VISTAS articles are made available for historical reference only and are presented "as is." ACA does not guarantee or represent that the information is current, accurate or indicative of the original or intended quality. These materials are not maintained or updated and may contain outdated or incomplete information. Readers should exercise discretion and verify information independently before relying on it. We assume no responsibility for the use or interpretation of this content.
Surveying Graduates of a CACREP-Accredited Counselor Education Program
Instrumentation and Results
A growing body of literature underscores the importance of program evaluation for counselor education programs (Engels & Wilborn, 1984; Osborne & House, 1995; Sayers, Carroll & Loesch, 1996, CACREP Standards, 2001). Reasons for this changing climate include reduced resources (Osborne & House, 1995), increased accreditation requirements (CACREP, 2001), increasing demand for program accountability, improved decision-making and increased student/employer satisfaction (Hadley & Mitchell, 1995), and the need for quality data for program improvement (Osborne & House, 1995).
There are no standardized measures in the professional literature designed to evaluate graduate counselor education programs and fulfill CACREP’s standards (Engels & Wilborn, 1984; Osborne & House, 1995; Sayers et al., 1996). CACREP’s 2001 Standards require formal follow-up studies of graduates, clinical site supervisors and program graduate employers at least once every three years “to assess their perceptions and evaluations of major aspects of the program” (Section VI.C.3, 4, 5).
Only three comprehensive graduate and/or employer surveys exist in the professional literature (Engels & Wilborn, 1984; Osborne & House, 1995; Sayers et al., 1996). The first published survey was developed to assess the eight objectives of a particular counselor education program (at the University of North Texas) (Engels & Wilborn, 1984). A Survey of Graduating Students was administered at the end of a students’ last semester prior to graduation. A Graduate Follow-Up Survey was used to collect data from graduates at 1-, 3-, and 5-year intervals following graduation. The survey included 91 items in 36 questions, including eight demographic questions (Engels & Wilborn, 1984).
The second survey in the literature was prepared by authors at Oregon State University (Osborne & House, 1995). The items in their survey derive generally from the major elements of accreditation standards (Sayers et al., 1996) as well as the objectives of their individual program (Osborne & House, 1995). The Graduate Survey included 93 items in 82 questions including ten demographic questions. The Employer Evaluation had 14 items. The authors mailed these surveys two years after graduation, suggesting this delay allowed both graduates and employers a base of experience to assess the value of their educational program. The survey was administered to graduates twice before publication, resulting in graduate response return rates of 57% and 70%. The employer survey return rates were 29% from community agency employers and 38% from school employers (ibid, p. 261).
The third survey in the literature was developed utilizing an ACES grant by authors at the University of Florida at Gainesville using a “consensus approach,” collecting question items from approximately 50 graduate surveys from universities with CACREP-accredited programs (Sayers et al., 1996). The resulting 130 question items were submitted to 342 counselor educators who were asked to rate the items from 0 (not important to include) to 9 (very important to include) “to indicate the extent to which they believed it important to include each item listed in follow-up surveys for program graduates or for their employers” (Sayers et al., 1996, p. 181). Means and standard deviations of importance ratings were calculated to identify the most highly rated items in this consensus of counselor educators. The result was a Graduate Survey of 66 items and an Employer Survey of 46 items which was utilized with a greater than 75% return rate for both surveys.
In the Spring of 2002, the authors at Oakland University collaborated to refine their graduate and supervisor/employer surveys by researching the literature and comparing graduate and supervisor/employer surveys utilized among CACREP- accredited universities. After discussion it was decided to develop and utilize a survey patterned after the Sayers’ et al (1996) “consensus” model. After review and input by the entire full-time counseling faculty, an instrument with 85 total questions was designed for graduates, and an instrument with 47 questions was designed for supervisors and employers. The Graduate Survey is included in the Appendix.
The Graduate Survey was sent in March, 2004 to the 520 graduates of OU’s Masters in Counseling program since December, 1995. A cover letter from the department chair invited the graduates to give an enclosed Employer Survey and a postage-paid return envelope to their employers. The Supervisor Survey was mailed to 156 supervisors active since Spring, 2002. Respondents were assured in the cover letter that their responses would remain anonymous and confidential, and that only aggregate (i.e. grouped) data would be reported.
A total of 103 graduates (20%), 27 employers (5%) and 17 supervisors (11%) responded as of August, 2004. The authors provided no means of identifying how many graduates gave their surveys to their employers as requested. Results were distributed to counseling program faculty, university administrators, graduates who requested copies, and the counseling library for review by students currently enrolled in the program and for review by prospective students. Benefits included curriculum changes and positive feedback from students about specific aspects of the program which improved faculty morale.
Highlights of the Graduate Survey include:
Demographics of those who responded: mean age 39 years, SD = 10 years, range 25-63 years, 92% female, 97% white
How they identified themselves: 45% community agency or private practice counselor, 32% school counselor, 23% other (including social workers, career counselors, youth assistance caseworkers, “stay-at-home” mothers, etc.)
Months between graduation and start of job:
28% of graduates who responded (19 of 69) had counseling jobs immediately upon graduation
90% of grads who responded (62 of 69) had counseling jobs within 3-1/2 months of graduation
Starting salary by identity for those working full-time (Univariate ANOVA F=3.198, df=12, p=.002)
$30,188 Community Agency Counselors (n=16)
$44,221 School Counselors (n=28)
$36,500 Private Practice Therapists (n=2)
Current salary by identity for those working full-time (Univariate ANOVA
F=8.217, df=11, p<.001)
$36,343 Community Agency Counselors (n=16)
$58,733 School Counselors (n=26)
$51,667 Private Practice Therapists (n=3)
Current licenses/certifications held: NCC 63 of 93 responding (68%)
LLPC 43 (46%)
LPC 37 (40%)
Graduates’ Program Components (highest and lowest mean scores) Highest:
Evaluation of program duration (ie, 48-hour program) 4.23
General evaluation of academic knowledge received, 4.21
Evaluation of supervised field experiences (ie, Internship), 4.2
Evaluation of faculty competence, 4.2 Lowest:
General evaluation of academic advisement 3.54
Evaluation of faculty as mentors to you 3.55
Evaluation of faculty accessibility/availability, 3.97
Graduates’ Knowledge Attainment in Specific Curricular Areas and Graduates’ Skills Attainment While in the Program were also provided, and are available from the authors.
Major strengths of the program
The most frequently mentioned positive comment by both groups described the helpfulness of the faculty and staff.
How could the program be improved?
The single most consistent suggestion for improvement came from those who identified themselves as school counselors, and described their need for a more school- related, “real world,” curriculum and application, including ….
Highlights of the Employer Survey and Supervisor Survey were also included in published reports.
In summary, the surveys indicated:
Graduates value highly the academic knowledge they received during their graduate program
Graduates who responded were employed within a few months of graduation
Employers rated graduates as dependable, conscientious, ethical, and professional (at the 97 to 99.6% level)(4.87 to 4.98 out of 5)
School counselors’ starting salaries average 46% higher than community agency counselors’ starting salaries
School counselors’ current salaries average 62% higher (> $20,000 higher) than community agency counselors’ current salaries
86% report being licensed as LLPC or LPC
Graduates, employers and supervisors agreed on
the need for more focus on marriage/family/couple knowledge and skills
the need for more focus on clinical diagnosis skills
Appendix A
Graduate Survey
Oakland University, Department of Counseling
Please provide the following information as appropriate:Graduates’ Demographic Information
Age: Gender: Race/Ethnicity:
The month and year you received your Masters in Counseling degree:
/
Mo/Year
Please indicate your major emphasis of study:
community agency
school
What elective(s) did you take?
Significant Loss Community Agency Cns
Intro to Couple & Family Diagnosis & Treatment
Experiential Cns Art Therapy
Intro to Chem Dep/Addictions Other
What specialization(s) did you complete?
Advanced Career Counseling Mental Health Counseling
Child & Adolescent Cns Couple & Family Counseling
Post-MA School Cns Post-MA Teacher’s Cert for
Cnslrs
Other
In regard to your world of work:
How do you identify yourself?
Community Agency Counselor School Counselor
Private Practice Therapist Other Current position title:
Current employment setting (agency, school, institution name):
Current agency/institution City/State location:
Current primary counseling clientele:
Current primary position functions/roles/job duties:
Hours worked currently: fulltime ¾ time ½ time ¼
time
Post-graduation starting date and salary: Date
$ /yr
Current income from counseling activities: Salary
$ /yr
Other counseling activities (private practice, etc)
$ /yr
Current licensures and/or certifications held:
Additional professional counseling activities other than your primary employment setting (e.g., private practice); please briefly describe your activities in this capacity:
Graduates’ Program Components
Please use a scale of 1 = low/poor to 5 = high/very good to indicate your personal evaluation of each of the following aspects of the program(s) from which you graduated:
General evaluation of program curriculum
General evaluation of academic knowledge received
Self-evaluation of in-program skills development (e.g., Techniques)
Evaluation of supervised field experiences (e.g., Internship)
Evaluation of on-campus field experience (e.g., Practicum)
General evaluation of instructional effectiveness
Evaluation of faculty competence
Evaluation of faculty accessibility/availability
General evaluation of academic advisement
Evaluation of facilities and resources
Evaluation of supervisors’ competence/effectiveness
Evaluation of faculty as mentors to you
Evaluation of in-program student evaluation procedures (i.e., did you feel the procedures used to evaluate you were valid and effective?)
Evaluation of program duration (i.e., 48-hour academic length of the program)
Graduates’ Knowledge Attainment in Specific Curricular Areas
Please use a scale of 1 = low/poor to 5 = high/very good to indicate your personal evaluation of each of the following knowledge areas in your program(s). Use NA if the area is Not Applicable.
Ethical and legal issues in your profession
Small group dynamics and counseling
Theories of counseling
Career and lifestyle counseling
Multicultural counseling
Human growth and development
General evaluation of practicum experiences
General evaluation of internship experiences
Large group dynamics and counseling
School counseling
Standardized (i.e., group) testing
Crisis intervention/counseling
Consultation
Psychological clinical diagnosis
Professional credentialing
Theories of personality
Family counseling
Case management/planning
Professional organizations
Research and statistics
Advocacy
General evaluation of practicum supervisor(s)
General evaluation of internship site supervisor(s)
General evaluation of practicum site
General evaluation of internship site
Graduates’ Skills Attainment While in the Program
Please use a scale of 1 = low/poor to 5 = high/very good to indicate your personal evaluation of each of the following skill areas in your program(s). Use NA if the area is Not Applicable.
Individual counseling skills
Small group counseling skills
Multicultural counseling skills
Large group counseling/guidance skills
Career and lifestyle counseling skills
Crisis intervention/counseling skills
Child and adolescent counseling skills
Family counseling skills
Consultation skills
Case planning/management skills
Psychological clinical diagnosis skills
Assessment skills
Couples/marriage counseling skills
What were the major strengths of the preparation program(s) from which you graduated?
In what ways could the preparation program(s) from which you graduated have been improved? What would you like to have added? Deleted? (Use back of sheet if necessary)
Please return this survey by [DATE] to: Oakland University, Department of Counseling, 491B Pawley Hall, Rochester, MI 48309
References
CACREP. (2001). The 2001 Standards, [internet]. Available: http://www.counseling.org/cacrep/2001standards700.htm.
Engels, D., & Wilborn, B. (1984). Surveying graduating students and graduates of counselor education programs: Instruments, rationale and genesis. Counselor Education and Supervision, 23, 234-243.
Hadley, R. G., & Mitchell, L. K. (1995). Counseling research and program evaluation. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Osborne, J. L., & House, R. M. (1995). Evaluation of counselor education programs: A proposed plan. Counselor Education and Supervision, 34, 253-269.
Sayers, R. D., Carroll, J. J., & Loesch, L. C. (1996). Follow-up survey for counselor preparation program graduates and their employers. Counselor Education and Supervision, 35, 179-189.