School Counselor Professional Identity in Relation to Post-Master’s Supervision

Abstract

School counselors may choose to pursue clinical supervision after they graduate from a master’s program even though they are not required to do so. This quantitative study utilized a survey research design to examine the differences between school counselor professional identity (SCPI) development and post-master’s supervision. Results from this study indicate significant differences in components of SCPI between school counselors who participated in post-master’s supervision and those who did not. School counselors who pursued post-master’s supervision had stronger identity scores focused on roles and responsibilities, leadership, and social justice advocacy.

Keywords

school counselor professional identity supervision licensure school counselor professional identity scale

Although post-master’s clinical supervision is not a requirement for school counselors, research has shown that it positively contributes to school counselor professional development (Bledsoe et al., 2021; Slaten et al., 2013). Scholars have explored counselor professional identity (CPI; Kaplan et al., 2014; Rønnestad & Skovholt, 2003; Woo et al., 2017) and several qualitative studies and conceptual publications have addressed the topic of school counselor professional identity (SCPI) and school counselors’ perspective of their professional roles (Levy & Lemberger-Truelove, 2021; Schayot, 2008; Slaten et al., 2013; Springer et al., 2017; Upton, 2013). However, little quantitative research exists on the topic of SCPI.

Rønnestad and Skovholt (2003) found that CPI is heavily influenced in the early professional years; during this time, clinical mental health counselors in all 50 states are required to pursue supervision (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2016). Although some school counselors may opt to pursue post-master’s supervision and clinical licensure, supervision for school counselors often discontinues upon graduation (Springer et al., 2017). Jurekovic (2019) developed a quantitative measure for SCPI, the School Counselor Professional Identity Scale (SCPIS), which aligns with the American School Counselor Association’s ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2012, 2019b). Although CPI and SCPI do share certain factors (e.g., knowledge of the profession, role, ethical standards, and engagement in professional membership and professional development; Woo et al., 2017), some factors specific to school counseling are not mentioned in CPI research. For example, the role of the school counselor outlined by the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2019b) includes expertise across three domains: academic, college/career, and social/emotional. The study outlined in this article was the first to utilize the SCPIS outside of the initial pilot study, with the primary purpose of exploring the differences between SCPI and post-master’s engagement in clinical supervision. The results may be beneficial in adapting educational training and licensure requirements for school counselors and school counselors in training.

School Counselor Professional Identity

Historically, ambiguity has surrounded an accepted definition for SCPI (Cinotti, 2014; Gibson et al., 2018; Gysbers, 2010; Jurekovic, 2019; Lambie et al., 2019; Perkins et al., 2010). Rather than two competing professional identities, that of mental health professional and educator, researchers (DeKruyf et al, 2018; Lambie et al., 2019; Levy & Lemberger-Truelove, 2021) suggest that school counselors adopt a joint professional identity; one of both mental health professional and educator, or educator-counselor (Levy & Lemberger-Truelove, 2021). Adopting a joint identity aligns with ASCA’s (2019b) defined role of the school counselor: “School counselors are certified/licensed educators with a minimum of a master’s degree in school counseling, making them uniquely qualified to address all students’ academic, career, and social/emotional development needs” (p. xii). Furthermore, school counselors must recognize and be aware of ASCA’s Ethical Standards (2022), which specifically delineate the scope of work for school counselors regarding not diagnosing students in the school setting but “recogniz[ing] how a student’s diagnosis and environment can potentially affect the student’s access, participation and ability to achieve academic, postsecondary and social/emotional success” (A.1.f; p. 2) providing brief counseling in the school setting, and supporting “students and families/guardians in obtaining outside services if students need long-term clinical/mental health counseling” (A.1.e; p. 1). Covering these aspects during clinical supervision would be beneficial to maintain awareness of the work at the school level while gaining skills and knowledge pertaining to clinical work.

Upton (2013) utilized a Delphi method study to determine specific components of SCPI, identifying five items: (a) professional and student advocacy, (b) professional development, (c) professional engagement, (d) professional ethics, and (e) professional roles. These items are similar to many of the components of CPI fulfillment (Woo et al., 2017), however, student advocacy and professional roles are unique to SCPI. Student advocacy may be displayed through the school counselor working towards systemic change; unlike clinical mental health counselors, school counselors analyze data to identify school policies or programs that may obstruct student success (ASCA, 2019b; Hatch & Hartline, 2021). Once such policies or programs are identified, school counselors may work to remove systemic barriers though collaborative efforts within the school or district, or at the state level (ASCA, 2019b; Hatch & Hartline, 2021). The professional roles of school counselors differ from those of clinical mental health counselors. Clinical mental health counselors diagnose and treat mental disorders whereas school counselors benefit from the knowledge of diagnoses and treatment (ASCA, 2022) but do not diagnose or treat mental disorders (ASCA, 2022; Gehart, 2016). Furthermore, the delivery of classroom lessons is unique to the role of the school counselor (ASCA, 2019b). Differences, such as the aforementioned, support the need for a professional identity model specific to the field of school counseling.

The Role and Identity of the School Counselor

The role and duties of the school counselor have been a long-discussed topic (Jurekovic, 2019; Lambie et al., 2019; Levy & Lemberger-Truelove, 2021; Schayot, 2008; Slaten et al., 2013; Springer et al., 2017; Upton, 2013). The professional role(s) of the school counselor are directly connected to school counselor identity development (Jurekovic, 2019; Upton, 2013). Therefore, exploring and understanding the school counseling role is imperative. ASCA (2019b) suggests that school counselors spend 80% of their time in direct and indirect duties; this includes face-to-face interaction with students and support efforts performed on behalf of students. The remaining 20% of school counselors’ time should be spent on program evaluation or management, and a portion of the 20% can be allocated toward school counselors filling myriad roles described by ASCA (2019b) as non-counseling duties (e.g., data entry, scheduling, hall duty, and bus duty). Despite these detailed suggestions, school administrators are in charge of organizing and allocating duties within a school (Heled & Davidovich, 2019; Slaten et al., 2013). This can lead to role confusion and identity confusion for novice school counselors who enter the profession.

Supervision Requirements for Clinical and School Counselors in Training

Supervision is required in all counselor education programs accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP, 2016). Counselors in training must complete a 100-hour supervised practicum and a 600-hour supervised internship. These practicum and internship requirements provide counseling students experiential learning opportunities with the support of a skilled professional (CACREP, 2016). Post-master’s supervision requirements differ by specialty area.

Counselors from all counseling specialties may pursue national certification through the National Board of Certified Counselors (NBCC); this credential certifies that a counselor has met the standards of a rigorous counselor education program and/or passed the National Counselor Examination (NBCC, 2021). However, counselors also are required to seek licensure/certification at the state level (ACA, 2016; ASCA, 2021). Clinical mental health counselors must hold a minimum of a master’s degree; all 50 states and Washington, DC, require post-master’s supervision hours and counselors must pass a comprehensive counseling exam specified by the state of licensure (ACA, 2016). Forty-four U.S. states and Washington, DC, require a master’s degree or higher for school counselor certification (ASCA, 2021). Thirty-seven states and Washington, DC, require passing scores on an exam or exams, such as the School Counseling Praxis, the National Counseling Exam, or a state-level certification exam (ASCA, 2021). One state, South Dakota, requires one year of supervision from a mentor school counselor if the individual is entering the profession with a master’s degree in a counseling specialty area outside of school counseling (ASCA, 2021). Supervision for school counselors is required only through specific counselor education programs prior to graduation (ASCA, 2021).

The overarching goal of clinical supervision is to produce more competent counselors (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019). The supervisor continually assesses the counselor’s ability to start and close sessions and use counseling skills and interventions. Supervisors work to further develop counselors’ conceptualization skills and abilities to understand the client, recognize client goals, and evaluate client growth. Further, supervisors assist in the development of personalization skills related to the therapeutic relationship, listening skills, and reflecting empathy (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019).

Phases of Counselor Development

Rønnestad and Skovholt (2003) introduced a developmental model that identifies six phases of counselor development. The first phase, the lay helper, may be considered the pretraining phase; the individual may display sympathy over empathy. Phase two, the beginning student, emerges early in training; the student is excited to learn but may question their own ability. Students in this phase benefit from positive supervisory feedback. Phase three, the advanced student, is often displayed in the experiences of practicum or internship students. These individuals set high standards for themselves; however, they may avoid taking risks. Phase four is titled the novice professional phase; characteristics of this phase are displayed in the first 3–5 years post-master’s. Counselors in this phase are working to define their own counseling practice. Phase five, the experienced professional, is displayed after years of work and various experiences; counselors in this phase can be their authentic self in practice. Last, phase six, the senior professional, is displayed after 20–25 years of experience. Counselors in this phase are respected in the field and highly knowledgeable (Rønnestad & Skovholt, 2003). The growth of counselor development is essentially displayed over time. Clinical supervisors are responsible for evaluating and fostering the professional identity development of counselors (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019). Therefore, post-master’s clinical supervision may have a direct impact on the professional identity development of counselors and school counselors. The comparison of requirements between specialty areas provides grounds to wonder if school counselors may be at a disadvantage for continued professional identity growth without the requirement for continued supervision.

Post-Master’s Supervision Experiences of School Counselors

Although post-master’s clinical supervision is not required for certification or licensure, some school counselors choose to pursue it (Bledsoe et al., 2021; Brott et al., 2021; Lambie et al., 2019). School counselors may commit to clinical supervision to obtain professional clinical licensure, or they may seek clinical supervision for additional professional development and support (Bledsoe et al., 2021; Lambie et al., 2019; Slaten et al., 2013). Bledsoe et al. (2021) conducted a qualitative, phenomenological study with novice school counselors who were pursuing post-master’s clinical supervision. The transition from graduate school to the school counselor profession was found to be less challenging for school counselors who pursued clinical supervision. School counselors reported difficulties navigating an unfamiliar environment without the support of clinical supervision they had experienced in their master’s program (Bledsoe et al., 2021). Moreover, clinical supervisors were able to provide professional and personal support for novice counselors and guide them through difficult conversations with school-based supervisors or administrators about aligning school counselor duties with the ASCA National Model (Bledsoe et al., 2021)

School counselors do usually receive nonclinical supervision; often this is provided by a professional who is not a counselor (Bledsoe et al., 2021; Brott et al., 2021; Havlik et al., 2019). These supervision experiences may be provided by an administrator and focus more on system-wide or school-based procedural training (Bledsoe et al., 2021; Havlik et al., 2019; Slaten et al., 2013). Consultation with a clinical supervisor outside of the school building can provide a framework for school counselors to better understand how and when to best advocate for their role in the school (Bledsoe et al., 2021). Post-master’s clinical supervision for school counselors has resulted in higher levels of professional identity and skill development; these supervisors can provide personal and professional support in ethical decision-making, wellness, self-care, empowerment, and higher self-efficacy in the ability to support student needs (Bledsoe et al., 2021; Duncan et al., 2014; Lambie et al., 2019).

School Counselor Professional Identity Model and Scale

Jurekovic (2019) developed the seven-factor School Counselor Professional Identity Model (SCPIM). The SCPIM was constructed through a four-phase study (Jurekovic, 2019) that included a pilot study with 504 participants. The primary research for the SCPIM was based on existing SCPI research (Brott & Myers, 1999; Upton, 2013; Woo & Henfield, 2015) and on the third edition of the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2012). Jurekovic (2019) utilized exploratory factor analysis and identified evidence of factors not mentioned in previous school counselor identity models (Brott & Myers, 1999; Upton, 2013; Woo & Henfield, 2015). The factors within the SCPIM were then used to construct the SCPIS (Jurekovic, 2019). In the present study, we used the SCPIM to outline factors of professional identity as measured by the SCPIS. The SCPIS (Jurekovic, 2019) consists of 49 items within seven subscales, which coincide with the factors identified in the SCPIM. The following sections outline the seven factors within the SCPIM.

Factor 1: Attitudes and Values

The Attitudes and Values factor of the SCPIM aligns with findings of previous research on CPI (Woo & Henfield, 2015). The characteristics associated with attitudes and values of school counseling contribute to pride in the profession (Jurekovic, 2019). School counselor attitudes are presented in the ASCA School Counselor Professional Standards and Competencies (ASCA, 2019a) as a series of mindsets and behaviors that describe school counselor beliefs about student achievement capabilities through the delivery of a comprehensive school counseling program. School counselors collectively share value for creating a trusting, safe environment and making ethical decisions (Upton, 2013). School counselors who score high on the Attitudes and Values subscale of the SCPIS show strong commitment to the collective profession and believe that school counselors are uniquely trained to contribute to holistic student success (Jurekovic, 2019).

Factor 2: Professional Engagement

The Professional Engagement factor of the SCPIM is based on findings from multiple studies that outline factors consistent with a strong school counseling professional identity (Puglia, 2008; Upton, 2013; Walsh-Rock, 2018). School counselors who score high on the Professional Engagement subscale of the SCPIS hold active membership in school counseling professional organizations, engage in mentorship opportunities, and pursue supervision (Jurekovic, 2019). Further, they continually take part in professional development opportunities, maintain up-to-date certifications and licensures, and actively consult with other school counselors (Jurekovic, 2019; Woo & Henfield, 2015). School counselors should understand the need for continued participation in supervision and utilize their professional standing as a source of advocacy for their profession (Jurekovic, 2019).

Factor 3: Personal Characteristics

The Personal Characteristics factor of the SCPIM includes traits relating to a counselor’s disposition based on Upton’s (2013) five components of school counselor identity: (a) professional and student advocacy, (b) professional development, (c) professional engagement, (d) professional ethics, and (d) professional roles. These components outline a school counselor who is trustworthy, reliable, flexible with their time, and empathetic toward the needs of students (Jurekovic, 2019). School counselors must work to build supportive, trusting relationships with students; these relationships allow school counselors to acquire information that students may not otherwise share (Holland, 2015). School counselors adhere to the ASCA Ethical Standards (ASCA, 2022) to make ethical and informed decisions (Jurekovic, 2019) and they understand the importance of building empathetic understanding, especially with students who have experienced adversity (Kolbert et al., 2017).

Factor 4: Core Roles and Responsibilities

The Core Roles and Responsibilities factor of the SCPIM was formed in alignment with the ASCA National Model, third edition (ASCA, 2012). School counselors who score high on the Core Roles and Responsibilities subscale of the SCPIS collaborate with school stakeholders to build comprehensive programs that support the specific needs of the school. School counselors should make data-driven decisions that support the success of all students in the school (ASCA, 2019b). School counselors also must be skilled in crisis intervention and management, and be prepared to fill various roles within the school system (e.g., advocate, collaborator, and communicator; Jurekovic, 2019).

Factor 5: Leadership Roles and Responsibilities

The Leadership Roles and Responsibilities factor of the SCPIM was also formed in alignment with the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2012). School counselors are leaders in schools; they share data with administrators, educators, and school stakeholders that support student growth, and they deliver lessons and initiatives to facilitate student growth (ASCA, 2019b). Further, school counselors who score high on the Leadership Roles and Responsibilities subscale of the SCPIS see themselves as leaders who work to be change agents in the school by providing professional development to faculty and staff, and may also be serving as department heads (Jurekovic, 2019). School counselors must be aware of federal and state policies that may affect the well-being of students, and they often collaborate with others to advocate for improvements in college access and funding, technical career education opportunities, and mental health wellness (ASCA, 2021).

Factor 6: Professional Knowledge and Awareness

The Professional Knowledge and Awareness factor of the SCPIM aligns with the ASCA Ethical Standards (ASCA, 2022) and the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2012, 2019b). School counselors who score high on the Professional Knowledge and Awareness subscale of the SCPIS understand the legal and ethical implications of the profession. These school counselors use the ASCA Ethical Standards and the ASCA National Model to make ethical and evidence-based decisions for the benefit of the school community. School counselors should understand the process of creating and implementing a comprehensive school counseling program that aligns with the ASCA National Model (Jurekovic, 2019).

Factor 7: Focus and Philosophy

The characteristics in the Focus and Philosophy factor of the SCPIM were not previously mentioned in other professional identity models (Jurekovic, 2019). These characteristics include the implementation of social justice advocacy and cultural understanding into the school counseling program. Although the third edition of the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2012) did not include these factors, the model’s fourth edition (ASCA, 2019b) does include the characteristics assessed in this section of the SCPIS. High scores on the Focus and Philosophy subscale of the SCPIS show understanding of trauma-informed practices and promotion of student self-advocacy and empowerment (Jurekovic, 2019). School counselors should feel confident in promoting the equitable treatment of students in the school through recognition of group differences and encouraging appreciation for diversity (ASCA, 2018).

Method

The aim of this study was to explore the differences between SCPI and engagement in post-master’s clinical supervision. The study also explored specific demographic characteristics in relation to SCPI. Currently, little research exists related to SCPI; the results of this study aim to benefit training for school counseling students and professional development initiatives for practicing school counselors. Two major research questions guided the data analysis in this study:

1. Does SCPI differ between those who participated in post-master’s supervision and those who did not?

2. What are the differences on the SCPIS subscales for those who participated in post-master’s supervision and those who did not, based on program accreditation, years of experience, and level of education?

Participants

The participants in this study were 172 individuals who graduated from a master’s in counseling program; were current, certified/licensed school counselors in their state of residence; and were employed full-time or part-time as a school counselor. We collected demographic information specific to describing the sample (e.g., gender, age, and race). The demographic variable used in the analysis of Research Question 1 (RQ1) was participation in post-master’s clinical supervision. The three demographic variables used in the analysis of Research Question 2 (RQ2) were: counseling program accreditation, years of experience, and level of education.

As reported in Table 1, a total of 172 school counselors completed the Qualtrics survey. The gender and racial demographics of this sample population is somewhat representative of the national school counselor population; according to the ASCA State of the Profession Report (ASCA, 2021), 87% of school counselors identify as female, 11% identify as male, and less than 1% identify as non-binary or a third gender. The race/ethnicity demographics of the national school population include White (77%), Black or African American (10%), Asian (1%) Latinx (5%), and two or more races (3%; ASCA, 2021). Participant age in the present study ranged from 25 to 67; the average age of participants was 41.91 with a median age of 41 and a SD of 10.27.

Table 1.

Participant Demographic Information.

Characteristic	n	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	7	4.0
Female	162	93.6
Transgender	0	0.0
Non-binary	2	1.2
Prefer not to answer	1	0.6
Race/ethnicity
White	138	79.8
Black or African American	17	9.8
American Indian or Alaska Native	0	0.0
Asian	1	0.6
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	0	0.0
Multiracial	10	5.8
Other	6	3.5
Program accreditation
CACREP accredited	140	81.39
Non-CACREP accredited	31	18
Experience
1–5 years	63	36.4
6–10 years	37	21.4
11–14 years	15	9.2
15–20 years	31	17.9
21 or more years	25	14.5
Degree earned
Master’s	132	78.1
Specialist	26	15.3
Doctorate/PhD	11	6.5
Post-master’s clinical supervision
Yes	48	27.7
No	124	71.7

Of the 172 study participants, 140 (81.39%) graduated from a CACREP-accredited program and 31 (18%) graduated from a non-CACREP accredited program; one participant chose not to answer this question. One hundred sixty-five participants (95.4%) were working full-time as school counselors and seven (4%) were working part-time as school counselors. Regarding years of experience, 63 participants (36.4%) reported 1–5 years of experience in the profession, 37 (21.4%) reported 6–10 years of experience, 16 (9.2%) reported 11–14 years of experience, 31 (17.9%) reported 15–20 years of experience, and 25 participants (14.5%) reported working as a school counselor for more than 20 years.

Procedures

Given that the study was not focused on a single state or region, we wanted to utilize a random sample population from varied locations and regions of the United States. Therefore, we decided that a survey research design would be appropriate. Upon Institutional Review Board approval, we sent email invitations through various counseling and school counseling professional organization email list networks (ACA Connects, ASCA Scene, and CESNET). We also posted invitations to participate on school counseling social media pages. Snowballing was allowed and participants were encouraged to share the survey link with colleagues. Each invitation was posted or sent three times over a period of 3 months. To determine the required number of participants, we used G-power statistical software (Faul et al., 2007) version 3.1.9.6, which indicated that 153 participants would be required for this study. Participants completed a Qualtrics survey that included a demographic questionnaire; the SCPIS, version seven; and the Marlow–Crowne Social Desirability Scale—Short form C (CMSDS).

Instruments

We collected demographic information regarding gender, age, race, years of experience, grade level experience, clinical licensure status, and participation in post-master’s clinical supervision. We also asked whether participants graduated from a CACREP-accredited university. University accreditation through CACREP requires continued program self-assessment and identifies specific standards to be included in course curriculum (CACREP, 2016). Therefore, those counselors who graduated from a CACREP-accredited university would have had similar master’s-level education experiences. If school counselors indicated that they did not pursue post-master’s supervision, the questionnaire proceeded to one open-ended question asking the reason(s) for not pursuing supervision. If school counselors indicated that they did pursue post-master’s supervision, the questionnaire proceeded to ask: (a) reason(s) for pursuing supervision, (b) any positive aspects of the supervision experience, (c) any negative aspects of the supervision experience, and (d) how the supervision experience may have contributed to professional identity growth as a school counselor. The open-ended questions where not used in the analysis in this study, but informed implications for future research.

School Counselor Professional Identity Scale

Permission to use the SCPIS (Jurekovic, 2019) was granted for use in the current study through email communication with Dr. Jurekovic. The SCPIC is a 49-item, self-report scale based on the ASCA National Model (Jurekovic, 2019), with seven subscales that may be administered individually or together. Each subscale corresponds with an individual construct from the SCPIM (Jurekovic, 2019). The current research study was the first to utilize the SCPIS outside of Jurekovic’s (2019) original pilot study. The SCPIS is scored by averaging all answers; overall participant scores can range from one to six, with six representing the highest level of professional identity development. In the construction and validation study for the SCPIS, Jurekovic (2019) calculated Cronbach’s coefficient alpha to determine the internal consistency of each subscale. Internal consistency was good for the SCPIS overall (α = .96) and for Subscales 1–6: Attitudes and Values, α = .89; Professional Engagement, α = .879; Personal Characteristics, α = .862; Core Roles and Responsibilities, α = .841; Leadership Roles and Responsibilities, α = .848; and Professional Knowledge and Awareness, α = .845. For Subscale 7, Focus and Philosophy, internal consistency was acceptable (α = .708). To determine the convergent validity, Jurekovic (2019) used a Pearson correlation between the SCPIS and the Professional Identity Scale in Counseling (Woo & Henfield, 2015) and found a strong positive correlation between the two scales (p < .01).

Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale—Short Form C

The Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability scale was originally developed by Crowne and Marlowe in 1960; the scale consisted of 33 items. In 1982, Reynolds (1982) developed three short forms (A, B, and C) using the original 33 items and found favorable reliability in short form C (r = .76). The Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale—Short Form C (CMSDS), available for use through public domain, contains 13 true/false items that examine personal attitude and social desirability response with self-report scales. Reynolds (1982) found high concurrent validity between short form C, the original 1960 version, and another measure, the Edwards Social Desirability Scale (r = .93). The items within the CMSDS are scored as T = 1, F = 2; items 5, 7, 9, 10, and 13 are reverse scored as T = 2, F = 1. The sum of scores is then calculated, with high scores indicating social desirability response tendency (Reynolds, 1982). We used the CMSDS to determine discriminant validity and participant bias.

Data Analysis

We implemented a survey research design utilizing multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine the differences between SCPI and involvement in post-master’s supervision experiences and the differences between SCPI and specific descriptive criteria. We used Qualtrics survey software to collect and store data until we were ready to perform analysis, and SPSS statistical analysis software to analyze the collected data. The survey received 213 total responses; 22 responses were determined to be unanalyzable because the participants had exited the survey prior to answering the question about participation in post-master’s supervision. We discarded an additional 19 responses because the participants had not progressed beyond the agreement to participate.

RQ1: Does SCPI differ between those who participated in post-master’s supervision and those who did not? To answer this question, we examined the differences between experience in post-master’s clinical supervision and each subscale score of the SCPIS.

Using SPSS statistical analysis software, we used MANOVA to examine the differences between the dependent variable (SCPI) and the independent variable (participation in post-master’s clinical supervision). We applied Wilks’ lambda to examine the multivariate effect using an alpha level of .05, and conducted univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to determine the nature of the difference. Using kurtosis and skewness, we determined normal distribution; kurtosis (.733) and skewness (−.613) were less than ±1, therefore, the distribution was normal.

RQ2: What are the differences on the SCPIS subscales for those who participated in post-master’s supervision and those who did not, based on program accreditation, years of experience, and level of education? We determined descriptive criteria through Question 4 (program accreditation), Question 5 (years of experience), and Question 7 (level of education) on the demographic questionnaire. To answer RQ2, we examined the differences between demographic variables and each subscale score of the SCPIS.

For each demographic variable, respectively, we used MANOVA to examine the differences between the dependent variable (SCPI) and the independent variable (Q4, Q5, and Q7). We applied Wilks’ Lambda to examine the multivariate effect using an alpha level of .05. Using kurtosis and skewness, we determined a normal distribution; all three independent variables had kurtosis and/or skewness more than ±1, therefore, the distribution was non-normal.

Results

Among the 172 participants, 169 responded to the survey question about highest level of education/degree held; 132 participants (78.1%) held a master’s degree, 26 (15.3%) held a specialist degree, and 11 (6.5%) held a doctorate degree. Regarding supervision, 48 participants (27.7%) had chosen to pursue post-master’s clinical supervision and 124 (71.7%) had chosen not to pursue post-master’s clinical supervision. The mean, SD, and reliability statistics are reported in Table 2 for the SCPIS and subscales and the CMSDS. Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine reliability; all seven SCPI subscales and the SCPIS in entirety had a reliability coefficient above .7 with the exception of the Focus and Philosophy subscale (α = .627). The CMSDS had a reliability coefficient of .656.

Table 2.

Scale Reliability Statistics.

Scale/subscale	N	Cronbach’s alpha (original)	M	SD
School counselor professional identity scale (SCPIS)	49	.924 (.96)	5.367	.424
1. Attitudes and values	8	.907 (.89)	5.329	.730
2. Professional engagement	9	.866 (.879)	5.132	.729
3. Personal characteristics	9	.901 (.862)	5.615	.473
4. Core roles and responsibilities	6	.793 (.841)	5.673	.368
5. Leadership roles and responsibilities	7	.837 (.848)	5.110	.649
6. Professional knowledge and awareness	6	.837 (.845)	5.315	.598
7. Focus and philosophy	4	.627 (.708)	5.479	.489
Marlowe–Crowne social desirability scale – Short form C	13	.656	21.73	2.396

Research Question 1: Difference in SCPI and Post-Master’s Supervision

We used MANOVA to examine the differences between SCPI and post-master’s supervision. First, the score from the SCPIS subscales were entered as the dependent variables and the survey response was entered as the independent variable. The results of the MANOVA resulted in a Wilks’ lambda of .892, p = .008, indicating an overall multivariate difference between the two groups. We conducted follow-up univariate ANOVAs to determine the specific nature of this difference. Table 3 presents these results with descriptive statistics. Overall, those who participated in post-master’s clinical supervision reported higher levels of professional identity in five of the seven subscales. Three of the seven comparisons were statistically significant: Core Roles and Responsibilities (p = .021), Leadership Roles and Responsibilities (p = .013), and Focus and Philosophy (p = .002).

Table 3.

A Comparison of Those With and Without Post-Master’s Supervision Experience on the SCPIS.

	Post-master’s clinical supervision
	No (n = 123)	Yes (n = 48)
Subscale	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	F (η_p²)	p
1. Attitudes and values	5.334 (.65)	5.316 (.913)	.023 (.000)	.881
2. Professional engagement	5.096 (.672)	5.216 (.864)	.932 (.005)	.336
3. Personal characteristics	5.627 (.335)	5.58 (.723)	.334 (.002)	.564
4. Core roles and responsibilities	5.633 (.379)	5.778 (.323)	5.461 (.031)	.021*
5. Leadership roles and responsibilities	5.031 (.578)	5.307 (.531)	6.374 (.036)	.013*
6. Professional knowledge and awareness	5.286 (.589)	5.389 (.627)	1.018 (.006)	.314
7. Focus and philosophy	5.409 (.524)	5.662 (.336)	9.609 (.054)	.002*

Note. A multivariate comparison resulted in a Wilks’ Lambda of .829, p = .008. *p = < .05.

Research Question 2: Differences on SCPIS Subscales and Demographics

We used MANOVA to examine the differences between SCPI and the demographic survey questions on program accreditation, years of experience, and level of education. First, the score from the SCPIS subscales were entered as the dependent variables, then the survey response from each demographic question, respectively, was entered as the independent variable. The results of the MANOVA for program accreditation, years of experience, and level of education indicated no overall multivariate difference between groups (see Table 4).

Table 4.

MANOVA Results: Differences Between SCPI and Program Accreditation, Years of Experience, and Level of Education.

Independent variable	Wilks’ Lambda	p
Program accreditation	.963	.52
Years of experience	.852	.559
Level of education	.929	.61

Discussion

School counselor professional identity development can be positively impacted through post-master’s clinical supervision. Supervision from a school administrator may support growth in school culture and involvement; however, factors outside of the school administrator viewpoint support development of SCPI. The current study identified three factors from the SCPIM that benefit from post-master’s clinical supervision.

Core Roles and Responsibilities

Participants who pursued post-master’s supervision had significantly higher scores on the Core Roles and Responsibilities subscale of the SCPIS. This subscale outlines factors unique to the role of the school counselor (Jurekovic, 2019). School counselors fill many roles in the school system, such as counselor, educator, consultant, and advocate (Bledsoe et al., 2021; Levy & Lemberger-Truelove, 2021; Slaten et al., 2013). School counselors also must be trained and prepared to help manage school crises and intervene as necessary (ASCA, 2019b). Clinical supervision can provide a space for school counselors to gain confidence in their decision-making skills, professionalism, counseling skills, and ethical decision making (Duncan et al., 2014). Through clinical supervision, school counselors can continue to build a greater understanding of the risk factors and indicators of abuse, neglect, and suicidality. This understanding can lead to earlier prevention and intervention practices. Furthermore, supervision can provide an objective space for school counselors to navigate the nuances of the school setting and build professional advocacy skills (Bledsoe et al., 2021).

Leadership Roles and Responsibilities

Participants who pursued post-master’s supervision had significantly higher scores on the SCPIS Leadership Roles and Responsibilities subscale, which is based on the leadership roles of the school counselor according to the ASCA National Model, third edition (ASCA, 2012; Jurekovic, 2019). School counselors use data as a tool to advocate for the programs they implement. School counselors also work as collaborators and consultants within the school; they are a liaison between home, school, and the community (ASCA, 2019b). Supervision can provide space for new school counselors to build their leadership skills, or even recognize leadership potential one may not initially see in oneself (Bledsoe et al., 2021). The supervision session can be a safe space to practice difficult conversations that may arise with faculty and staff and problem solve to prevent confrontation or uncomfortable conversation. A supervisor well versed in school counseling may also be able to provide guidance on building or improving a data-driven comprehensive school counseling program.

Focus and Philosophy

Last, participants who pursued post-master’s supervision scored significantly higher on the SCPIS Focus and Philosophy subscale, which supports a social justice-focused school counseling lens and a trauma-informed approach to counseling. School counseling programs address cultural considerations for counseling and trauma-informed practices; however, these practices may require continued personal reflection and training (Fisher, 2020). Supervision can provide a space for school counselors to further reflect on power and privilege and how they may affect the counseling relationship and student outcomes (Fisher, 2020; Gregory & Roberts, 2017).

Further Discussion

Although not to a statistically significant degree, school counselors who pursued post-master’s supervision also scored higher on the Professional Engagement and Professional Knowledge and Awareness subscales. These subscales center on professional memberships and the importance of building a network of counselors and school counselors with whom to consult. Group supervision can provide a network of professionals to build ethical decision-making skills, consult on data-driven initiatives, and access peer mentorship opportunities.

Furthermore, the results from RQ2 revealed trends that, although not statistically significant, are worth noting. Those who graduated from CACREP-accredited programs reported higher levels of professional identity in five of the seven subscales: Professional Engagement, Personal Characteristics, Core Roles and Responsibilities, Leadership Roles and Responsibilities, and Professional Knowledge and Awareness. This offers evidence that CACREP-accredited programs may provide a more standardized counselor education experience that emphasizes professional identity development.

The highest reported scores for the Focus and Philosophy subscale were from participants with 1–5 years of experience; this suggests that current school counselor education programs are implementing the newest edition of the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2019b). The fourth edition of the model is the first to include factors from this subscale that revolve around cultural competence and social justice advocacy. The highest reported scores for the Personal Characteristics, Core Roles and Responsibilities, and Professional Knowledge and Awareness subscales were from participants with more than 20 years of experience; this aligns with Rønnestad and Skovholt’s (2003) developmental model. These school counselors have entered the senior professional phase of counseling; therefore, they are experienced and confident in the factors included in these three subscales.

Those who held a doctorate degree (Ed.D or PhD) reported higher levels of professional identity in six of the seven subscales: Attitudes and Values, Professional Engagement, Personal Characteristics, Leadership Roles and Responsibilities, Professional Knowledge and Awareness, Focus and Philosophy. This also provides evidence that school counselor and counselor education programs are successfully implementing training based on the fourth edition of the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2019b) and that continued learning, consultation, and collaboration can support positive professional development.

Limitations

This study’s sample is representative of the nation’s school counselor population (ASCA, 2021); however, whether the study sample is representative of school counselors who pursue post-master’s supervision cannot be determined. If this number was accessible, the study could be further strengthened. Despite this obstacle, 27% of the participants indicated seeking post-master’s supervision; this appears to be a high number. Although the personal characteristics of the sample are unknown, it appears that clinical supervision is desired. A second limitation relates to the self-report nature of this study, which led us to include the CMCSD (Reynolds, 1982) in this study to measure social desirability bias. Scores from the CMCSD (M = 21.76) indicate high levels of social desirability bias. Although the survey was anonymous, participants may still have responded based on social desirability to avoid embarrassment or personal discomfort.

Survey research has limitations; the data for this study was collected at a single point in time, and provides no measure of change over time. Participants may interpret closed-ended survey questions in different ways; selecting strongly agree for one participant may equate to another participant selecting agree. Last, we used the SCPIS (Jurekovic, 2019) with permission under the caveat that confirmatory factor analysis had not yet been completed. A follow-up study is planned to determine construct validity of the SCPIM and SCPIS.

Recommendations and Implications for Future Research

Based on the open-ended questions included in the current study, we identified some implications for future research. Participants indicated that some supervisors were well versed in the roles and responsibilities of the school counselor; however, others disclosed the difficulty in finding a supervisor who understood school counseling. To further examine and address the lack of supervisors specializing in supervising school counselors, counselor educators could consider providing training for current supervisors on supervising school counselors. This could be accomplished through training of supervision models. Further research in this area, such as reasons for the lack of supervisors and barriers to becoming a supervisor, may contribute to understanding and identifying avenues for supporting the supervision process for school counselors.

Future qualitative research could include questions that explore further details of school counselor supervision experiences, such as the qualifications and experience of the supervisor and the length of the supervision experience. Further research could also strengthen the connections between professional identity development and supervision. To address distribution issues from our RQ2, researchers could implement an experimental or longitudinal research design across two groups of practicing school counselors; one group receiving post-master’s supervision and the other group not. An experimental or quasiexperimental design would allow opportunity for a more controlled selection of participants within the study. Another area for research may be the supervisory training and models used by supervisors of school counselors. Current school counselor supervision models, such as the School Counselor Supervision Model (Luke & Bernard, 2006), may require updates based on current trends in school counseling and the most recent edition of the ASCA National Model.

Research into school counselor roles and administrators could also support the profession. School administrators often assign the duties and responsibilities of school counselors (Heled & Davidovich, 2019; Slaten et al., 2013); this may be a factor that leads to identity confusion. Research on administrator training and perception of the school counselor role could aid in understanding the confusion identified in novice school counselors (Slaten et al., 2013). School counselors also report confusion based on their preservice training (Heled & Davidovich, 2019). Further research on the experiences of school counselors as they enter the profession may benefit curriculum development for school counselor educators.

Conclusion

This study established an understanding of the differences in SCPI related to post-master’s supervision experiences. Our results indicated possible connections between SCPI and program accreditation, years of experience, and level of education. The study determined that SCPI is positively impacted by post-master’s supervision, specifically in the areas of core roles and responsibilities, leadership roles and responsibilities, and focus and philosophy. Further research may be required to determine supervisor understanding of the role of the school counselor. The findings of this study may be used to encourage post-master’s supervision for novice school counselors.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Melissa Mecadon-Mann

Malti Tuttle

Author Biographies

Melissa Mecadon-Mann, Ph.D, is an assistant professor with the Department of Human Services at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, NC. Email: mmecadonmann@wcu.edu

Malti Tuttle, Ph.D, is an associate professor in the Special Education, Rehabilitation, and Counseling Department at Auburn University in Auburn, AL.

References

American School Counselor Association . (2019a). ASCA school counselor professional standards & competencies. https://schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/a8d59c2c-51de-4ec3-a565-a3235f3b93c3/SC-Competencies.pdf

American Counseling Association . (2016). Licensure requirements of professional counselors. https://www.counseling.org/docs/defaultsource/ethics/licensurerequirements2016edition.pdf

American School Counselor Association . (2012). ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (3rd ed.).

American School Counselor Association . (2018). The school counselor and equity for all students. In ASCA position statements. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/d597c40b-7684-445f-b5ed-713388478486/Position-Statements.pdf

American School Counselor Association . (2019b). ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (4th ed.).

American School Counselor Association . (2021). ASCA research report: State of the profession 2020. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/bb23299b-678d-4bce-8863-cfcb55f7df87/2020-State-of-the-Profession.pdf

American School Counselor Association . (2022). ASCA ethical standards for school counselors. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/44f30280-ffe8-4b41-9ad8-f15909c3d164/EthicalStandards.pdf

Bernard

J. M.

Goodyear

R. K.

(2019). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (6th ed.). Pearson.

Bledsoe

K. G.

Burnham

J. J.

Cook

R. M.

Clark

Webb

A. L.

(2021). A phenomenological study of early career school counselor clinical supervision experiences. Professional School Counseling, 25(1), Article 2156759X2199714. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X21997143

10.

Brott

P. E.

DeKruyf

Hyun

J. H.

LaFever

C. R.

Patterson-Mills

Cook Sandifer

M. I.

Stone

(2021). The critical need for peer clinical supervision among school counselors. Journal of School-Based Counseling Policy and Evaluation, 3(2), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.25774/nr5m-mq71

11.

Brott

P. E.

Myers

J. E.

(1999). Development of professional school counselor identity: A grounded theory. Professional School Counseling, 2(5), 339–348.

12.

Cinotti

(2014). Competing professional identity models in school counseling: A historical perspective and commentary. The Professional Counselor, 4(5), 417–425. https://doi.org/10.15241/dc.4.5.417

13.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs . 2016). 2016 CACREP standards. http://www.cacrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2016-Standards-with-citations.pdf

14.

DeKruyf

Augur

Trice-Black

(2018). The role of school counselors in meeting students’ mental health needs: Examining issues of professional identity. Professional School Counseling, 16(5), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0001600502

15.

Duncan

Brown-Rice

Bardhoshi (2014). Perceptions of the importance and utilization of clinical supervision among certified rural school counselors. The Professional Counselor, 4(5), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.15241/kd.4.5.444

16.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146

17.

Fisher

E. S.

(2020). Cultural humility as a form of social justice: Promising practices for global school psychology training. School Psychology International, 41(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034319893097

18.

Gehart

(2016). Theory and treatment planning in counseling and psychotherapy (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning.

19.

Gibson

D. M.

Dooley

B. A.

Kelchner

V. P.

Moss

J. M.

Vacchio

(2018). From counselor-in-training to professional school counselor: Understanding professional identity development. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory, & Research, 39(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15566382.2012.12033879

20.

Gregory

Roberts

(2017). Teacher beliefs and the overrepresentation of black students in classroom discipline. Theory Into Practice, 56(3), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1336035

21.

Gysbers

(2010). Remembering the past, shaping the future: A history of school counseling. American School Counselor Association.

22.

Hatch

Hartline

(2021). The use of data in school counseling. Corwin.

23.

Havlik

S. A.

Malott

Yee

DeRosato

Crawford

(2019). School counselor training in professional advocacy: The role of the counselor educator. Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy, 6(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/2326716X.2018.1564710

24.

Heled

Davidovich

(2019). The impact of academic, personal, and professional attributes on the occupational identity of school counselors in Israel. Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(4), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.5.4.513

25.

Holland

M. M.

(2015). Trusting each other: Student-counselor relationship in diverse high schools. Sociology of Education, 88(3), 244–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040715591347

26.

Jurekovic

C. N.

(2019). School counselor professional identity scale (SCPIS): Instrument construction and validation (publication No. 13810310). [Doctoral dissertation, Adams State University.

27.

Kaplan

D. M.

Tarvydas

V. M.

Gladding

S. T.

(2014). 20/20: A vision for the future of counseling: The new consensus definition of counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(3), 366–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00164.x

28.

Kolbert

J. B.

Williams

R. L.

Morgan

L. M.

Crothers

L. M.

Hughes

T. L.

(2017). Introduction to professional school counseling: Advocacy, leadership, and intervention. Routledge.

29.

Lambie

G. W.

Haugen

J. S.

Borland

J. R.

Campbell

L. O.

(2019). Who took “counseling” out of the role of professional school counselors in the United States? Journal of School-Based Counseling Policy and Evaluation, 1(3), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.25774/7kjb-bt85

30.

Levy

I. P.

Lemberger-Truelove

M. E.

(2021). Educator–counselor: A nondual identity for school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 24(1b), 2156759X2110076. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X211007630

31.

Luke

Bernard

J. M.

(2006). The school counselor supervision model: An extension of the discrimination model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 45(4), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2006.tb00004.x

32.

National Board for Certified Counselors . (2021). Resources for applicants. https://nbcc.org/resources/applicants

33.

Perkins

Oescher

Ballard

M. B.

(2010). The evolving identity of school counselors as defined by the stakeholders. Journal of School Counseling, 8(31). https://jsc.montana.edu/articles/v8n31.pdf.

34.

Puglia

(2008). The professional identity of counseling students in master’s level CACREP accredited programs. [Doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University]. ODU Digital Commons. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/chs_etds/110

35.

Reynolds

(1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlow-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–125. https:///doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679

36.

Rønnestad

M. H.

Skovholt

T. M.

(2003). The journey of the counselor and therapist: Research findings and perspectives on professional development. Journal of Career Development, 30(1), 5–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/089484530303000102

37.

Schayot

L. A.

(2008). School counselors’ perceptions of their academic preparation in their roles as professional school counselors (Publication No. 882). [Doctoral dissertation, University of New Orleans]. ScholarWorks@UNO. https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td/882

38.

Slaten

Scalise

Gutting

Baskin

(2013). Early career school counselors’ training perspectives: Implications for school counselor educators. Journal of School Counseling, 11(20). https://jsc.montana.edu/articles/v11n20.pdf.

39.

Springer

S. I.

Cinoti

D. A.

Moss

L. J.

Gordillo

F. A.

Cannella

Salim

(2017). Fostering school counselor self-efficacy through preparation and supervision. VISTAS, 2017(8). https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/vistas/school-counselor-self-efficacy.pdf.

40.

Upton

A. W.

(2013). Essential components of school counselor professional identity: A Delphi study. [Doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University]. ODU Digital Commons. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/chs_etds/108/

41.

Walsh-Rock

(2018). Exploring the clinical supervision experiences of school counselors: Perceptions of counseling skills and professional identity. (Publication No. 10785115). [Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University]. ProQuest.

42.

Woo

Harris

Cauley

(2017). Professional identity development in counseling professionals. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 8(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1297184

43.

Woo

Henfield

M. S.

(2015). Professional identity scale in counseling (PISC): Instrument development and validation. Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy, 2(2), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/2326716X.2015.1040557