...total variance the scale. The 6 factors corresponded to 6 schools of psychotherapy (i.e., psychoanalytic/psychodynamic, humanistic/existential, cognitive-behavioral, family systems, feminist, and multicultural).

**********

Theoretical orientation and its measurement in counseling and psychotherapy have received a great deal of attention across several decades. Even as psychotherapy driven by strict adherence to a single theoretical orientation seems to be on the decline, a vast number of counselors continue to identify themselves with one or more orientations, and graduate training in counseling continues to emphasize theoretical orientation. In addition, although the classic comparative outcome studies do not provide evidence for the differential impact of theoretical orientation in the effectiveness of counseling (Wampold, 2000), there is substantial evidence that counselors of different theoretical orientations exhibit different epistemic beliefs, verbal response behavior, and specific therapeutic techniques (Poznanski & McLennan, 1995). Therefore, theoretical orientation remains an important variable in the study of processes and outcomes in counseling and psychotherapy.

Counseling theories historically have been categorized into three central schools: cognitive-behavioral, humanistic/existential, and psychoanalytic/psychodynamic (Pedersen, 1991; Warwar & Greenberg, 2000). More recently, both feminist counseling and multicultural counseling have become prominent conceptual and practical influences in the field, suggesting that these approaches need to be included in any measure of theoretical orientation. Indeed, after psychoanalytic/psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral, and humanistic/existential schools of thought, multiculturalism has been identified as a "fourth force" in psychology (Pedersen, 1991). Furthermore, although family counseling could be considered by some to be only a distinct modality (e.g., as compared to individual or group modalities), there is also a group of formal theories that can be classified as family systems theories (e.g., Bowen, 1978; Minuchin, 1974), containing distinct perspectives regarding human development, human change processes, and psychotherapy. Although a thorough discussion of the debate regarding the relative efficacy of the various theoretical approaches to counseling is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to note that Wampold (2000) has declared that the current research evidence seems to support the notion that common factors rather than specific ingredients lead to positive outcomes. However, Wampold (2000) also argued that specific ingredients were necessary to construct a coherent treatment and were therefore "absolutely necessary in therapy" (p. 735). Thus, although some may argue that measurement of theoretical orientation has become moot in an age when the relative efficacy of different approaches has not been supported and eclecticism rules the profession, it is apparent that relative adherence to specific approaches that are grounded in one of the six identified schools of psychotherapy is a distinct and important point of inquiry among counseling researchers and practitioners.

The most common approach for assessing theoretical orientation is the reliance on global self-ascriptions (Guinee, 2000), which ultimately yield categorical data of restricted utility. Although evidence suggests that global self-ascriptions may be valid, they may be of little use in tapping the eclectic application of approaches characteristic of today's practice world (Poznanski & McLennan, 1995). Instead, as recommended by Hill and O'Grady (1985), the use of a theoretical orientation profile is a more appropriate strategy than a single categorization, so that a multifaceted construct is measured (Poznanski & McLennan, 1995) and relative adherence to different schools of therapy can be observed. In a recent content analysis of research appearing in the Journal of Counseling Psychology, Guinee (2000) identified only a handful of studies that used Likert-type self-report ratings of therapists' relative adherence to different theoretical approaches (e.g., Gelso, Kivlighan, Wine, Jones, & Friedman, 1997; Hill, Diemer, & Heaton, 1997; Hill, Helms, Spiegel, & Tichenor, 1988; Hill, Thompson, Cogar, & Denman, 1993). Each of the identified measures of relative adherence had been developed specifically for use in a single research investigation, using some version of labels referring to psychoanalytic, humanistic, and cognitive-behavioral theoretical orientations--none of which provided evidence of reliability or validity of scale scores.

Poznanski and McLennan (1995) conducted an extensive meta-review of the literature on theoretical orientation and located 15 self-report measures. They reported that the vast majority of these instruments did not specify evidence of validity and that a substantial number did not specify evidence of reliability. They pointed out weaknesses in the few existing multi-item measures, including (a) measurement of only one or two theoretical approaches and (b) overemphasis on either epistemic beliefs or preferred practices. Furthermore, as Gelso (1995) pointed out, despite the fact that several transtheoretical dimensions have been delineated (e.g., analytic-experiential, objective-subjective), practitioners continue to think of theoretical orientation in terms of existing theories (e.g., psychoanalytic/psychodynamic, humanistic, cognitive-behavioral, and family systems). As a result, "practitioners and researchers are probably more interested ... in how preference for and adherence to such theories relate to a host of variables ... than they are in dimensions that cut across these theories" (Gelso, 1995, p. 427). Therefore, the central goal of the current research was to produce a brief, easy-to-use multidimensional scale to assess the theoretical orientation profile of counselors based on six schools of psychotherapy (i.e., psychoanalytic/psychodynamic, humanistic/existential, cognitive-behavioral, family systems, feminist, and multicultural) and then to examine the reliability and validity of the scale scores obtained from the instrument.

OVERVIEW

We designed and carried out three separate studies. Study 1 was designed to develop the Theoretical Orientation Profile Scale-Revised (TOPS-R) and provide an initial indication of the reliability and construct validity of scale scores. Further, Study 1 was used to evaluate the extent...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



More articles from Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
Log-linear techniques for the analysis of categorical data: a demonstr..., July 01, 2003

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.