The Effect of Specific Versus Generalized Supervisory Feedback on Counseling Self-Efficacy of Counselors-In-Training

This study assessed the effects of general and specific supervisory feedback on counselors’-in-training ratings of counseling self-efficacy (CSE). Fifty-four students in counseling-related graduate programs from two universities in the southeast and one in the mid-west volunteered as participants. Thirty-seven participants were female (68.5%), 14 were male (25.9%), and three did not indicate their sex (5.6%). Forty out of 54 participants (74.1%) indicated they were Caucasian-American, five were African-American (9.3%), one was Hispanic-American (1.9%), one was Asian-American (1.9%), and three indicated that they were best described as “other” (5.6%). The median number of months of previous clinical supervision for the participants was one month. This study made use of a two-group pretest-posttest design. The independent variable was performance feedback, with two levels (specific and general). The dependent variables included post-test scores on the Counselor Activity Self-Efficacy Scales (CASES; Lent, Hill, & Hoffman, 2003). State anxiety was also assessed with the state scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S; Spielberger, 1982). After completing pretest measures, participants performed a ten-minute mock counseling session with a confederate. After the mock counseling session, the confederate provided either specific feedback or general feedback statements to the participants. Participants then filled out post-test measures. After the measures were collected, participants received an extensive debriefing. The three hypotheses for counseling self efficacy were: (a) there would be a significant difference between the two groups’ counseling self-efficacy scores with participants receiving specific feedback obtaining higher counseling self-efficacy scores; (b) there would be a significant difference between pre- and post-test scores of counseling self-efficacy with the post-test scores being significantly higher than pre-test scores; and (c) while both groups were expected to score similarly in the pre-test measure of counseling self-efficacy, it is predicted that the participants receiving specific feedback reporting higher counseling self-efficacy scores in the post-test measures. There was no difference between counseling self-efficacy scores of participants who received general or specific supervisory feedback. Post-measure counseling self-efficacy scores were significantly higher than the pre-measure scores. There was no group x time interaction. The three hypotheses for anxiety were: (a) there will be a significant difference between the two groups’ anxiety scores with the participants receiving specific supervisory feedback will report significantly less anxiety than those receiving global supervisory feedback; (b) there will be a significant difference between pre- and post-test scores of state anxiety with the post-test scores being significantly lower than pre-test scores; and (c) while both groups are expected to score similarly in the pre-test measure of state anxiety, it is predicted that the participants receiving specific feedback reporting lower state anxiety scores in the post-test measures. There was no difference between anxiety scores of participants who received general or specific supervisory feedback. Post-measure anxiety scores were significantly higher than the pre-measure scores. There was no group x time interaction. Implications and issues to be considered in future research were discussed.