Journal of Counseling Psychology 2015, Vol. 62, No. 2, 159-172

© 2015 American Psychological Association 0022-0167/15/$ 12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000070

Errors of Commission and Omission in Novice Group Counseling Trainees’ Knowledge Structures of Group Counseling Situations Xu Li, Dennis M. Kivlighan, Jr., and Paul B. Gold University of Maryland This study investigated how novice group counseling trainees’ knowledge structures about group situations differed from experts.’ Eight highly experienced group therapists and 54 novice trainees indicated which of the 19 leader interventions they would consider using to respond to the 21 group situations described in the Group Therapy Questionnaire (GTQ, Wile, Bron, & Pollack, 1970). Pathfinder Network Analysis (Schvaneveldt, 1990) was used to generate knowledge structures (cognitive maps) about group situations based on the aggregated response of experts and each trainee’s response to GTQ. Comparing trainees’ maps with the referent expert map, we found no common errors of commission, that is, relationship between situations in trainees’ knowledge maps but not in experts’ knowledge maps, but 10 common errors of omission, that is. relationships among group situations in experts’ knowledge maps but not in trainees’ knowledge maps. Cluster analysis identified 2 subgroups of trainees. Neither of these trainee subgroups incorporated the group’s developmental stage into their map of group situations as experts did: experts saw the situations during the beginning and ending phases of the group as similar but different from situations in the middle phase of the group. The first group of trainees had a holistic approach to group situations but tended to make errors in dealing with group situations involving a problematic member. The second group had an atomistic approach to group situations but lacked a clearly differentiated and structured general organization for the situations. They tended to make errors in dealing with challenging situations where the group is avoidant and lacks engagement. Keywords: group situation, knowledge structure, expertise, errors of commission and omission

Understanding Group Situations from the Perspective of Knowledge Structure

integrated understandings of knowledge (e.g., Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Converse, 1991), which likely reflects acquisition of increasingly complex and accurate domain-specific knowledge structures (also termed as mental models, schemas, conceptual frameworks, conceptual maps, etc.). Developed from past learning and experience, knowledge structures are used by individuals to organize new information into concepts with attri­ butes that characterize them and patterns of relationships among concepts (Day, Arthur, & Gettman, 2001). From this cognitive psychology perspective, group counseling training consists of enhancing the expertise with which novices represent, structure, and apply knowledge about group processes. With regard to managing complicated group situations, training may aim at helping novices organize group situations more effec­ tively by recognizing the implicit similarities among situations that, on the surface, differ dramatically from one another. As a result, novices gradually develop more ordered, hierarchical, and integrated knowledge structures, and come to grasp the meaning of these situations and the interventions demanded to turn these situations into therapeutic opportunities (Donigian & HulseKillacky, 1999). In this sense, in spite of the variability within a set of group situations, the group leader may respond to seemingly different situations with similar interventions or techniques, mak­ ing these situations more organized and manageable. As a brief example, the group leader may see a group with a monopolistic member or with an always reticent member being inherently similar in terms of group avoidance, and thus uses interpretation of the here-and-now group atmosphere to address the two seemingly distinct situations. In this way, the various complex group situa-

Novice counselors are often intimidated and baffled by the complex and ill-structured situations they encounter in both individual and group therapy practice, and they crave some structure and regularity to help them navigate through these chaotic torrents of “happenstances” and stay “on the track” (Norcross, 2009). This can be especially true for group therapy, given the presence of multiple group members and various types of critical incidents that significantly adds to the compli­ cations of group situations and the challenge to manage them (Donigian & Hulse-Killacky, 1999). As suggested by a number of cognitive psychology studies, one reason for novices’ difficulty in handling complex group situations may be related to their underdeveloped knowledge structures in contrast to experts’. Cognitive researchers argued that the trans­ formation from novice to expert in a given content domain in­ volves development of more pattern-oriented, hierarchical, and

This article was published Online First March 2, 2015. Xu Li, Dennis M. Kivlighan, lr., and Paul B. Gold, Department of Counseling, Higher Education and Special Education, University of Mary­ land, College Park. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dennis M. Kivlighan, Jr., Department of Counseling, Higher Education and Spe­ cial Education, University of Maryland, College Park, 3214 Benjamin Building, College Park, MD 20742. E-mail: [email protected]

159

160

LI, KIVL1GHAN, AND GOLD

tions are organized by their similarities in shared leader responses, and are integrated effectively in relation to leaders’ repertoire of intervention skills. This study attempts to examine expertise in understanding group situations by comparing the knowledge structures of novice and expert group counselors. Below we turn to reviewing relevant studies in general cognitive psychology and specifically in group counselor training.

Knowledge Structure as a Criterion to Differentiate Novices and Experts In cognitive and educational psychology, researchers have exam­ ined expertise in a given content domain by comparing differences in knowledge structures between novices and experts. For instance, Glaser and Chi (1988) maintained that across domains, experts rec­ ognize and comprehend deeper substantive patterns of knowledge that allows for faster retrieval of that knowledge. Gagne, Yekovich, and Yekovich (1993) found that experts make inferences and predict future events more accurately due to the selection of more optimal strategies based on their knowledge structure that is more efficient than novices’. Day et al. (2001) found that trainees who have more similar knowledge structure with that of experts’ tend to have higher levels of skill acquisition, retention, and transfer, in contrast to those trainees whose knowledge structures are more distinct from experts’. Edwards, Day, Arthur, and Bell (2006) reported that team members’ mental model accuracy as defined by the overlap between their knowledge structure with an expert referent structure predicts their performance in a complex skill task, and. Davis, Curtis, and Tschetter (2003) found that students’ structural knowledge quality operational­ ized as the similarity between their knowledge structures and a ref­ erent stmcture generated by their teachers predicted students’ perfor­ mance self-efficacy above and beyond their declarative knowledge. These research results in cognitive or educational psychology have provided strong evidence that the level of integration and sophistica­ tion of knowledge stmcture is a significant factor that comprises expertise and differentiates experts from novices, and the similarity with or deviation from referent expert knowledge stmcture can be significant predictors of learning outcomes and performances.

Knowledge Structures of Expert and Novice Group Counselors About Group Counseling In the area of group counseling, a number of studies have been conducted that investigated and compared the knowledge struc­ tures of experts and novices. In an earlier study, Wile, Bron, and Pollack (1970) investigated the leadership styles of group coun­ selors in terms of their endorsement of leader interventions for different group situations, and found that the leadership styles discriminated between experienced and inexperienced profession­ als. This finding suggests that experts and novices do display differences in organizing group situations in terms of potential leader interventions. More recently, a series of five studies have more specifically compared knowledge stmctures of experts and novices about var­ ious aspects of group counseling. First, in a multidimensional scaling analysis of experts’ and novices’ similarity ratings of group members, experts used more dimensions to describe group mem­ bers and made more distinctions among group members compared

to novices, providing some evidence that experts’ knowledge structure about group members exceeded the complexity of that of novices (Kivlighan & Quigley, 1991). Second, in a study of one expert and nine novices’ knowledge structures about group mem­ bers obtained early and late in a one-semester group counseling course, novices’ knowledge structures about group members late in the semester became more complex and more similar to the expert’s (Kivlighan, Markin, Stahl, & Salahuddin, 2007). Third, in a study of 33 novices and three experts participating in a group counseling practicum, it was found that compared to experts’, novices’ prepracticum knowledge structures about group leader interventions appeared less complex, organized, and hierarchical, and contained fewer circular patterns. However, at postpracticum, novices’ network maps increased in resemblance to the experts— more complex, organized, and hierarchical (Kivlighan & Kiv­ lighan, 2009). Fourth, in a study of 13 novices and five experts, results indicated that the more the novices’ knowledge stmctures about group leader interventions resembled those of the experts, the group members reported more satisfaction with the novice leader (Kivlighan & Kivlighan, 2010). And fifth, to obtain a more fine-grained differentiation of novices’ from experts’ knowledge structures about the selection of group leader interventions in certain group counseling situations, knowledge maps were gener­ ated for experts and novices to identify novices’ common cogni­ tive errors (Kivlighan & Tibbits, 2012). By contrasting novices’ individual knowledge stmctures to the reference expert structure, results identified 10 specific cognitive errors novices tended to make in general, and four types of novices who shared similar patterns of cognitive errors. With this nuanced specification of the divergences between experts’ and novices’ knowledge structures about group leader interventions, educators can better understand typical misconceptions of their trainees about how group leaders intervene, and develop specific training goals to address these deficits in understanding group leadership. An identification of potential subgroups of trainees can also help educators to design specific plans to address the differential developmental needs of different types of trainees. Putting these findings together, several tentative conclusions may be drawn. First, training and development of novice counsel­ ors can be conceptualized in part as a process of novices acquiring more complex, integrated, and pattern-oriented knowledge stmc­ tures that are characteristic of experts (Kivlighan & Kivlighan, 2010; Kivlighan & Tibbits, 2012), as has also been found in other disciplines like human factors studies (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1991) or computer science (F. Davis & Yi, 2004). Moreover, novice counselors in training progressively develop knowledge stmctures that are more complex and more similar to those of the experts (Kivlighan et al., 2007). Furthermore, the similarity be­ tween a novice trainee’s knowledge stmcture and those of the experts may positively predict group members’ satisfaction with the novice leader (Kivlighan & Kivlighan, 2010). These results in group counseling training, though preliminary, corroborated the findings in cognitive and educational psychology as reviewed earlier, and suggested that knowledge stmctures may serve as a criterion for expertise in group counseling, and similarity/discrepancy in knowledge structure are potentially predictive of out­ comes. Based on these reviewed findings and the Kivlighan and Tibbits (2012) study specifically, it would be important to further inves-

KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURE ABOUT GROUP SITUATIONS

tigate how novice trainees’ knowledge structure specifically di­ verge from the referent expert structure prior to the training pro­ cess. This would allow the development of training plans to be targeted toward novices’ specific misunderstandings. As argued previously, a clinically important aspect where novices need to develop more sophisticated knowledge structure is about group situations, which is instrumental for them in managing compli­ cated group processes. Yet from the review above, existing studies have only compared the knowledge structures of experts and novices about group members and group leader interventions. Therefore, the present study is designed to investigate how the novice group counselors’ knowledge structures diverge from ex­ perts’ about group situations, an important aspect of novice coun­ selor training but a “missing piece” in existing literature.

Pathfinder Network Analysis of Knowledge Structures It’s important to briefly introduce the methodology in studying knowledge structures before concluding the Introduction section. Following Kivlighan and Tibbits (2012), we used Pathfinder Net­ work Analysis (PNA, Schvaneveldt, 1990) to extract an underlying knowledge structure network map from similarity/dissimilarity ratings by both experts and novices, which consists of nodes representing group situations, and links depicting relationships among these situations. The presence or absence of links in the novice’s knowledge map in comparison to the referent expert knowledge map can be used to define two types of cognitive errors (Kivlighan & Tibbits, 2012): errors o f commission, links between nodes present in novices’ knowledge maps but absent in experts’ knowledge maps; and errors o f omission, links between nodes absent in trainees’ knowledge maps but present in experts’ knowl­ edge maps. The term error has been typically used in cognitive and educational psychology studies, as well as in previous studies in group counseling, to connote the presumption that the referent cognitive structure is the “correct” structure for the domain. PNA was selected to analyze knowledge structures because it can pro­ vide a parsimonious two-dimensional visual representation of the knowledge maps for novices and experts that best fit the input similarity/dissimilarity matrices derived from ratings on a measure of group situations and selected interventions for each situation. This method has also been extensively used in generating and comparing knowledge maps in a variety of areas (Schvaneveldt, 1990), and specifically, in a number of group counseling research studies (Kivlighan & Kivlighan, 2009, 2010; Kivlighan & Tibbits, 2012 ). In sum, building on Kivlighan and Tibbits (2012) that examined knowledge structures for leader interventions, in this study we sought to specifically identify novices’ cognitive errors of com­ mission and omission in their knowledge maps of group situations. Given their discovery of subgroups of trainees with different patterns of cognitive maps, we also aimed at exploring the poten­ tial subgrouping of trainees if significant variability in their re­ sponses emerged. It is expected to contribute to the knowledge and practice of group counselor training by addressing the unexplored topic of knowledge maps about group situations, whose complex­ ity and lack of structure have greatly baffled novice trainees. Moreover, by a first attempt to specify the contents of cognitive errors in novice trainees’ naive cognition about group situations, results of this study may help illustrate the characteristics of the

161

“lay concepts” novice trainees tend to hold prior to systematic training and thus inform more targeted and effective training practice.

Method Participants Expert group therapists. Eight distinguished and experi­ enced group therapists (seven males and one female) were re­ cruited to participate in this study. Their age ranged from 48 to 71 (M = 63.20, SD = 9.81) These experienced therapists had 25 to 40 years of experience and are still active in leading counseling or therapy groups, and are all highly renowned for their intensive theoretical knowledge and practical experiences in the area of group psychology and psychotherapy. All experts were Fellows in either the Society of Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy (SGPGP) of the American Psychological Association (APA) or the American Group Psychotherapy Association (AGPA) or both (six of the eight). In addition, four of the expert participants held Diplomat status in group psychotherapy. Finally all of the eight experts have extensive publications in the group therapy area. For example, one expert is the coauthor of a highly regarded group therapy textbook and a Fellow in the American Group Psychother­ apy Association (FAGPA). And another expert is the former editor of Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice and a fellow in SGPGP-APA. They identified themselves as interpersonally oriented group therapists. This group of therapists is referred to as expert or experienced therapist group later in this article. Group counseling trainees. Fifty-four group counseling trainees (15 male and 39 female) were recruited to participate in this study. Their age ranged from 21 to 29 (M = 24.20, SD = 2.30). They were master’s- or doctoral-level graduate students in the counseling psychology program in a large university in eastern United States. To qualify as a participant, these students must have never attended any systematic course about group counseling theories or techniques, and must have had fewer than 5 hours of clinical experiences in group counseling activities by the time they participated this study. We refer these trainees as group counseling trainees or novices in this article.

Measures The revised Group Therapy Questionnaire (GTQ). The GTQ (Wile et al., 1970; revised by Wile, 1972) is composed of descriptions of 21 realistic situations that commonly occur in counseling groups. These situations are described to happen in succession along the progression of a group from Session 1 to Session 10. Respondents read each description and indicate from a list of 19 potential responses one or several interventions that they might use in each of the 21 situations. These 19 responses have the same form across the 21 situations, but their specific content is phrased in accordance with each specific situation. The 21 situa­ tions are described in the appendix, and the titles of the corre­ sponding 19 interventions are described in Table 1. According to Wile et al. (1970), the leadership constructs in GTQ could discriminate between leadership orientations of expert and novice and showed sensitivity to change over time, as novice GTQ responses more and more resemble those of experts as

162

LI, KIVLIGHAN, AND GOLD

Table 1 Interventions Endorsed in Each Cluster o f Group Situations by Experts and G1 Trainees Expert Intervention 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Silence Group Directed Reassurance and Approval Subtle Guidance Structure Attack Member Feeling Leader Feeling Leader Experience Clarification Confrontation Question Group Dynamics Question Group Atmosphere Interpretation Group Dynamics Interpretation Psychodynamic Interpretation Personal Life Past and Parents Behavior Change Nonverbal Role Playing

G1

Difference3

Clu 1

Clu 2

Clu 1

Clu 2

Exp

G1

0.38 0.22 0.38 0.20 0.03 0.06 0.44 0.59 0.16 0.23 0.61 0.48 0.42 0.36 0.33 0.16 0.06 0.05 0.02

0.39 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.26 0.15 0.37 0.58 0.24 0.17 0.55 0.63 0.45 0.28 0.25 0.10 0.13 0.05 0.02

0.14 0.46 0.25 0.46 0.40 0.03 0.67 0.34 0.01 0.37 0.52 0.40 0.27 0.17 0.33 0.13 0.18 0.08 0.09

0.19 0.26 0.47 0.19 0.15 0.01 0.65 0.31 0.07 0.49 0.55 0.37 0.28 0.17 0.38 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.20

-0 .0 2 -0 .0 7 0.11 -0 .0 5 -0 .2 3 -0 .0 9 0.07 0.02 -0 .0 8 0.06 0.06 -0 .1 4 -0 .0 3 0.08 0.08 0.06 -0 .0 7 0.00 0.00

-0 .0 5 0.20 -0 .2 2 0.28 0.26 0.02 0.02 0.03 -0 .0 6 -0 .1 2 -0 .0 3 0.03 -0.01 0.00 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 4 0.03 -0.01 -0.11

a Difference = endorsement rate of Cluster 1 minus endorsement rate of Cluster 2, Cluster 1 refers to the cluster on the left side in Expert Average Map (Figure 1) and G1 Average Map. Cluster 2 refers to the cluster on the right side in Expert Average Map (Figure 1) and G1 Average Map.

training progresses (Kivlighan & Kivlighan, 2009). By comparing experts' and novices’ responses to GTQ, scholars identified knowledge structure errors made by novice group counseling trainees (Kivlighan & Tibbits, 2012). These results provided sup­ port for the validity of using GTQ in studying knowledge structure about group situations and corresponding leader interventions.

Procedure The eight experts and 54 novice trainees, upon their agreement to participate, were asked to complete the GTQ independently. All experts and novices were instructed to select one or more of the 19 interventions they might consider delivering in each of the 21 group situations. A co-occurrence matrix of the 21 group situations across 19 leader interventions was constructed for each expert and novice, such that if a participant selected intervention i under group situation j, the corresponding cell (i, j ) was coded as 1, otherwise 0.

Analysis and Results Step 1: Generating Average Knowledge Map for Experts and Individual Knowledge Map for Each Trainee Using Pathfinder Network Analysis First of all, for each of the 54 group counseling trainees and the eight group counseling experts, we computed the dissimilarity matrix (dif)2\ x 21 f°r group situations based on the co-occurrence matrix, with dtj indicating the Euclidean distance between group situation i and j. Thus, this overall matrix represents the interre­ lationships between the 21 group situations as mentally organized by each novice and expert; the greater the dissimilarity between two situations, the weaker their association.

Second, all the dissimilarity matrices were submitted to the PNA program. Similar to Kivlighan and Tibbits (2012), we set the program parameter q, which indicates the maximum number of indirect proximities to be analyzed to be n-1 (here n-1 = 21-1 = 20), and the parameter r which specifies a metric for computing path distances to be infinity in order to produce the most parsi­ monious network map (i.e., the least number of links among nodes) that best fits the dissimilarity matrix (Schvaneveldt, 1990). The generation of network is based on the input dissimilarity matrix, only retaining the link between any two nodes that has the smallest distance but preserves the g-triangle inequality (Schva­ neveldt, 1990). Pathfinder uses a graph-theoretic distance technique to represent the proximity matrices in a graphical network structure (Schva­ neveldt, 1990). The Pathfinder representation of the proximity values is referred to as a PfNet. Pathfinder displays the group situations from the GTQ as nodes and the relationships among these situations are represented as links in a network structure. Initially the Pathfinder algorithm connects all of the group situa­ tions and assigns a weight to each link, which is based on distance. Next, the algorithm removes direct links when there exists a shorter, indirect path that connects both group situations. For example, if the link weight of group situation 1-3 is 5, but the sum of link weights between situations 1-2 and 2-3 is 4, then the direct link 1-3 is removed. We used PNA to generate one network map for each novice and expert. Before obtaining the final knowledge map for the eight experts, we computed similarity estimates of knowledge maps for both the expert and the novice groups to assess the within-group agreement. In Pathfinder Analysis, the similarity of knowledge maps is indexed by “Closeness” (Schvaneveldt, 1990), defined as the number of links in common between two knowledge maps

KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURE ABOUT GROUP SITUATIONS

divided by the total number of links in both knowledge maps. The Closeness index ranges from 0 (i.e., no links in common between two knowledge maps), to 1 (i.e., every link in common between two knowledge maps). Among the eight experts, the Closeness index averaged .12 (SD = .05, range .03 to .24), which resembled the average Closeness index among knowledge maps of four expert elementary math teachers (M = .10, Gomez, Hadfield, & Housner, 1996), but fell below the average Closeness indexes for six computer science experts (M = .31; Acton, Johnson, & Gold­ smith, 1994) and four expert group leaders’ knowledge maps of group leader interventions (M = .40, Kivlighan & Tibbits, 2012). The Closeness indexes among the knowledge maps for the 54 individual novices averaged .11 (SD = .04, range .01 to .25), but Closeness indexes for the eight experts and 54 novices did not differ significantly in magnitude, 1(1457) = 1.30, p = .19. Like­ wise, Acton et al. (1994) found no difference in average Closeness indexes between their expert and novice groups. Based upon this small number of cross-study comparisons, we suggest that experts are no more likely to agree about the knowledge structure in a given knowledge domain than novices. In regard to the low consensus among our eight experts, Acton et al. (1994) suggested that experts may “adopt their own uncon­ ventional organization of a domain” (p. 310). Thus, averaging across experts might yield a relatively more valid referent struc­ ture, because averaging amplifies the common content across each expert’s knowledge map. This procedure was done in previous studies (Kivlighan & Tibbits, 2012). Moreover, two prior studies show that similarity of novices’ knowledge maps to the averaged expert referent knowledge map better predicted novices’ perfor­ mance compared to similarity of novices’ knowledge maps to the knowledge map of a single expert (Acton et al., 1994) or the consensus rating obtained from multiple experts (Day et al., 2001). Finally, even in instances of relatively low agreement among experts as in the Gomez et al. (1996) study, similarity of novices’ knowledge maps to an averaged experts’ criterion was signifi­ cantly related to high quality performance. Thus, in weighing our options for indexing similarity, averaging independent expert rat­ ings seems to be the most reasonable option to acquire a robust and accurate expert referent knowledge map, despite the observed substantial variability among experts’ ratings of group situations, compared to other alternative methods like using a single expert rating or generating the referent structure from the consensus rating among multiple experts (Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989). Therefore, we used experts’ average ratings to generate an average Expert Knowledge Referent Map of group situations (see Figure 1). This Average Expert Map contained 20 links considered as the referent correct relationships between group situations. For example, links were present between 12-Marital Problem1 and four situations of 5-Attack Leader, 10-Quiet Member, 17-Group At­ tack, and 11-Threat to Quit; these links indicated the experts thought that the latter four situations were all similar with 12Marital Problem in terms of potential interventions. In contrast, an absence of link between two situations (e.g., Chairman and Quiet member) indicated that experts thought these two situations should be handled with different interventions. For the novices’ knowl­ edge network maps, the number of links ranged from 26 to 69 (M = 38.37, SD = 9.25). In comparison to the average expert map which contained only 20 correct referent links, representing a parsimonious organized structure, novices were generally perceiv­

163

ing more confounding associations between group situations. The PNA program also reported Pearson product-moment correlations to provide a measure of similarity between datasets under com­ parison (Schvaneveldt, 1990), and the correlations between novice trainees’ knowledge network maps and the Expert Average Map ranged from -.0 5 to .47 (M = .20, SD = .12). According to Cohen (1988), these correlations indicated trivial to medium effect sizes.

Step 2: Identify Individual Errors of Commission and Omission We compared each novice’s knowledge network map to the referent expert map to identify each novice’s individual errors of commission (a link in the novice’s map but not in the experts’ map) and omission (a link in the experts’ map but not in the novice’s map). Descriptive statistics of this comparison are tabu­ lated in Table 2. Of all the 210 possible dyadic links (between every two of the 21 group situations, thus 21 X 20/2 = 210 possible combinations), these trainees made in average 32.98 commission errors (SD = 7.65), 15.24 omission errors (SD = 2.38), 4.76 correctly identified links (SD = 2.38), and 157.02 correctly nonidentified links (SD = 7.65).

Step 3: Identify Common Errors of Commission and Omission To further explore general common errors of commission and omission of links in novice knowledge network maps, we adopted the threshold used in Kivlighan and Tibbits (2012). If a link is absent in the expert map but present in more than 75% of the novice maps, this link in the novice maps is regarded as a common error o f commission; if a link is present in the expert map but absent in more than 75% of the novice maps, this missing link in the novice maps is regarded as a common error o f omission. Results of the above analysis indicated that novices did not make any common errors of commission, but did make 10 com­ mon errors of omission, that is, novice trainees failed to identify 10 links between group situations determined to be correct by experts. These missing links and the percentage of trainees who made this error of omission are tabulated in Table 3. Two group situations (3-Chairman and 12-Marital Problems) accounted for seven out of 10 errors of omission. Trainees generally failed to understand these specific situations’ association with a variety of other situations. From 85% to 87% trainees did not understand the implicit asso­ ciations between the 3-Chairman situation with 2-Personal Ques­ tions, 6-Group Silence, 15-Grumpy Group, and 16-Polite Group. And from 76% to 80% trainees did not capture the latent associ­ ations between the 12-Marital Problem situation with 5-Attack Leader, 10-Quiet Member, and 11-Threat to Quit. One way to understand the links between group situations that trainees failed to capture is to look at their corresponding leader interventions. According to how the knowledge map is generated, situations that are connected share common leader interventions, and the closer they are, they more interventions they share. Ex­ amining the specific interventions used by experts in the two 1 The number before the name of each situation means its situation number in the GTQ, which implies its time of occurrence positively proportionate to Session #1 to #10.

LI, KIVLIGHAN, AND GOLD

164

A verage E xpert M ap S.Laie

Figure 1.

IS.Skte

Average expert knowledge map (tree format) of the 21 group situations.

clusters of group situations where trainees’ common omission errors occurred, it was found that experts consistently chose to work on feelings (disclosing leader feeling, exploring member feeling) or group atmosphere and dynamics (asking questions or making interpretations about group atmosphere or dynamics). Therefore for group situations in these two clusters, though they appeared different, experts handled them similarly with the two clear sets of interventions. However, in trainees’ reported re­ sponses, such interventions were not included generally.

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics o f Number o f Commission Errors, Omission Errors, and Correct Links fo r the Overall Sample and Two Subgroups Overall (N = 54)

G1 (VI = 28)

G2 (N2 = 26)

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

F

7.65 2.38 2.38 7.65

31.75 15.89 4.11 158.25

7.79 2.15 2.15 7.79

34.31 14.54 5.46 155.69

7.41 2.45 2.45 7.41

1.523 4.674* 4.674* 1.523

NComm 32.98 NOmis 15.24 NCorldtf 4.76 NCorDism 157.02

Step 4: Identify Subgroups of Trainees Sharing Similar Patterns of Cognitive Errors Besides the lack of consistent endorsement of interventions chosen by experts, trainees’ responses also displayed great vari­ ability among themselves with no consistent pattern. Because of this variability in trainees’ responses, we speculated that there might be subgroups of trainees that shared similar patterns of errors. To investigate this possibility, we further analyzed the errors in the knowledge maps of the 54 trainees using the Ward method in hierarchical cluster analysis. This cluster analysis seeks

Table 3 Ten Common Errors o f Omission by 54 Group Counseling Trainees Omitted links between situations

Note. G1 = Subgroup 1; G2 = Subgroup 2; NComm = Number of commission errors; NOmis = Number of omission errors; NCorldtf = Number of correctly identified links; NCorDism = Number of correctly dismissed links. * p < .05.

1. 2. 3. 3. 3. 5. 7. 10. 11. 15.

Starting Group VS 21. Sexualized Meeting Personal Questions VS 3. Chairman Chairman VS 6. Group Silence Chairman VS 15. Grumpy Group Chairman VS 16. Polite Group Attack Leader VS 12. Marital Problem Distressed Woman VS 19. Side Conversation Quiet Member VS 12. Marital Problem Threat to Quit VS 12 .Marital Problem Grumpy Group VS 19. Side Conversation

% of trainees incorrect 89 87 85 85 87 76 85 80 80 81

KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURE ABOUT GROUP SITUATIONS

to categorize the 54 trainees according to their cognitive errors, and generates possible cluster solutions from 1 to 53 clusters of novices. In determining the final number of clusters, we inspected the agglomeration coefficients, which capture the sum of within group variances. According to Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2009), if the agglomeration coefficient displays a sharp increase from step k to k + i, it indicates two largely heterogeneous subgroups have been combined in this operation. Therefore, a possible solution of final number of clusters is N-k (N means the total number of objects being clustered). In this study, the biggest increase of agglomeration coefficient occurred from step 52 to 53 (A = 52.3), suggesting a 2-cluster final solution. The first cluster (G l) included 28 trainees, and the second cluster (G2) included the remaining 26 trainees.

Step 5: Compare the Two Subgroups of Trainees Differences in numbers of cognitive errors. We first calcu­ lated the descriptive statistics of each subgroup’s number of com­ mission errors, omission errors, correctly identified links, and correctly dismissed links (see Table 2). A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the potential differences between these two groups’ numbers of cognitive errors. It was found that, participants in Gl made significantly more omission errors, F = 4.61, p < .05 and less correctly identified links, F = 4.67, p < .05 than G2. No significant difference between number of commission errors or number of correctly dismissed links was found. Differences in specific response patterns on GTQ. A chisquare test was conducted on the endorsement rate of each possible

165

link by the two subgroups with the Expert Average Map serving as the referent structure. Of all the 210 possible links, significant differences between G 1 and G2 were found in 25 links (see Table 4). Gl tended to identify a cluster of 11 out of the 25 links, among which 10 were absent in Expert Average Map; G2 tended to identify the other cluster of 14 out of the 25 links, among which 10 were also absent in Expert Average Map. This result indicated that though these two groups had similar numbers of commission errors overall, they were inclined to make specific commission errors in different aspects. To explore this, we then counted the occurrence of each of the 21 group situations in the above two clusters of 20 links (those absent in Expert Average Map), and calculated their differences by subtracting occurrence in G2 from occurrence in G l. A large positive difference value would indicate that Gl tended to make commission errors around this situation while G2 tended not to, and a small negative value would indicate the reverse. The mean of this count difference was - .2 9 with an SD of 1.27. Seven situations had extreme values that fell outside of the M ± SD range. Gl inclined to make commission errors around 9-Monopolizer, 10Quiet Member, and 12-Marital Problem (all with count difference of +2), whereas G2 tended to display commission errors around 6-Group Silence, 8-Late Arrival, 13-Return of Absent Member, and 19-Side Conversation (all with count difference of —2). Differences in average knowledge maps of G l, G2, and experts. Third, we compared the two subgroups by inspecting their respective average knowledge maps (see Figure 2) and con­ trasting them with the Expert Average Map (see Figure 1). It could

Table 4 Links That Subgroup G l (N1 = 28) and G2 (N2 = 26) Endorsed Differently Link Content

GIFreq

G2Freq

x2

InExpAve?

1. Starting Group VS 15. Grumpy Group 3. Chairman VS 5.Attack Leader 4. Filibuster VS lO.Quiet Member 7. Distressed Woman VS 12.MaritaI Problem 7. Distressed Woman VS 18.Member Drunk 7. Distressed Woman VS 21.Sexualized Meeting 9. Monopolizer VS 15.Grumpy Group 9. Monopolizer VS 19.Side Conversation 10. Quiet Member VS 15.Grumpy Group 11. Threat to Quit VS 20.Fight 12. Marital Problem VS 14.Member Cries 1. Starting Group VS 7,Distressed Woman 3. Chairman VS 4.Filibuster 5. Attack Leader VS 8.Late Arrival 6. Group Silence VS 7.Distressed Woman 6. Group Silence VS 8.Late Arrival 7. Distressed Woman VS 13.Return Absent Member 13. Return Absent Member VS 14.Member Cries 14. Member Cries VS 19.Side Conversation 15. Grumpy Group VS 17.Group Attack 15. Grumpy Group VS 18.Member Drunk 15. Grumpy Group VS 19.Side Conversation 15. Grumpy Group VS 20.Fight 18. Member Drunk VS 19.Side Conversation 20. Fight VS 21 .Sexualized Meeting

0.21 0.57 0.36 0.39 0.29 0.18 0.32 0.54 0.25 0.29 0.43 0.18 0.14 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.18 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.21 0.18

0.00 0.19 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.19 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.54 0.38 0.23 0.35 0.42 0.42 0.65 0.31 0.38 0.38 0.31 0.35 0.50 0.42

6.27** 8.15*** 4.31* 5.40* 3.89* 5.12* 4.97* 6.82** 4.78* 3.89* 8.68*** 7.66** 4.10* 7.27** 8.61*** 5.28* 3.87* 17.28*** 10.11*** 7.65** 5.68* 4.99* 6.27** 4.83* 3.87*

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Note. GIFreq = observed frequency of this link present in G l; G2Freq = observed frequency of this link present in G2; InExpAve = whether this link is present in Average Expert Map (0 = No; 1 = Yes) > < . 0 5 . * > < . 0 1 . * * > < .0 0 1 .

LI, KIVLIGHAN, AND GOLD

166

G i Average Map S.Late

G2 Average Map 8.Late

Figure 2.

The average knowledge maps (tree format) of the two subgroups of trainees.

KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURE ABOUT GROUP SITUATIONS

be found that similar to the Expert Average Map in which group situations were organized into two clear clusters, G1 Average Map also displayed two general clusters; whereas the G2 Average Map was relatively undifferentiated. This suggested that trainees in G1 had a general framework of knowledge structure that resembled experts’ mental organization, though different in specific contents', while trainees in G2 haven’t yet acquired a crystallized organiza­ tion of group situations. To further understand the differences between Expert and G1 Average Maps, we explored the underlying pattern of interventions behind their respective two-cluster organizations. Because there is an explicit time dimension in the GTQ situations, it is possible to examine the relationship between the cluster membership of a group situation and the time in the group that situation occurred. To examine this relationship between cluster membership and time we used the “curve fitting” algorithm in SPSS. This algorithm examines cluster membership as a function of a number of differ­ ent time curves (e.g., linear, quadratic, cubic, log). For the Expert clusters, only a quadratic curve was significant, F = 4.88, p < .05. This indicated that one latent dimension experts used to organize these group situations was time (or the stage of the group), and they differentiated one cluster containing situations occurring in the middle stage of the whole group progression (named as Cluster 1 situations hereafter, the cluster on the left in Figure 1), and another cluster containing situations occurring in the beginning and late stages (named as Cluster 2 situations hereafter, the cluster on the right in Figure 1). When the cluster membership for G1 was examined with the curve fit algorithm, there were no significant growth curves identified. This demonstrated that G l’s organization of the two clusters of situations was unrelated to time. Because G2 did not have identifiable clusters, the curve fit algorithm could not be used with this group of trainees. Additionally, we computed the average endorsement rate of each intervention for each cluster of experts and G1 trainees, and also compared how their endorsement of intervention differed between Cluster 1 (the cluster on the left) and Cluster 2 group situations (the cluster on the right) by subtracting the endorsement rate of Cluster 2 from Cluster 1 (see Table 1). The mean rating difference for Expert Average Map was -.01 (SD = .09). For experts, the difference rates of three interventions fell outside of the M ± SD range: Reassurance and Approval (.11), Structure ( —.23), and Group Atmosphere Interpretation (—.14). This indicated that, in Expert Average Map, beyond the consis­ tently highly endorsed interventions of working on feelings or group atmosphere and dynamics as aforementioned, experts chose to provide markedly more Reassurance and Approval in dealing with Cluster 1 situations (middle stages of the group development), and more Structure and Group Atmosphere Interpretation in han­ dling Cluster 2 situations (early or late stages of group). The mean rating difference for G1 Average Map was .01 (SD = .13). For G1 trainees, the difference rates of four interventions fell outside of the M ± SD range: Reassurance and Approval ( —.22), Subtle Guidance (.28), Structure (.26), and Group Directed (.20). This indicated that, in G1 Average Map, trainees chose to give markedly more Reassurance and Approval in dealing with Cluster 2 situations, and markedly more Subtle Guidance, Structure, and Group Directed interventions when faced with Cluster 1 situations.

167

Discussion Novice’s Common Cognitive Errors About Group Situations Using Pathfinder Network Analysis, we compared knowledge network maps of group situations for novices and experts in group counseling, and found that compared to experts, novice group leaders showed no common errors of commission, but 10 common errors of omission. Of the 20 correct links in the expert’s referent network map, novices misconstrued 50% of them across the GTQ’s 19 group situations. This indicates that, novices’ under­ standing of the correct implicit relationships between group situ­ ations hovered near random chance. With only minimal exposure and training in group counseling, they lacked experience-based sophistication to organize and integrate group situations effec­ tively around a relatively small set of potential general interven­ tions. This result is consistent with a widely replicated finding in cognitive psychology that novices, compared to experts across a wide range of tasks, lack efficient knowledge structures for de­ tecting subtle implicit relationships among concepts and patterns constituting domain knowledge (Glaser & Chi, 1988). Also, it attests to the argument that novice group leaders need specific guidance for a more in-depth understanding and effective manage­ ment of various typical group situations (Donigian & HulseKillacky, 1999). When starting their first experiences as group leaders, they are likely to be overwhelmed by the variability and complexity of these critical group incidents. This may be because, as manifested in this study, they have not grasped the implicit pattern and developed an integrative organization of the seemingly different group situations. The majority of the 10 common errors of omission centered around two group situations: 12-Marital Problems in the Cluster 1 of Expert Average Map (middle stage of the group), and 3-Chairman in the Cluster 2 of Expert Average Map (beginning and later stages of the group). The 3-Chairman cluster of omission errors also included 2-Personal Questions, 6-Group Silence, 15Grumpy Group, and 16-Polite Group. According to the descrip­ tions of these situations in GTQ, these difficult situations reflect earlier and later periods of group development, each of which involves group members pulling for a leader response for answers (e.g., replying to personal questions), approval (e.g., permission to elect a chairman), or guidance (e.g., intervening when the group is too silent). Experts dealt with this cluster of situations primarily by working on feelings through disclosing leader feelings or asking about members’ feelings; or working on the here-and-now group atmosphere or dynamics through either specifically asking or commenting on the group process. The 12-Marital Problems clus­ ter of omission errors included another three situations of 5-Attack Leader, 10-Quiet Member, and 11-Threat to Quit. In GTQ, these situations are described to be happening in the middle stage of the group development, in which the group is actively focusing its attention on one person (e.g., the help-rejecting complainer with marital problems, the quiet member, the leaving member, or the leader), but is impotent (e.g., unable to get the quiet member to talk) or ineffective (e.g., accusing leader of being uninvolved). Experts dealt with this cluster of group situations by recommend­ ing all the interventions used in the 3-Chairman cluster, as well as

168

LI, KIVLIGHAN, AND GOLD

more interpretive interventions of group dynamics interpretation and psychodynamic interpretation. Although these two clusters of group situations representing novices’ common errors of omission consist of different group atmospheres and dynamics, the experts recommended responding to them with flexible use of a small number of here-and-now focused interventions that are emotion-oriented (disclosing Leader Feeling, and exploring Member Feeling), or group processoriented (asking Group Dynamics Question and making Group Atmosphere Interpretation). In spite of the variability between these two clusters of challenging group situations, experts deem it appropriate to disclose how they are feeling toward the current situation and to ask how members are feeling, to facilitate group’s attention to what’s happening here-and-now by asking Group Dynamics Question, or to take a further step providing observation and comments about the ongoing group process by giving Group Atmosphere Interpretation. These four recommended interventions consist of strategies applicable to a wide variety of group situations in sharp contrast, for example, to highly situation-specific inter­ ventions like Role Playing or Past and Parents. In contrast, novices may view these two clusters of group situations as each requiring distinctly different sets of interventions. That is, novice’s undevel­ oped knowledge structures about group situations may lead them to misconstrue implicit similarities of the deep structures of these situations that appear to be so different on the surface and conse­ quently select ineffective interventions. These results also suggest that, novice group counseling trainees may put these situationgeneral interventions into their repertoire of skills as potential responses to varying group situations. It is important to note that the experts endorsed two sets of interventions for a cluster of GTQ situations that tend to occur during “hypothesized” middle stages of group development (i.e., the 12-Marital Problem cluster): one set of situation-general inter­ ventions, and a second set of insight-oriented interventions (Group Dynamics Question, Psychodynamic Interpretation). Several group theories suggest that middle stages of group development are commonly characterized by the emergence of interpersonal conflicts; for example, the Storming stage in Tuckman and Jensen (1977) or the Differentiation stage in MacKenzie (1997); and the resolution of these conflicts; for example, the Norming and Per­ forming stage in Tuckman and Jensen (1977) or the Interpersonal Work stage in MacKenzie (1997). Results indicated that experts have grasped this developmental perspective when delivering in­ terventions, and consistently tended to approach difficult situations during the middle stage with additional insight-oriented techniques in order to facilitate the progress of the group. However, interpre­ tations on both the group and the individual levels were not consistently selected by novice trainees. Existing studies suggested that novice therapists often find it challenging and are hesitant to use insight-related skills like interpretation (Hill, 2014), whereas experts have the confidence and competence to facilitate the depth of group work at these critical moments by delivering appropriate interpretations. For the experts, they organize situations where such problems of group dynamics arise as potential entries for insight-oriented work, so novice trainees may be encouraged to consider giving interpretations in the 12-Marital Problem cluster of situations with the help of their supervisors.

Two Subgroups of Novices Cluster analysis of novices’ responses to the GTQ situations yielded two subgroups. For the first Group G1 (N1 = 28), they on average made more errors of omission, and made errors of com­ mission primarily around three group situations (9-Monopolizer, 10-Quiet Member, and 12-Marital Problem) that share a same pattern of involving a single group member who negatively influ­ ences overall group dynamics. Moreover, their aggregated knowl­ edge map showed an overall structure similar to the experts’ average map in framework but differed in contents. For the second subgroup G2 (N2 = 26), they on average made fewer errors of omission, and made errors of commission primarily around four GTQ situations (6-Group Silence, 8-Late Arrival, 13-Return of Absent Member, and 19-Side Conversation), in all of which the group lacks engagement and avoids working actively on its prob­ lems. Moreover, their aggregated knowledge map showed an over­ all structure that differed from the experts’ and G l’s aggregated knowledge maps. Neither subgroup of novices, however, appeared to hold a concept of stages of group development in their knowl­ edge structures of group situations. Using the metaphor in the English idiom of “missing the forest for the trees,” G1 and G2 differed on both the level of individual relationships among group situations (the “trees”) as well as the level of overall mental organization of all the group situations (the “forest”).

Individual Relationships Among Group Situations: “The Trees” To make sense of G1 and G2’s knowledge structures, we appeal to cognitive psychology’s “Theory Theory” (Gopnik & Meltzoff, 1997), which states that laypersons each formulate naive intuitive theories about the world, which are revised vis-H-vis new evidence they obtain to gain better accuracy and comprehensiveness. Thus, an individual’s development of knowledge structures can be con­ ceptualized as their ongoing theory revision process that involves both establishing correct connections (Fender & Crowley, 2007) and eliminating misconceptions (Levin, Siegler, & Druyan, 1990). From this perspective, the obtained knowledge maps for G1 and G2 may represent their respective intuitive knowledge structures about group situations, and may suggest their cognitive differ­ ences. Because G2 makes significantly fewer omission errors than G l, it seems to represent trainees who are more advanced in establishing correct individual connections between group situa­ tions. With regard to eliminating incorrect relationships, these two groups face different tasks: Gl need to have more distinguished views about dealing with problematic group members, that is, to unlearn their intuitively acquired incorrect and confounded rela­ tionships between such situations; whereas G2 need to have more distinguished views about handling problematic group avoidance.

Overall Organization of All Group Situations: “The Forest” Examining the average maps for experts, G l, and G2, experts and Gl trainees organized the 21 group situations into two clear clusters (or branches), but G2’s average knowledge map did not show a clear structure and was thus more undifferentiated. It seems that G l trainees, though having established less correct individual

KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURE ABOUT GROUP SITUATIONS

connections than G2 trainees, are in the process of developing their overall mental organization of group situations into a structure similar to experts’ in framework, and perhaps are in a state of chaos (thus more omission errors) before higher-level integration (Kuhn, 2002). It’s important to note, however, that G l’s aggregate knowledge map differed markedly from experts’ in terms of the basis on which they respectively organized the situations into two clusters. Experts clearly held a concept of group development, and differ­ entiated the two clusters with consideration to the stage of the group in which these situations occur. In Cluster 1 that character­ izes the middle stage, the group is usually developing engaged atmosphere and starting interpersonal work (MacKenzie, 1997; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Because this stage may be emotionally intense and threatening (Brabender & Fallon, 2009), experts gen­ erally use more Reassurance and Approval to provide the desired supportive holding environment for the group to continue its work on the central issues. And when the group gets stuck with prob­ lematic members and unhelpful atmosphere, experts recommend more interpretive interventions (interpretation about group or in­ dividual dynamics) to help break the stalemate and facilitate more in-depth work. In Cluster 2 that characterizes the beginning and late stages, the group is often at initial formation or final termina­ tion (MacKenzie, 1997; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Experts ac­ cordingly use more Structure intervention to provide the needed structure for group members’ initial interactions and foster the formation of a working culture; they also use more Group Atmo­ sphere Interpretation to guide members to attend to here-and-now experiences which is at the core of effective group work (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). In contrast to experts whose organization is based on the group development stage and its specific needs, G1 novices did not hold such a developmental concept in their two-cluster knowledge structure. Instead, they seem to organize situations from the per­ spectives of themselves, the group leader. In the G1 Average Map, in all of Cluster 2 situations (right side of G1 Map in Figure 2) the leader is put “on the spot”: he or she is either challenged directly (as in 2-Personal Question, 5-Leader Attack, and 3-Chairman), or called for indirectly because the whole group is either clearly indifferent (e.g., in 6-Group Silence, 14-Member Cries, and 13Return of Absent Member) or impotent in dealing with a salient challenge it faces (e.g., in 12-Marital Problem, 11-Threat to Quit, and 17-Group Attack). When there is such an impending pressure on the leader to respond or to perform his or her duty, G1 novices tend to retreat and use significantly more nondirective and sup­ portive interventions (e.g., Reassurance and Approval). They may be overwhelmed by their anxiety and fear triggered by the group’s pressure on them so feel urged to mollify the group. Contrarily, in Cluster 1 situations (left side of G1 Map in Figure 2), the group is more engaged in its own activities (e.g., 16-Poiite Group, 4-Filibuster, 18-Member Drunk, and 21-Sexualized Meeting) and the leader may be less at the center of the group’s attention or dynamics. In this absence of pressure on leader response, G1 novices select significantly more directive and active interventions (Subtle Guidance, Structure, and Group Directed interventions). This interpretation of the G1 novices’ knowledge structures of GTQ situations and selection of interventions resembles charac­ teristics of novice counselors as argued by other scholars. For example, both Teyber (2006) and Skovholt and Ronnestad (2003)

169

pointed out that because of novice counselors’ “performance anx­ iety” and “fragile professional self,” they incline toward focusing on themselves and struggle with maintaining consistent emotional presence with clients/groups and attending to the therapy process. Under situations where they are “put on the spot,” G1 novices may have perceived higher pressure thus greater anxiety, and this anxiety may be an important reason why they fail to attend to the developmental needs of the group, retreat from being directive or interpretive but choose the supportive Reassurance and Approval intervention. In sum, from both the perspectives of “trees” (individual con­ nections between group situations) and “forest” (overall organiza­ tion of all group situations), neither subgroups of novices orga­ nizes knowledge structures about group situations with an embedded concept of group development as experts do. Despite understanding less correct individual connections between group situations, G1 novices’ two-cluster aggregated knowledge map bears structural similarity to the experts’ map. However, it is primarily organized around the role of leader rather than on emerg­ ing group developmental processes and needs evident in the ex­ perts’ map. So G1 may represent a group of novices who tend to have a holistic orientation toward figuring out “the forest” but see a “wrong forest”. In contrast, G2 may represent another subgroup of novices who tend to have an atomistic orientation toward “the trees”— grasping correct individual connections between group situations separately— with an undifferentiated overall organiza­ tion which suggests they are “missing the forest for the trees.”

Limitation and Future Research Directions First, as estimated by Pathfinder’s Closeness Index, agreement among the eight experts' individual knowledge maps was rela­ tively low. Putting this limitation into a broader context, at least one other study using Pathfinder analysis, as noted above, also found low Closeness scores for expert raters’ knowledge maps (Gomez et al., 1996). Moreover, Horowitz and Turan (2008) reviewed rater agreement across a number of different domains and types of raters and found that rater agreement generally ranged between .10 to .30 with regard to concept maps. These findings jointly suggest that there may be considerable individual differ­ ences in novices’ and experts’ concept structures. (Kivlighan & Tibbits, 2012) obtained considerably higher agreement, operation­ alized by the Closeness index, among expert group leaders’ knowl­ edge maps of selecting group leader interventions compared to expert group leaders’ knowledge maps of group situations in this study. One possible explanation for this difference is that experts vary in their theoretical orientations toward practice through which they uniquely interpret the meaning of group situations. However, their differing theoretical orientations do not necessarily result in a corresponding difference in their selection of interventions for responding to different group situations. Alternatively, the low agreement in experts’ knowledge maps might indicate latent sub­ groups of experts, given our empirical finding of two clusteranalytically derived subgroups of novices. Future research of the concept maps obtained from a large number of expert group leaders would permit empirical identification of possible latent subgroups of experts. Future research may investigate more ex­ perts or use multiple methods to triangulate the experts’ knowl­ edge structure.

LI, KIVLIGHAN, AND GOLD

170

The second limitation is an absence of objective measures for expertise. The recruitment of experts in this study is primarily based on their reputation and professional accomplishments, yet it makes a stronger case if some external criteria could be incorporated to assess the effectiveness and expertise of group counselors, which unfortu­ nately is not available currently in the realm of group counseling. Third, in the counseling arena it has been found that knowledge structure similarity (to experts) for group leader interventions signif­ icantly and positively predicted group member satisfaction (Kivlighan & Kivlighan, 2010) and that structural similarity to expert intention use is related to clients’ seeing sessions as smoother and deeper (Kivlighan, 2008). However, the correspondence between novices’ and experts’ knowledge maps for group situations and novices’ per­ formance as group leaders has not yet been investigated. It may be an important next step in this line of research to explore this question. In sum, this study builds on Kivlighan and Tibbits (2012) and investi­ gated the specific cognitive errors and subgroups of novice group counseling trainees with regard to understanding the relationships between group situations. With this line of empirical examination about the differences between novice and expert group therapists, it is expected to further our understanding of expertise and inform effec­ tive clinical training practice.

References Acton, W. H., Johnson, P. J., & Goldsmith, T. E. (1994). Structural knowledge assessment: Comparison of referent structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 303-311. Brabender, V., & Fallon, A. (2009). Group development: Integrating theory, research, and practice. In V. Brabender & A. Fallon (Eds.), Group development in practice: Guidance fo r clinicians and researchers on stages and dynamics o f change (pp. 249-267). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11858-

010 Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. L., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1991). Toward an integration of training theory and technique. Human Factors, 33, 281—292. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis fo r the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Davis, F. D., & Yi, M. Y. (2004). Improving computer skill training: Behavior modeling, symbolic mental rehearsal, and the role of knowl­ edge structures. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 89, 509-523. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/0021 -9010.89.3.509 Davis, M. A.. Curtis, M. B.. & Tschetter. J. D. (2003). Evaluating cognitive training outcomes: Validity and utility of structural knowledge assess­ ment. Journal o f Business and Psychology, 18, 191-206. http://dx.doi .org/10.1023/A: 1027397031207 Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668-1674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science .2648573 Day, E. A., Arthur, W., Jr., & Gettman, D. (2001). Knowledge structures and the acquisition of a complex skill. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 86, 1022-1033. Donigian, J., & Hulse-Killacky, D. (1999). Critical incidents in group therapy (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Edwards, B. D„ Day, E. A„ Arthur, W„ Jr., & Bell, S. T. (2006). Relationships among team ability composition, team mental models, and team performance. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 91, 727-736. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.727 Fender, J. G., & Crowley, K. (2007). How parent explanation changes what children learn from everyday scientific thinking. Journal o f Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 189-210. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j .appdev.2007.02.007

Gagne, E. D.. Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology o f school learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins. Glaser, R„ & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature o f expertise (pp. xv-xxviii). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gomez, R. L., Hadfield, O. D„ & Housner, L. D. (1996). Conceptual maps and simulated teaching episodes as indicators of competence in teaching elementary mathematics. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 88, 572585. Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1997). Words, thoughts, and theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Cranbury, NJ: Pearson Education. Hill, C. E. (2014). Helping skills: Facilitating exploration, insight, and action (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14345-000 Horowitz, L. M., & Turan, B. (2008). Prototypes and personal templates: Collective wisdom and individual differences. Psychological Review, 115, 1054-1068. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013122 Kivlighan, D. M., Jr. (2008). Structural changes in counselor trainee intention use and clients’ session evaluation. Psychotherapy Research, 18, 560-572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10503300802010830 Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Kivlighan, D. M., III. (2009). Training related changes in the ways that group trainees structure their knowledge of group counseling leader interventions. Group Dynamics: Theory, Re­ search, and Practice, 13, 190-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015357 Kivlighan, D. M.. Jr., & Kivlighan, D. M., III. (2010). Are group leader knowledge structures related to member satisfaction with the leader? Small Group Research, 41, 175-197. Kivlighan, D. M„ Jr., Markin. R. D„ Stahl, J. V., & Salahuddin, N. M. (2007). Changes in the ways that group trainees’ structure their knowl­ edge of group members with training. Group Dynamics: Theory, Re­ search, and Practice, 11, 176-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699 .11.3.176 Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Quigley, S. T. (1991). Dimensions used by experienced and novice group therapists to conceptualize group process. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 38, 415-423. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-0167.38.4.415 Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Tibbits, B. M. (2012). Silence is mean and other misconceptions of group counseling trainees: Identifying errors of com­ mission and omission in trainees’ knowledge structures. Group Dynam­ ics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16, 14-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0026558 Kuhn, D. (2002). What is scientific thinking, and how does it develop? In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook o f childhood cognitive devel­ opment (pp. 371-393). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, http://dx.doi .org/10.1002/9780470996652.chl7 Levin, I.. Siegler, R. S., & Druyan, S. (1990). Misconceptions about motion: Development and training effects. Child Development, 61, 1544-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130763 MacKenzie, K. R. (1997). Clinical application of group development ideas. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 275-287. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.1.4.275 Norcross, A. E. (2009). The challenge o f uncertainty in psychotherapy: Depth psychological voices from the field (Master’s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 1468419) Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Skovholt, T. M., & Ronnestad, M. H. (2003). Struggles of the novice counselor and therapist. Journal o f Career Development, 30, 45-58. http://dx.d0 i.0 rg/l 0.1177/089484530303000103 Teyber, E. (2006). Interpersonal process in therapy: An integrative model (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURE ABOUT GROUP SITUATIONS Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small-group devel­ opment revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2, 419-427. http://dx.doi.Org/10.l 177/105960117700200404 Wile, D. B. (1972). Group Leadership Questionnaire (GTQ-C). The 1972 annual handbook for group facilitators. La Jolla, CA: University Asso­ ciates Publishers.

171

Wile, D. B., Bron, G. D., & Pollack, H. B. (1970). Preliminary validational evidence for the Group Therapy Questionnaire. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 367-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ h0029273 Yalom. 1. D., & Leszcz, M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Appendix Descriptions of the 21 Group Situations in GTQ Situation 1: Starting the Group

Situation 7: A Distressed Woman

You are the leader in a group that is meeting today for the first time. All eight members, young adults, are present as you enter the room and sit down. You introduce yourself and the members introduce themselves. Then everyone turns and looks at you ex­ pectantly. There is silence. What do you do?

Later in this third meeting, one of the women describes how her boyfriend just told her that he wants to break off their relationship. She seems quite upset, skipping from one idea to another, and returning repetitively to the same few despairing thoughts. She has been looking directly at you from the beginning of her remarks, ignoring the rest of the group. When she finishes talking, she asks for your comments. What do you do?

Situation 2: Personal Questions Near the beginning of the first meeting, the members ask you personal questions about your family and background. What do you do?

Situation 3: The Chairman Later in this first session, someone suggests that the group appoint a chairman to conduct the meetings. This idea is received enthusiastically. They explain that this will permit the group to function in a more orderly fashion. Everyone appears to agree with the idea. What do you do?

Situation 8: The Late Arrival It is the fourth meeting. One woman makes a dramatic entrance 15 minutes late. Although she has done this before, no one says anything about it. What do you do?

Situation 9: The Monopolizer For several meetings now the conversation has been monopo­ lized by one of the women. Her monologues and interruptions interfere with the development of any kind of meaningful inter­ change. It is now part way into the fourth meeting. She has had the floor for most of this hour also. What do you do?

Situation 4: A Filibuster The group spends much of the second session talking about politics. No one appears displeased with the discussion, and it looks like it may continue for the remainder of the meeting. What do you do?

Situation 5: An Attack Upon the Leader After spending much of this second meeting talking about dieting and politics, the group suddenly turns on you, accusing you of being uninvolved, distant, and uncaring. What do you do?

Situation 6: A Group Silence The third meeting begins with a silence. Several minutes pass and still no one says anything. It is beginning to look like the silence might continue for some time. What do you do?

Situation 10: The Quiet Member One of the men has said very little throughout the meetings, although he seems to follow with interest everything that has been happening. It is now the middle of the fourth session and some of the others are finally beginning to question him about his silence. He remains basically uncommunicative, however, and the group seems uncertain how to pursue the matter. What do you do?

Situation 11: A Threat to Quit Near the beginning of the fifth meeting, one of the women announces that she is going to quit the group. The others are upset by this and try to talk her out of it. She remains resolute, however, and stands up to leave. She pauses briefly at the door, as if waiting to see if anyone has any final comments. The others just sit there, not knowing what to do. What do you do?

(Appendix continues)

172

LI. KIVLIGHAN, AND GOLD

Situation 12: Marital Problem Later in this fifth meeting, one of the men talks about his marital problems. The others offer numerous suggestions. He listens to each of them one at a time and then explains why that particular suggestion will not work. What do you do?

Situation 13: The Return of the Absent Member A member who had been absent the two previous meetings arrives on time for the sixth meeting. It is now well into this meeting and neither he nor any of the others has mentioned his absences. What do you do?

Situation 14: A Member Cries It is the middle of the sixth meeting. A woman who had been unusually silent for the first half of this meeting, makes a brief attempt to fight back tears and then begins to cry. No one says anything about it. What do you do?

Situation 15: The Grumpy Group Meeting seven is characterized by a general mood of irritability and negativism. A person can hardly start talking before another interrupts to say that he is bored. No one seems pleased about anything. The warm, involved mood at the end of the previous meeting seems completely forgotten. What do you do?

Situation 16: The Polite Group The eighth meeting begins in a mood of superficial agreeable­ ness. Everyone is being superpolite. Rambling remarks, evasive comments, behavior which ordinarily would immediately be chal­ lenged is being tolerated. It is clear that the group is protecting itself against any possible expression of aggressive feeling. What do you do?

Situation 17: A Group Attack Throughout the meetings one of the men had been insisting that he has no problems. In the middle of this eighth meeting, the group attacks him for “hiding behind a mask.” At the present moment the

whole interaction seems to be gaining in intensity— he responds to their accusations by increasing his denial; they respond to his denial by increasing their attack. You are not sure how he is being affected by it. What do you do?

Situation 18: A Member Comes Drunk A man who has been relatively quiet in the two previous meetings comes to session nine drunk. He is mildly disruptive, laughing and singing to himself, and occasionally breaking in when others are talking. What do you do?

Situation 19: A Side Conversation The group had been spending much of this ninth meeting talking about one of the women, when another woman turns to a man sitting next to her and, disregarding the main conversation, starts a competing side conversation. Her talking is a discourtesy and interferes with the main discussion. She continues for several minutes and gives no sign of stopping. What do you do?

Situation 20: The Fight. Later in this ninth session, two men get into a heated argument over a minor point. The real reason for the argument appears to be their rivalry for the attention of one of the women. Finally one of the men jumps up enraged and threatens to hit the other. What do you do?

Situation 21: The Sexualized Meeting The tenth meeting begins in a mood of seductiveness. At the center of the interaction is a girl who, for several meetings now, has repeated a pattern of flirting with a man until he begins to show interest in her. In the present meeting, she has just stopped flirting with one man and has begun with another. Everyone seems to be taking part in the sexual mood, if not as an active participant, at least as a fascinated observer. What do you do? Received June 18, 2014 Revision received January 2, 2015 Accepted January 13, 2015 ■

Copyright of Journal of Counseling Psychology is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Errors of commission and omission in novice group counseling trainees' knowledge structures of group counseling situations.

This study investigated how novice group counseling trainees' knowledge structures about group situations differed from experts.' Eight highly experie...
9MB Sizes 0 Downloads 4 Views