Single-subject research design for school counselors: becoming an applied researcher

Professional School Counseling, Dec, 2002 by Linda H. Foster, T. Steuart Watson, Caroline Meeks, J. Scott Young

During the past decade, there has been discussion over the need for outcome research documenting the work of school counselors and the lack of research delineating the work of school counselors (Baker, 2000; Fairchild, 1993; Green & Keys, 2001; Myrick, 1990; Paisley & McMahon, 2001; Rhyne-Winkler & Wooten, 1996; Vacc & Rhyne-Winkler, 1993; Whiston & Sexton, 1998). Outcome research supporting the work of school counselors is increasingly being demanded as the public desires to know how public education funds are spent on school counseling services and whether those services are effective (Burnham & Jackson, 2000; Looney, 1998; Lusky & Hayes, 2001; Rhyne-Winkler & Wooten). The addition of new school counseling positions and continuation of school counseling programs in public and private education has prompted efforts to justify funding and retention of school counselors as necessary components of the educational system (Whiston & Sexton). Funding of school counseling programs is of great concern as public education frequently must deal with decreased federal, state, and local funding sources which translates into reductions in programs, services, and personnel (Lenhardt & Young, 2001; Otwell & Mullis, 1997). Not only can empirical research be helpful to justify funding, but also it can be a useful tool for program evaluation to establish and maintain an effective school counseling program. Enhancement of the professional viability of school counselors can also be a benefit of empirical research (Borders & Drury, 1992; Fairchild; Lenhardt & Young; Paisley & McMahon). A clear need exists for research on school counselors and their interventions, but it is unclear who is responsible for conducting this research. It has been suggested that school counselors should accept the challenge to provide the needed accountability data (Johnson, 2000; Paisley & McMahon; Otwell & Mullis). Moreover, Lenhardt and Young proposed that through advocacy, public relations, and marketing, the profession could be strengthened; however, this is dependent on accountability efforts including measuring student outcomes and conducting action research.

Throughout the history of the school counseling profession, the school counselor has provided a wide range of services and interventions evolving from the early vocational emphasis to a mental health model in the middle years, and finally, the current emphasis on comprehensive developmental guidance programs (Gysbers & Henderson, 2000). School counselors provide many different interventions throughout a school day, but are not maintaining adequate records providing evidence of their impact with students (Borders, 2002; Kuranz, 2002; Whiston, 2002). School counselors are being encouraged to describe and define their work through the use of outcome data (Borders; Sears & Granello, 2002). Whiston also suggested that without sufficient evidence or documentation of the positive interventions of school counselors, the profession is in jeopardy.

Although the lack of outcome research regarding school counselors and school counseling programs is well documented, perusal of the extant professional literature indicates that school counselors have been negligent in evaluating, documenting, and communicating evidence of their effectiveness (Green & Keys, 2001; Lusky & Hayes, 2001; Myrick, 1997; Paisley & Borders, 1995; Rhyne-Winkler & Wooten, 1996; Whiston & Sexton, 1998). School counselors have been slow to accept responsibility for researching their skills and the effectiveness of school counseling programs (Myrick, 1990, 1997; Paisley & McMahon, 2001). Reasons for this lack of research by school counselors vary from a lack of knowledge regarding assessment practices to ethical considerations regarding confidentiality issues. Time constraints, lack of funds, and lack of confidence to conduct a thorough assessment are other possible reasons (Fairchild, 1993; Fairchild & Zins, 1986; Myrick, 1997). It has been suggested that the most significant barrier for school counselors in conducting outcome research is the lack of familiarity with research strategies and methods (Fairchild; Fairchild & Seeley, 1995; Lusky & Hayes; Myrick, 1997; Whiston & Sexton).

School counselors must be able and willing to provide evidence of their effectiveness to students, teachers, administrators, and parents (Fairchild, 1993). Learning to conduct outcome research will provide a valuable tool to examine and document school counselors' effectiveness with students (Borders & Drury, 1992; Gysbers & Henderson, 2000). School counseling programs focus on student mastery of competencies and are designed to facilitate student success. An examination of school counseling interventions may provide answers for the school counselor to the question: "Do I make a difference in the lives of the children with whom I work?" Myrick (1990) also questioned whether the school counselor's intervention makes a difference. The application of basic operant research principles can provide the school counselor with a systematic way to make known how their interventions impact students (Rhyne-Winkler & Wooten, 1996). A simple, easy-to-use research method is focusing on one student and analyzing the information to assist both the counselor and student. School counselors can easily take advantage of the single-subject research paradigm to conduct outcome research and answer questions regarding the effectiveness of school counselors' interventions.