Return to search

The Influence of Reflective Practice on the Case Conceptualization Competence of Counselor Trainees

The purpose of this quasi-experimental, longitudinal study was to measure the effects of reflective practice coaching on 35 participants, as compared to participants who did not receive coaching. Data was collected over a period of eight weeks. A secondary purpose was to examine the effects of a standardized case conceptualization training lecture on 84 participants. A third purpose was to examine the relationships between counselor trainee demographic variables, their attitudes towards evidence-based practice, disposition towards reflective reasoning, and competence in writing case conceptualizations. This was the first study to contribute to the reflection in counseling literature. A convenience sample of N = 84 participants participated in two standardized case conceptualization training lectures. An intervention group (N = 35) received an additional three one-on-one reflection coaching sessions. The comparison group (N = 49) received the training lectures and no coaching. Participants from both groups attended two 3-hour training lectures, which taught the integrative case conceptualization model developed by Sperry (2010). Intervention group participants took part in three additional one-on-one reflection coaching sessions. Pre- and post-training lecture case conceptualization skills were assessed using the Case Conceptualization Evaluation Form (CCEF) 2.0. Levels of reflective thinking were measured with pre-, post-, and post-post-administrations of The Reflection in Learning Scale (Sobral, 2005). Variance in case conceptualization competence was analyzed using a MANOVA. Intervention group participants’ mean CCEF 2.0 scores were significantly higher than those of the comparison group (M = 72.64 and M = 46.81, respectively). Reflective thinking was determined not to be a mediating or moderating variable. Mean CCEF 2.0 scores from the first training lecture increased from the pre-test to the post-test (M = 11.20 and M = 24.10, respectively) for all participants. Mean case CCEF 2.0 scores also increased from the pre-test to the post-test in the second training lecture (M = 21.33 and M = 52.29, respectively) for all participants. Additionally, a paired sample t-test showed improvement on the Reflection in Learning Scale (Sobral, 2005) between the post-test and post-post test for the intervention group. Results were significant (|t| = 1.91, df 34, p < .001, one-tailed). / Includes bibliography. / Dissertation (Ph.D.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2019. / FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection

Identiferoai:union.ndltd.org:fau.edu/oai:fau.digital.flvc.org:fau_41326
ContributorsBinensztok, Vassilia (author), Sperry, Len T. (Thesis advisor), Florida Atlantic University (Degree grantor), College of Education, Department of Counselor Education
PublisherFlorida Atlantic University
Source SetsFlorida Atlantic University
LanguageEnglish
Detected LanguageEnglish
TypeElectronic Thesis or Dissertation, Text
Format128 p., application/pdf
RightsCopyright © is held by the author with permission granted to Florida Atlantic University to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder., http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

Page generated in 0.0021 seconds