This article was downloaded by: [New York University] On: 11 January 2015, At: 03:53 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
Personality Assessment Training in Counseling Psychology Programs C. Edward Watkins Jr. , Vicki L. Campbell & Michaelene Manus Published online: 22 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: C. Edward Watkins Jr. , Vicki L. Campbell & Michaelene Manus (1990) Personality Assessment Training in Counseling Psychology Programs, Journal of Personality Assessment, 55:1-2, 380-383, DOI: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674076 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9674076
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 1990, 55(1&2),380-383 Copyright o 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Personalitv Assessment Training in C. Edward Watkins, Jr., and Vicki L. Campbell University of North Texas
Michaelene Manus Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:53 11 January 2015
Kent State University
Although data about personality assessment training in clinical psychology programs have often been gathered, little comparable data have been collected about assessment training in counseling psychology programs. To collect such information, we conducted a survey of all programs identified as part of the Council of CounselingPsychology TrainingPrograms. A two-page questionnaire was sent out to the 64 program directors, with 56 (88%)of the questionnaires being returned. Information about availability of required personality assessment courses, availability of elective assessment courses, and types of personality tests covered in the counseling curriculum is presented and discussed. T o better understand the place of psychological assessment in clinical psychology programs, numerous studies have been conducted to gather information about the types of personality assessment training clinical psychology students receive (Moreland & Dahlstrom, 1983; Piotrowski & Keller, 1984a; Ritzler &Alter, 1986). Compared t o studies in clinical psychology, studies about personality assessment training in counseling psychology programs have been virtually nonexistent. We found only one study (Piotrowski & Keller, 198413) that examined assessment training in master's-level counseling psychology training programs, and we found n o studies about doctoral-level assessment training. Yet assessment has long been and continues t o be regarded as an important role of the counseling psychologist (APA, 1952, 1981). We conducted a survey t o gather current information-about the types of personality assessment training counseling psychology students receive.
METHOD
A two-page assessment questionnaire was mailed t o 64 counseling psychology program directors. The 64 programs chosen comprised the entire 1988 listing of
TRAINING IN COUNSELING PROGRAMS
the Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs (CCPTP). The CCPTP represents affiliated doctoral-level programs in counseling psychology and attempts to collect, disseminate, and review information about training: in the counseling specialty. The items for our questionnaire were largely taken or adapted from previous assessment survey questionnaires (e.g., Durand, Blanchard, & Mindell, 1988). After the initial mailout and two follow-ups, 56 (88%) respondents returned their questionnaires.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:53 11 January 2015
RESULTS About 45%, 32%, and 73% of the directors, respectively, indicated that th~eir programs required coursework in objective personality, projective personality, and general assessment. When not required, some programs also offelred coursework in these areas on an elective basis (objective personality, 161%; projective personality, 45%; and general assessment, 9%). The general assessment course typically covered two or more assessment areas (e.g., combining coverage of objective and projective methods). When asked how important, on a scale ranging from no importance (1) to great importance (5), it was for practicling counseling psychologists to possess skill in personality assessment, 85% of the directors said objective personality assessment was of substantial or great importance, whereas only 24% said projective personality assessment was of similar importance. Because projective techniques have occupied a somewhat ambivalent lace in counseling psychology (Langland, 1960), we were curious about directors' feelings toward them. About 7 1% of the respondents believed that counsel~lng psychology students should learn to administer and interpret projective techniques. But 73% also believed that counseling psychology students' training in testing/assessment should differ from clinical psychology students' training. When asked how such training should differ, the responses were highly consistent and similar: Counseling psychology students should receive more training in vocational assessment, achievement/aptitude assessment, and "normalized" assessment, whereas clinical psychology students should receive more training in projective techniques and neuropsychological assessment. Last, we asked the directors to indicate the primary personality assessment instruments/methods in which counseling students in their program received training. The most frequently mentioned objective personality tests were the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; 75%), California Psychological Inventory (CPI; 46%), Myers-Brigg~ Type Indicator (38%), Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF; 29%), Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (27%), and Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (20%). The most frequently mentioned projective personality techniques were the Rorschach
382
WATKINS, CAMPBELL, MANUS
(48%), the Thematic Apperception Test (45%), sentence completion methods (27%), and the Bender-Gestalt (23%).All other personality assessment methods were mentioned only five times or less.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:53 11 January 2015
DISCUSSION The results suggest that most counseling psychology students receive or have opportunities to receive (through elective coursework) exposure to both objective and projective personality assessment methods. Although the depth of this exposure can be expected to vary across programs, many of the personality assessment methods about which students learn are (a) integrally linked to the history and philosophy of the counseling specialty (e.g., CPI), and (b)consistent with the assessment tools counseling psychologists actually use in practice (e.g., MMPI; Watkins & Campbell, 1989). The tests identified by the directors represent some of the better known, more established assessment methods, which focus on health and normality as well as psychological dysfunction and abnormality. The directors' attitudes about projective techniques is perhaps the most interesting aspect of this survey. Although most directors believed counseling psychology students should learn to administer and interpret projectives, they did not consider projective assessment skills to be very important for counseling psychologists' practice. But a fair portion of practicing counseling psychologists, particularly those who work in mental health center, hospital, and private practice settings, do actually use projectives (Watkins & Campbell, 1989). Considering this, the directors' opinions seem to reflect two competing realities: (a) that projective techniques traditionally have been more aligned with clinical rather than counseling psychology and, as a result, there is continuing resistance to them among some counseling psychologists (Watkins, Campbell, Hollifield, & Duckworth, 1989); and (b) due to changing professional interests and marketplace demands, a growing number of counseling psychologists want to be trained in projectives, and counseling training programs themselves are feeling the need to accomodate to these changes (cf. Watkins & Campbell, 1989). The seeming ambivalence of many of the training directors about projectives is perhaps no different now than the ambivalence noted by Langland (1960) 30 years ago. Although this ambivalence may remain for some time to come, it is heartening to see that many programs in this survey offered either required or elective coursework in projectives. By doing so, these programs are no doubt providing their graduates wiih a highly valuable skill they can use in their practice of personality assessment.
REFERENCES American Psychological Association, Committee on Standards for Providers of Psychological Services. (1981). Specialty guidelines for the delivery of services by counseling psychologists. American Psychologist, 36, 652-663.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:53 11 January 2015
TRAINING IN COUNSELING PROGRAMS
3483
American Psychological Association, Division of Counseling and Guidance, Committee on Counselor Training. (1952). Recommended standards for training counseling psychologists at rhe doctoral level. American Psychologist, 7, 175-181. Durand, V. M., Blanchard, E. B., & Mindell, J. A. (1988). Training in projective testing: Survey of clinical training directors and internship directors. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19,236-238. Langland, L. (1960). Projective techniques and counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psyckwlogy, 7, 102-107. Moreland, K. L., &Dahlstrom, W. G. (1983). A survey of MMPI teaching in MA-approved clinical training programs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 115-1 19. Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J. W. (1984a). Psychodiagnostic testing in MA-approved clinical psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 450-456. Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J. W. (198413). Psychological testing: Trends in master's-level counsel~~ng psychology programs. Teaching of Psychology, 11, 244-245. Ritzler, B., & Alter, B. (1986). Rorschach teaching in MA-approved clinical graduate programs: Ten years later. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50,44-49. Watkins, C. E., Jr., & Campbell, V. L. (1989). Personality assessment and counseling psychology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 296-307. Watkins, C . E., Jr., Campbell, V. L., Hollifield, J., & Duckworth, J. (1989). Projective techniques: Do they have a place in counseling psychology training? The Counseling Psychologzst, 17,511-513.
C. Edward Watkins, Jr. Department of Psychology University of North Texas Denton, TX 76203-3587 Received October 24, 1989 Revised December 18, 1989
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
Personality Assessment Training in Counseling Psychology Programs C. Edward Watkins Jr. , Vicki L. Campbell & Michaelene Manus Published online: 22 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: C. Edward Watkins Jr. , Vicki L. Campbell & Michaelene Manus (1990) Personality Assessment Training in Counseling Psychology Programs, Journal of Personality Assessment, 55:1-2, 380-383, DOI: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674076 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9674076
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 1990, 55(1&2),380-383 Copyright o 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Personalitv Assessment Training in C. Edward Watkins, Jr., and Vicki L. Campbell University of North Texas
Michaelene Manus Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:53 11 January 2015
Kent State University
Although data about personality assessment training in clinical psychology programs have often been gathered, little comparable data have been collected about assessment training in counseling psychology programs. To collect such information, we conducted a survey of all programs identified as part of the Council of CounselingPsychology TrainingPrograms. A two-page questionnaire was sent out to the 64 program directors, with 56 (88%)of the questionnaires being returned. Information about availability of required personality assessment courses, availability of elective assessment courses, and types of personality tests covered in the counseling curriculum is presented and discussed. T o better understand the place of psychological assessment in clinical psychology programs, numerous studies have been conducted to gather information about the types of personality assessment training clinical psychology students receive (Moreland & Dahlstrom, 1983; Piotrowski & Keller, 1984a; Ritzler &Alter, 1986). Compared t o studies in clinical psychology, studies about personality assessment training in counseling psychology programs have been virtually nonexistent. We found only one study (Piotrowski & Keller, 198413) that examined assessment training in master's-level counseling psychology training programs, and we found n o studies about doctoral-level assessment training. Yet assessment has long been and continues t o be regarded as an important role of the counseling psychologist (APA, 1952, 1981). We conducted a survey t o gather current information-about the types of personality assessment training counseling psychology students receive.
METHOD
A two-page assessment questionnaire was mailed t o 64 counseling psychology program directors. The 64 programs chosen comprised the entire 1988 listing of
TRAINING IN COUNSELING PROGRAMS
the Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs (CCPTP). The CCPTP represents affiliated doctoral-level programs in counseling psychology and attempts to collect, disseminate, and review information about training: in the counseling specialty. The items for our questionnaire were largely taken or adapted from previous assessment survey questionnaires (e.g., Durand, Blanchard, & Mindell, 1988). After the initial mailout and two follow-ups, 56 (88%) respondents returned their questionnaires.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:53 11 January 2015
RESULTS About 45%, 32%, and 73% of the directors, respectively, indicated that th~eir programs required coursework in objective personality, projective personality, and general assessment. When not required, some programs also offelred coursework in these areas on an elective basis (objective personality, 161%; projective personality, 45%; and general assessment, 9%). The general assessment course typically covered two or more assessment areas (e.g., combining coverage of objective and projective methods). When asked how important, on a scale ranging from no importance (1) to great importance (5), it was for practicling counseling psychologists to possess skill in personality assessment, 85% of the directors said objective personality assessment was of substantial or great importance, whereas only 24% said projective personality assessment was of similar importance. Because projective techniques have occupied a somewhat ambivalent lace in counseling psychology (Langland, 1960), we were curious about directors' feelings toward them. About 7 1% of the respondents believed that counsel~lng psychology students should learn to administer and interpret projective techniques. But 73% also believed that counseling psychology students' training in testing/assessment should differ from clinical psychology students' training. When asked how such training should differ, the responses were highly consistent and similar: Counseling psychology students should receive more training in vocational assessment, achievement/aptitude assessment, and "normalized" assessment, whereas clinical psychology students should receive more training in projective techniques and neuropsychological assessment. Last, we asked the directors to indicate the primary personality assessment instruments/methods in which counseling students in their program received training. The most frequently mentioned objective personality tests were the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; 75%), California Psychological Inventory (CPI; 46%), Myers-Brigg~ Type Indicator (38%), Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF; 29%), Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (27%), and Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (20%). The most frequently mentioned projective personality techniques were the Rorschach
382
WATKINS, CAMPBELL, MANUS
(48%), the Thematic Apperception Test (45%), sentence completion methods (27%), and the Bender-Gestalt (23%).All other personality assessment methods were mentioned only five times or less.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:53 11 January 2015
DISCUSSION The results suggest that most counseling psychology students receive or have opportunities to receive (through elective coursework) exposure to both objective and projective personality assessment methods. Although the depth of this exposure can be expected to vary across programs, many of the personality assessment methods about which students learn are (a) integrally linked to the history and philosophy of the counseling specialty (e.g., CPI), and (b)consistent with the assessment tools counseling psychologists actually use in practice (e.g., MMPI; Watkins & Campbell, 1989). The tests identified by the directors represent some of the better known, more established assessment methods, which focus on health and normality as well as psychological dysfunction and abnormality. The directors' attitudes about projective techniques is perhaps the most interesting aspect of this survey. Although most directors believed counseling psychology students should learn to administer and interpret projectives, they did not consider projective assessment skills to be very important for counseling psychologists' practice. But a fair portion of practicing counseling psychologists, particularly those who work in mental health center, hospital, and private practice settings, do actually use projectives (Watkins & Campbell, 1989). Considering this, the directors' opinions seem to reflect two competing realities: (a) that projective techniques traditionally have been more aligned with clinical rather than counseling psychology and, as a result, there is continuing resistance to them among some counseling psychologists (Watkins, Campbell, Hollifield, & Duckworth, 1989); and (b) due to changing professional interests and marketplace demands, a growing number of counseling psychologists want to be trained in projectives, and counseling training programs themselves are feeling the need to accomodate to these changes (cf. Watkins & Campbell, 1989). The seeming ambivalence of many of the training directors about projectives is perhaps no different now than the ambivalence noted by Langland (1960) 30 years ago. Although this ambivalence may remain for some time to come, it is heartening to see that many programs in this survey offered either required or elective coursework in projectives. By doing so, these programs are no doubt providing their graduates wiih a highly valuable skill they can use in their practice of personality assessment.
REFERENCES American Psychological Association, Committee on Standards for Providers of Psychological Services. (1981). Specialty guidelines for the delivery of services by counseling psychologists. American Psychologist, 36, 652-663.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:53 11 January 2015
TRAINING IN COUNSELING PROGRAMS
3483
American Psychological Association, Division of Counseling and Guidance, Committee on Counselor Training. (1952). Recommended standards for training counseling psychologists at rhe doctoral level. American Psychologist, 7, 175-181. Durand, V. M., Blanchard, E. B., & Mindell, J. A. (1988). Training in projective testing: Survey of clinical training directors and internship directors. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19,236-238. Langland, L. (1960). Projective techniques and counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psyckwlogy, 7, 102-107. Moreland, K. L., &Dahlstrom, W. G. (1983). A survey of MMPI teaching in MA-approved clinical training programs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 115-1 19. Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J. W. (1984a). Psychodiagnostic testing in MA-approved clinical psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 450-456. Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J. W. (198413). Psychological testing: Trends in master's-level counsel~~ng psychology programs. Teaching of Psychology, 11, 244-245. Ritzler, B., & Alter, B. (1986). Rorschach teaching in MA-approved clinical graduate programs: Ten years later. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50,44-49. Watkins, C. E., Jr., & Campbell, V. L. (1989). Personality assessment and counseling psychology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 296-307. Watkins, C . E., Jr., Campbell, V. L., Hollifield, J., & Duckworth, J. (1989). Projective techniques: Do they have a place in counseling psychology training? The Counseling Psychologzst, 17,511-513.
C. Edward Watkins, Jr. Department of Psychology University of North Texas Denton, TX 76203-3587 Received October 24, 1989 Revised December 18, 1989
