school counselors use data
in every step of a counseling program from development to evaluation of
effectiveness(Young & Kaffenberger, 2016).
4. Identify and analyze current school counseling activities, data and results and
discuss how to incorporate them into a CSCP using the ASCA National Model.
5. Summarize the basics of the ASCA National Model and participant in a group
discussion to list current school counseling activities and determine the related
component.
106
6. Complete the School Counseling Program Assessment and discuss improvements
to the foundation, delivery, and management for the school counseling program.
7. Complete School Counseling Program Implementation Survey
Homework: Focus on improving competencies in the foundations, management, and

delivery components by using the tools provided by ASCA for individual school
counseling program. Create a data-driven classroom lessons based on the Mindset and
Behaviors and an outline for a small group activity based on the needs of students.
Day Two
1. Share homework assignments
2. Review the four components of the ASCA framework, activities they are already
doing in each area, personal improvement goals for each area, and areas needing
further clarification.
a. Foundation - align activities and interventions with school improvement goals
b. Management- explain how to collect and use school data to identify student
needs, and develop school counseling program goals to address those needs
c. Delivery developmental needs for all students through a school counseling core
curriculum action plan. Complete a list of delivery of services in each domain for
each grade level for each quarter in your written comprehensive school
counseling program
d. Accountability- using outcome data, show the accountability and impact of the
school counseling program on achievement, attendance and office referrals
3. Review the Themes of the ASCA National Model
a. Leadership – prioritize program goals to address achievement gaps for
marginalized students.
b. Collaboration- identity methods to team with others to improve the school
counseling program structure, create agreements with administrators, and action
plan that includes all staff.
c. Advocacy- create ways to make all students feel safe and welcome in your school
especially marginalized students.
d. Systemic Change - Take a leadership role to focus on individual student needs
and systemic change addressing what all students need to know and be able to do
to ensure success.
4. Intentional Guidance by Hatch – Multi-tier system of delivery
5. Domains – academic, career, and personal/social development delivery through a

core curriculum. Find the thing you are confident in and how it can help the
overall mission of the school.
107
6. Complete the School Counseling Program Implementation Survey
Homework – Complete the School Data Profile
Day Three
1. Share the results of the school data profile and how data will drive interventions.
2. Review the ASCA National Model components and themes focusing on the
accountability component.
3. Accountability focusing on school and individual student data process, perception

and outcome data to improve the school counseling program’s foundation,
management, delivery, and results.
4. Demonstrate how using data to monitor student progress connects the school
counselor’s work to the school’s mission and aligns with school improvement
plans to better serve students.
5. Data can be used to inform decision makers and improve a comprehensive school
counseling program with closing-the-gap activities.
6. Use the school profile results to complete the school counseling core curriculum,
close the gap, and small group action plans.
7. Discuss ramp and a tentative plan for implementation of the CSCP based on the
ASCA National Model.
8. Review SC Program assessment results and monthly program assessment to

create a program improvement timeline.
9. Complete School Counseling Program Implementation Survey

10. Complete: The Social Validity Questionnaire
Homework Assignment – Create an outline of a three to five year strategic plan to

implement a CSCP.
108
Appendix H
Fidelity of Treatment
Treatment Integrity Check Sheet: ASCA National Model Training Day 1
Please check off whether the key points were adequately addressed during the
Session, in order to ensure fidelity of the training.
Key Points Participant Researcher
Review the history of the school counseling profession,

highlighting service delivery-model and comprehensive
school counseling program.
Review the components of the ASCA National Model
-Foundation, Management, Delivery, and Accountability.
Opportunity to use the tools provided in the foundation
component to create a mission statement with program
goals using the four-step process: data, intervention,
school improvement goals, and smart goals.
Opportunity to use a management tool such as school
counseling program assessment, program results data
(process, perception, and outcome), development an
action plan, lesson plans, and calendar to assist all
students to meet their optimal development in academic,
social, and career.
Opportunity to use the delivery component tool to
provide
direct services (i.e. school counseling core curriculum,
individual student planning and responsive services)
and indirect services (i.e. referrals, consultation,
and collaboration).
Compare and contrast service delivery-model with
the ASCA National Model.
Examine current school counseling activities and
determine
how to put them into the ASCA National Model.
109
Review the four components of the ASCA framework

and identify activities already being done in each area,
personal improvement goals for each area, and areas
needing further clarification.
Review the ASCA National Model tools necessary to
implement a CSCP.
Review the ASCA National Model Themes –
leadership, collaboration, advocacy, and systemic
change.
Apply the ASCA National Model Themes by sharing
real experiences in schools.
Highlight examples of Themes of the ASCS National
Model to increase knowledge and then discuss how
each theme applies in each participant’s setting.
Review the key points of Hatch’s Intentional Guidance
multi-tier system to infuse into your implemented
CSCP.
Review the three domains of the ASCA standards and
create a list of counseling services in each domain that
are currently being implemented.
110
Review how to use student and staff needs assessment,

to create interventions to address these needs, and to
evaluate outcomes
Review how to use data focusing on school and individual
student data process, as well as perception and outcome
data to improve the school counseling program’s
foundation, management, delivery, and accountability.
Demonstrate how using data to monitor student progress
connects the school counselor’s work to the school’s
mission and alignment with the school improvement plan
to better serve students.
Examine a case study and use the data to drive the decision
on school counseling services to address the needs of the
students.
Opportunity to access the accountability tools provided
from ASCA, create a list of data to gather on their schools,
and learn how to use and analyze this data.
Opportunity to create a data list for their schools and learn
how to use and analyze this data.
Opportunity to develop a tentative CSCP.
111
Appendix I
Social Validity Questionnaire
1) What aspects of the ASCA National Model training did you find the most helpful
and will use when implementing your comprehensive school counseling program?
2) What aspects of the ASCA National Model training did you not find helpful and
will not use when implementing your CSCP?
3) What suggestions would you give in order to improve the ASCA National Model
training?
4) Do you feel the ASCA National Model is important in your daily role as a school
counselor?
5) Do you feel more confident in your understanding of the ASCA National Model
and how you can use it in the future?
112

Zimmer, Diane Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Zimmer, Diane Dissertation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zimmer, Diane Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Dissertation

A Comprehensive School Counseling Training on Seasoned School Counselors: A Single

Case Research Design

Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Counselor Education

The University of Toledo

A Comprehensive School Counseling Training for Seasoned School Counselors: A

The University of Toledo

effectiveness of the comprehensive school counseling training based on the American

School Counseling Association National Model developed by the researcher on

enhancing the competency of seasoned school counselors in implementing a

intervention phase (B) consisted of the training on implementation of a CSCP following

intervention, using the SCPIS. Participants’ exhibited substantial growth in competency

levels to implement a CSCP supporting the effectiveness of the training.

Keywords: ASCA National Model, comprehensive school counseling program,

competence, seasoned school counselors, single-case research design.

blessed to have you all, and you are my everything.

List of Abbreviations xii

A. Statement of the Problem 3

B. Purpose of the Study 4

D. Significance of the Study 6

E. Organization of the Study 7

II. Review of Literature 11

A. History of School Counseling 11

B. Three Domains of School Counseling Practice 13

C. Professional School Counselor Identity 17

E. Components of the ASCA National Model 19

F. Themes of the ASCA National Model 23

G. Responsive Service Delivery 26

I. School Counselor Competencies 29

J. Seasoned School Counselor 31

K. Barriers Impeding Seasoned School Counselors’ Practice 34

L. Empirical Finding of the ASCA National Model 37

a. Effectiveness of a Comprehensive School Counseling Plan 37

b. Existing ASCA National Model Trainings & Outcomes 39

A. Overview of the Method 41

D. Participants and Setting 43

b. Demographic Data Questionnaire 49

F. Recruitment and Consent Procedures 49

c. Training with Response Measures 52

b. Nonoverlap of All Pairs 56

F. Directions for Future Research 85

A. ASCA National Model 99

B. School Counseling Program Implementation Survey 100

C. Permission to Use 101

D. Demographic Sheet 102

F. Informed Consent 104

G. ASCA National Model Training Protocol 106

H. Fidelity of Treatment 109

I. Social Validity Questionnaire 112

Table 1 Participant Mean Scores for Each Phase ........................................................ 60

Table 2 Baseline Phase Data ........................................................................................ 61

Table 3 Intervention Phase Data .................................................................................. 62

Table 3 Maintenance Phase Data ................................................................................. 63

Figure 1 Effects of the ASCA National Model Training .............................................. 58

Figure 2 Janice’s Competency ...................................................................................... 61

Figure 3 Becky’s Competency ....................................................................................... 63

Figure 4 Linda’s Competency ........................................................................................ 65

ASCA ........................ American School Counseling Association