The growing number of children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) warrants better understanding of how clinicians and families work together following a child's diagnosis. Individuals with ASD share pronounced differences in communication and styles of social interaction along with the presence of repetitive behaviors and restricted interests when compared with people who are neurotypical (NT). Separately, or combined, these differences account for a significant degree of challenging behavior among children with ASD. Challenging behavior can often interfere with a child's participation in learning experiences at home and at school and may lead to placements in more restrictive educational settings, or a lower quality of life at home. This study examined the extent to which parental involvement in their child's behavioral support planning and the utilization of social support networks influenced parental well-being, levels of advocacy, and satisfaction with service providers. Thirty parents of young children with ASD between two and eleven years old (n= 30) were surveyed using the Collaborative Behavioral Support Parent Questionnaire (CBSPQ), a 30-item, 7 point Likert type scale. Social support was found to be positively related parental well-being. Additionally, there was a correlation between collaborative behavioral support and the degree to which parents advocated for themselves and their child. Parents who worked closely with their child's treatment team were also more satisfied with services for their children. Follow-up interviews with a subset of the broader sample enlarged understanding of these relationships.

<p> This study investigated the difference in the impact of several different online teaching strategies on student self-efficacy to work with suicidal clients. An online written module, written module plus online synchronous role play, and written module plus online synchronous discussion groups comprised the teaching strategies utilized in the treatment groups. Ninety-one counseling students made up the sample for the pre-test/post-test/control group design. An Analysis of Covariance was conducted on the post-test self-efficacy scores to determine if there were differences between the groups. Pre-test scores and hours of prior training and experience were used as covariates in the analysis. Although a significant difference was not found between the treatment groups, the findings from this study provide counselor educators guidance on how and when to offer training on working with suicidal clients within the counseling curriculum.</p><p>

<p> This correlational study explored the relationship between feedback and self-efficacy in training counseling students. Specifically, it focused on perceptions of supervisory feedback and the relationship with self-efficacy, as well as attitudes towards corrective feedback and the relationship with self-efficacy. The focus was feedback given in residency supervisory settings, such as those used for training in online counseling programs. One hundred and forty-one participants were selected from eight CACREP (Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs) accredited online counselor education programs using residency supervisory trainings to supplement online courses. Participants completed a demographics questionnaire, a researcher designed questionnaire that measured perceptions of feedback, the Counselor Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES), and the Corrective Feedback Instrument-Revised (CFI-R). Results showed a small but significant positive correlation between perceptions of corrective feedback and self-efficacy, however there was no significant correlation between perceptions of positive feedback and self-efficacy. There was also no significant correlation between attitudes towards corrective feedback as measured by the CFI-R and self-efficacy as measured by the CSES. While the overall model of regression between the CFI-R (factors and total score) and the CSES was not significant, there were several significant negative correlations between CFI-R factors and CSES. The researcher discusses implications for counselor educators and researchers as well.</p><p>