Abstract
The purpose of this content analysis was to examine the use of theory in school-counselor-led interventions. Specifically, we examined intervention characteristics, evaluation design, and use of theory in school-counselor-led intervention studies that were published by the American Counseling Association, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA), and in other school-counseling-related journals from 2003 to 2022. Drawing from 45 published articles, results indicated that few school counseling articles explicitly included ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors (ASCA, 2021) or integrated formal counseling theory to inform student outcomes.
In 2022, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) published the most recent revision of the ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors, which suggest that school counselors use evidence-based practices to support K–12 students and schools. Inspired by shared professional ethics and a commitment to improving educational communities, school counseling scholars work to make sense of evidence-based practices through empirical investigation (Dimmitt & Zyromski, 2020; Zyromski et al., 2018; Zyromski & Mariani, 2016). The evidence-based school counseling (EBSC) model is one framework to guide practice and is defined as “an exploration of the nature of the situation we hope to impact, investigation into what is known about how best to create change in that situation, and then thoughtfully assessing to determine if change has occurred” (Zyromski & Dimmitt, 2022, p. 2). More recently, the EBSC model evolved to consider ecological issues and incorporated how various social contextual factors and intersectional student identities affect data collection and use (Dimmitt, 2018; Dimmitt & Zyromski, 2020; Zyromski & Dimmitt, 2022).
Although ethical standards and the EBSC model can support the work of school counseling practitioners and scholars, school counselors who deliver direct services face myriad challenges. In fact, evidence-based practices specific to school counseling are still largely unknown and rely on inferences drawn from allied professions and literature. This assertion is based on the relatively modest school counseling outcome literature, exemplified by Griffith et al.’s (2019) 10-year content analysis of journals affiliated with ASCA and the American Counseling Association (ACA). Their findings revealed only 53 school counseling outcome studies, which is 0.8% of publications out of more than 6600 articles over the inclusion period. Due to the lack of well-designed intervention research specific to school counseling, practitioners often develop customized interventions without an evidential basis or rely on evidence-supported interventions drawn from adjacent fields such as education, psychology, clinical mental health counseling, or social work (Lemberger-Truelove & Bowers Parker, 2024; Zyromski et al., 2018).
The paucity of empirical studies is further affected by the lack of theoretical and practice clarity in the school counseling literature. Theory serves as a guide for determining which data to collect, the types of interventions to implement, and how to interpret the results from interventions (Dollarhide & Lemberger-Truelove, 2019; Lemberger-Truelove et al., 2021). Thus, for school counselors to fully accomplish ethical EBSC, understanding theory is vital; otherwise, it is doubtful that evidence can be attributed specifically to school counseling practice. To fill this gap in the school counseling literature, we investigated the degree to which theory was used to guide and evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions in the extant school counseling empirical literature.
School Counseling Intervention Research
Emphasis on school counseling intervention research has grown over the past decades (Griffith et al., 2019; McGannon et al., 2005; Whiston & Sexton, 1998). Findings from intervention research can inform practitioners and researchers about treatment effectiveness, and well-constructed studies can aid decisions in how to best support students and school systems (Dimmitt, 2009; Mullen et al., 2019). Accurate information on intervention research also enables practitioners to make successful adaptations to address the unique needs of their school and advocate for the expansion of critical services (Carey et al., 2008; Mason & Trezek, 2021).
Rigorous intervention research is also important to advocate for the school counseling profession. The scarcity of well-designed empirical studies in the school counseling profession might result in the profession being defined, evaluated, and replaced by policymakers and other professions (Griffith et al., 2019; Whiston, 2002). For example, Warner and colleagues (2016) found that school counselors who delivered a manualized cognitive behavioral intervention to 9th- through 11th-graders experienced similar treatment outcomes for students’ social anxiety as compared to clinical psychologists who delivered the same intervention. Although both school counselor and psychologist providers experienced similar treatment outcomes using the theory-informed treatment, students in the control condition who were exposed to a nonspecific counseling program (i.e., Skills for Life) did not demonstrate the desired change in social anxiety. This example illustrates the significant risk that the school counseling profession may face in continuing to rely on adjacent fields (e.g., psychology, nursing, public health, mental health counseling, social work, education) without actively advocating for EBSC that demonstrates school counselors’ unique contributions to student and school outcomes (Levy & Lemberger-Truelove, 2021).
Efforts have been extensive to enhance the methodological rigor found in school counseling intervention research. For example, the Ronald H. Fredrickson Center for School Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation (CSCORE) presented the Outcome Research Coding Protocol (Carey et al., 2008; Mason & Trezek, 2021) to evaluate each school counseling intervention based on (a) measurement, (b) comparison groups, (c) statistical analysis of outcome variables, (d) implementation fidelity, (e) replication, (f) ecological validity, and (g) persistence of effect. Mason and Trezek (2021), using the CSCORE coding protocol, reviewed existing school counseling intervention studies and found that none of the identified interventions in their study met all the criteria of the protocol. Although the CSCORE coding protocol provides a crucial guideline for evaluating the quality of school counseling intervention research, it disregards the importance of using theory in intervention research. Building upon previous studies (e.g., Griffith et al., 2019; Mason & Trezek, 2021), we attempted to examine the use of theory in the existing school counseling intervention research published in counseling journals.
The Use of Theory in School Counseling Intervention Research
A theory-informed intervention aids school counselors and scholars in understanding how practice behaviors contribute to anticipated outcomes (Bowers &Lemberger, 2016; Zyromski & Mariani, 2019). Further, a more coherent understanding of the mechanisms through which an intervention brings about change can empower school counselors to customize the interventions to suit their specific circumstances effectively and prioritizes the key principles that would increase the probability of success (Kim et al., 2023; Lemberger-Truelove et al., 2020). Conversely, the lack of an underlying theoretical framework can cause a school counseling intervention to not achieve anticipated positive outcomes.
The growing body of literature consistently indicates that theory-informed interventions tend to be more effective in facilitating observable change compared to those lacking a theoretical base (Rigby et al., 2020). Scholars also found that interventions explicitly grounded in theoretical foundations tend to be more effective than those without such foundations (Glanz & Bishop, 2010). Specifically, Taylor et al. (2012) found that intervention research that explicitly used theory in developing intervention strategies had outcomes that were almost two times more effective than interventions in studies that broadly mentioned how theory informed the intervention (effect sizes of 0.34 and 0.18, respectively). Although these findings are drawn from scholarship outside of the school counseling literature, inferring that the inclusion of theory is more empirically sound is reasonable and, moreover, is critical to maximize the efficacy of school counseling interventions.
In line with the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2019) and evidence-based school counseling practices, interest in promoting quality school counseling program evaluation has grown (Astramovich, 2016; Martin & Rallis, 2014). While an increase in program evaluation initiatives by performed by school counseling scholars and practitioners is encouraging, it also potentially creates a lack of clarity in the types of intervention studies found in school counseling journals. Program evaluation is concerned with practical assessment and outcome reports based on the qualities of a certain context, whereas formal intervention research is interested in generalizability and theoretical conclusion (Barrio Minton et al., 2021; Dimmitt, 2009). Although theory is not necessarily completely absent from program evaluation procedures or the interventions they aim to describe, the mechanisms that contribute to specific school counseling outcomes might be unclear in program evaluation.
ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors
Specific to the types of mechanisms of change supposed of school counselors, the ASCA Student Standards: Mindsets & Behaviors for Student Success (ASCA, 2021) refer to “research-based statements of the knowledge, attitudes and skills students need to achieve academic success, college and career readiness and social/emotional development” (ASCA, 2019, p. 147). The ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors are drawn from a various empirical reviews associated with college and career readiness outcomes, particularly based on Farrington et al.’s (2012) critical review of noncognitive factors that affect educational outcomes such as self-regulation, learning strategies, and cooperation (Abel et al., 2015; ASCA, 2021). Each of the 35 standards are intended to assist school counselors and scholars of school counseling programs as they identify specific attitudes and knowledge associated with the delivery of effective school counseling programs.
Despite the critical role of the ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors in designing, implementing, and assessing school counseling programs, empirical support for the effectiveness of their use is lacking (Chae, 2021). Further, many of the outcomes that inspired the various ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors were drawn from correlations related to personal dispositions or nonintervention studies; therefore, drawing clear conclusions is challenging for school counseling practice or K–12 student outcomes as influenced by exposure to school counselors. Finally, although not being tethered to any specific counseling theory is a strength for these generic ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors, without some interrogation into how these standards can be operationalized into intentional practice, they might be underutilized by practitioners or scholars. Therefore, we considered in this study the inclusion of counseling theory in the extant school counseling literature, including the relevance of the ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors within the various empirical outcomes. Although ASCA (2021) now refers to “ASCA Student Standards,” the majority of the articles reviewed in this study were published when the official usage was “ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors” (2014); thus, we use that terminology for the empirical procedures described in the current study.
The Current Study
The purpose of this quantitative content analysis was to examine the use of theory in school-counselor-led intervention studies that were published over the past 20 years in journals affiliated with the American School Counseling Association (ASCA) and American Counseling Association (ACA), and in other school-counseling-related journals. Merely adopting the theoretical and practice behaviors from allied professions is problematic because the roles and responsibilities differ for school counselors. Also, the context of a particular school and the needs of developing youth in a school context all require a nuanced understanding of how an intervention contributes to desirable outcomes. For example, many psychological interventions were implemented and tested in settings requiring treatment durations that differ greatly from the delivery systems customary to school counselors under the ASCA National Model. Therefore, to suggest that the evidence in support of these interventions can be transferable to the specific practices pursued by school counselors is impolitic.
In this content analysis, we reviewed the academic literature pertaining to school-counselor-led interventions and the extent to which theory was used in those studies. Specific research questions that we addressed in this content analysis were: 1. What types of interventions are school counseling scholars publishing? 2. How are the published school counseling intervention articles found in ASCA, ACA, and other school-counseling-related journals pertinent to the ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors? 3. What qualities of theory of change are present in school counseling intervention articles found in ASCA, ACA, and school-counseling-related journals?
Method
Content analysis was used to examine the school-counselor-led intervention studies that have been published in 24 peer-reviewed counseling journals. Quantitative content analysis is a research method that involves a systematic coding process, enabling researchers to draw replicable and valid conclusions from the texts (Krippendorff, 2019). The steps of conducting content analysis in counseling research are: (a) utilizing data for analysis, (b) sampling units, (c) recording categories, and (d) reducing units into categories (Krippendorff, 2019; McKibben et al., 2020). Scholars in the school counseling profession have utilized quantitative content analysis to pinpoint existing trends and to address discrepancies between identified needs and published materials, while minimizing the influence of biases from the process (Bledsoe et al., 2019; Griffith et al., 2019; Lopez & Mason, 2017; McMahon et al., 2017; Shi & Carey, 2021).
Procedures
The research team included two school counselor educators and three doctoral students from research-intensive institutions who have school counseling experience and academic publications. Prior to conducting the content analysis, the research team made the decision to manually review every article published in 24 counseling journals from 2003 to 2022, as opposed to relying on abstract search terms in databases to locate articles. This decision was influenced by previous research (Griffith et al., 2019), which revealed that utilizing abstract search terms across multiple databases was not a reliable method for identifying articles that met the inclusion criteria. We also decided to incorporate the most recent school counseling scholarship that had not been included in previous content analyses.
Our review process was guided by the standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Moher et al., 2015). The PRISMA (https://www.prisma-statement.org/) provides a checklist and a flow diagram that guide systematic review processes with integrity and transparency. The flow diagram includes (a) identification (i.e., records identified from database, registers, etc.), (b) screening (i.e., assessing eligibility based on inclusion and exclusion criteria), and (c) included (i.e., total studies included in review; see Figure 1). The PRISMA serves as a guide to assist researchers in effectively describing the procedures and findings of the study (Sarkis-Onofre et al., 2021). PRISMA flow diagram.
First, at the identification phase, we attempted to identify our sample of original school counseling intervention research articles and reviewed every original research article published in the ASCA- and ACA-affiliated journals and two independent journals relevant to school counseling (i.e., Journal of School Counseling and Journal of School-Based Counseling and Policy and Evaluation). Considering the 20-year period from 2003–2022, we identified a total of 9687 articles for initial screening. We excluded book reviews, editorial introductions, errata, and reports.
Next, at the screening phase, we conducted the initial evaluation for inclusion and examined whether each article was broadly related to school counseling intervention. All the titles and abstracts of articles were manually reviewed by the research team. Then, we conducted a thorough review of each article to evaluate which articles met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. One of the inclusion criteria was whether an article included an intervention that was delivered by practicing school counselors (e.g., school counselors, school counseling interns, school counselor educators). We excluded interventions delivered by clinical mental health professionals or counselor educators who provided school-based mental health counseling interventions. Another inclusion criterion was having an intervention study with controlled comparisons (e.g., randomized controlled trials or non-randomized controlled trials), consistent with previous systematic review studies that investigated the use of theory in intervention studies (Colquhoun et al., 2013; Rigby et al., 2020). This inclusion criterion was also aligned with the CSCORE Outcome Research Coding Protocol (Carey et al., 2008), for which one of the criteria is comparison groups. This inclusion criterion was beneficial in identifying intervention research, particularly due to the challenges of distinguishing intervention research and program evaluation in school counseling articles (Barrio Minton et al., 2021). Throughout the process, we thoroughly discussed any discrepancies and made final inclusion decisions as a whole team.
At the included phase, our review comprised a total of 45 articles, based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria. As a next step, the team developed a codebook to ensure consistency in coding procedures. The coding frame for examining characteristics of school-counselor-led intervention characteristics included (a) Journal title, (b) ASCA domain (i.e., academic, social/emotional, and career/college), (c) delivery mode (i.e., individual, small group, classroom, and consultation), and (d) grade level of students. We also coded whether ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors were mentioned in the intervention descriptions (i.e., specifically mentioned, broadly mentioned, not mentioned). We adapted and used eight items from Michie and Prestwich’s (2010) Theory Coding Scheme to examine the use of theory in school counselor-led interventions. Our research team coded based on the following items: (a) theory/model of behavior mentioned (yes/no), (b) targeted constructs mentioned as predictor of behavior (yes/no), (c) use of theory in designing intervention (single theory, combinations of theories, no mention of theory), (d) theory-relevant construct/predictors measured (only post-test, pre-/post-test, not measured), (e) research design (randomized controlled trial, cluster randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental trial with control group), (f) changes in measured theory-relevant construct/predictor, (g) results discussed in relation theory, and (h) fidelity mentioned. The third and fourth authors conducted independent coding (Cohen’s kappa coefficient of 90.9). Any disagreements were thoroughly discussed until a consensus was reached as a whole team. For instance, in situations where a single intervention was covered in multiple published articles and had previously mentioned the use of theory in one or more published articles (e.g., Student Success Skills), we associated that intervention with the affiliated theory, even if the subsequent publication did not include a description of said theory (e.g., Urbina et al., 2017).
Results
This present study found that 45 school-counselor-led intervention research articles with controlled/comparison groups were published in the ASCA- and ACA-affiliated journals and school-counseling-relevant journals across the 20-year span of 2003–2022. This total comprises only 0.5% of the published articles in 24 counseling journals within the time frame. Previously, Griffith et al. (2019) reported 53 articles in their 10-year content analysis (2006–2016) of 21 counseling journals, but only 15 articles (28%) were intervention studies with controlled groups. Nine journals published one or more articles that met our inclusion criteria: Professional School Counseling (PSC, n = 18, 40%), Journal for Specialists in Group Work (JSGW, n = 9, 20%), Journal of Counseling & Development (JCD, n = 6, 13.3%), Journal of School Counseling (JSC, n = 4, 8.9%), Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation (CORE, n = 3, 6.7%), Career Development Quarterly (CDQ, n = 2, 4.4%), Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling (JAOC, n = 1, 2.2%), Journal of Humanistic Counseling (JHC, n = 1, 2.2%), and Journal of Child and Adolescent Counseling (JCAC, n = 1, 2.2%). We found no articles that met our inclusion criteria in the remaining 15 journals.
Intervention Characteristics
School-Counselor-Led Intervention Characteristics.
Note. The subcategories with the highest frequency have been bolded.
In terms of participant age groups, we found slightly more studies that provided interventions to elementary students (n = 13, 28.9%), followed by middle school students (n = 12, 26.7%) and high school students (n = 11, 24.4 %). Seven studies (15.7%) provided interventions to multiple student age groups, such as elementary/middle school students, middle/high school student, or all grade levels. Two studies (4.4%) provided interventions to teachers.
ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors
Articles Mentioning ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors.
Use of Theory
Use of Theory in the Intervention Research.
Note. The subcategories with the highest frequency have been bolded.
The most common research design was quasi-experimental design with a control/comparison group (n = 22, 48.9%), followed by randomized controlled trial (n = 18, 40%), and cluster randomized controlled trial (n = 5, 11.1%). Twenty-three articles (51.1%) indicated that the intervention yielded significant changes in at least one theory-relevant construct/predictor. Only nine studies (20%) discussed their findings in relation to the theoretical foundation of the intervention. Fidelity or treatment integrity was mentioned in 21 articles (47.7%), while 24 articles (53.3%) did not mention it.
Discussion
We undertook this content analysis to investigate the extent to which theory is utilized in the design and execution of school counseling interventions found in counseling-related academic journals. Consistent with previous school counseling content analyses that did not have a specific focus on theory (Griffith et al., 2019), our results indicated a general dearth of intervention studies represented in the most likely publication outlets (2.3 articles per year, across 24 journals over a 20-year period) and that the preponderance of these studies lacked control groups. This result is problematic given the intervention nature of school counseling; the imperative for ethical, evidence-supported practice; and the increasing mental health needs in contemporary school contexts. Further, the lack of controlled designs demonstrates that decades-old calls for the expansion and improvement of school counseling empirical intervention studies have not been adequately met (Whiston & Sexton, 1998).
In addition to the general shortfall of highly controlled intervention studies, the analyses revealed that very few school counseling intervention studies were subject to replication, which potentially compromises the perceived value and generalizability of the outcomes. Only Student Success Skills (SSS), a suite of manualized SEL and academic development lessons (Villares et al., 2011), and an adapted, brief, bystander antibullying program entitled STAC (Midgett et al., 2015) were represented by more than one intervention study in our sample, with SSS appearing 13 times and STAC on 6 occasions.
Across the various interventions considered in the current study, the ways that student or teacher intervention outcomes are associated with the values endorsed by professional school counseling organizations, including the ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors (2021), is also underdeveloped in the literature. Specifically, only nine studies sampled included some mention of the ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors in the development of the intervention or the empirical design of the study; further, four studies only marginally described the specific manner that the ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors were present. Various ways to evaluate this trend are possible. First, school counseling scholars or school systems where interventions are performed may not be fully compelled to capture ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors data for the purposes of analyses. Alternatively, it is possible that the ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors are not completely inclusive of the themes and practices customary to school counselors; thus, revisiting and expanding our professional values would be prudent, to include the types of evidential interventions performed in the field. Finally, it is conceivable that the ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors are tacit ingredients to school counseling practice, therefore present in most or all interventions but not explicitly studied in the current intervention literature.
Connecting the intended mechanisms of change with an intervention is critically important to make sense of any empirical findings; unfortunately, results from the current content analyses found that theory and other intervention mechanisms are largely ignored in the school counseling research literature. More than 40% of the considered studies lacked a description of counseling theory or theory-related constructs in their empirical design. Although theory was largely underutilized in our studies, we saw potential encouragement that the most recurrent counseling theory evaluated by school counseling scholars is an approach designed specifically for school counseling practice, namely the Advocating Student-within-Environment theory (Lemberger, 2010; Lemberger & Hutchison, 2014; Lemberger-Truelove & Bowers Parker, 2024. This finding potentially demonstrates the unique contributions that school counselors provide to students and entire school systems.
Although the results do provide some modest support for theory-informed school counseling, only nine articles (20%) discussed their intervention outcomes in relation to theory. The lack of the knowledge of the underlying theoretical components of school counseling interventions could potentially lead to the implementation of fragmented practices, without any coherence, even when individual intervention proves effective (Villares & Dimmitt, 2017). Further, without a grasp of the mechanism of change in the intervention, school counseling practitioners may make errors when adapting evidence-based interventions to their unique school settings (Kim et al., 2023; Lemberger-Truelove et al., 2020). Finally, the impact of the interventions themselves might be compromised, as allied literatures suggest that outcomes are significantly more effective when tethered to theory-informed practice (Glanz & Bishop, 2010; Rigby et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2012).
Implications
The ASCA ethical standards (2022) include an emphasis on the use of evidence-based practices to best support students and schools. Although school counselors demonstrate positive attitudes toward evidence-based practices in general, such practices have been underutilized in school counseling practices (Mason & Trezek, 2021; Mullen et al., 2019). It would be facile to dismiss the school counseling intervention research, given the lack of study in general and the quality of empirical ingredients required of rigorous study, but a more charitable interpretation of this current study might suggest that intervention research is difficult to accomplish, especially in the context of counseling and in educational settings with youth. Continued pursuit of the most rigorous and recognizable empirical designs is valuable for school counseling scholars, who would also be wise to broach other valued causal and inferential empirical designs to substantiate their work (Dimmitt & Zyromski, 2020).
Findings in the current study suggest that school counseling practitioners can utilize resources such as the Theory Coding Scheme (Michie & Prestwich, 2010) to develop and evaluate school counseling intervention efforts. Given the extensive demands often placed on practicing school counselors, one mutually beneficial approach to research and program evaluation might include partnering with university training programs and other school counseling scholars. These partnerships might lead to more controlled and intentional study designs, and to more relevant and informative training and supervision opportunities.
Although more inclusive and creative empirical strategies might advance the school counseling literature, a newfound commitment to increase the amount and quality of attention to theory and other mechanisms of growth would also benefit the profession. School counselors provide unique preventative and developmental opportunities for students and educators given their situatedness in educational contexts (Levy & Lemberger-Truelove, 2021). Connecting the assumptions implicit to practice behaviors with the anticipated outcomes of interventions can potentially improve the services provided by school counselors while also demonstrating the unique contributions of the profession at the individual student and whole-school levels.
Limitations
The current study has several limitations to address. First, this study only included articles published in 24 ASCA, ACA, and other school-counseling-related journals. Despite the benefits of examining articles published in those journals, our findings may not represent the characteristics of school-counselor-led interventions that were published in other counseling (e.g., regional counseling journals) and interdisciplinary journals, books, or dissertations. Second, the article selection procedure for school-counselor-led interventions was subject to interpretation because many articles did not specifically report who delivered the interventions. For example, if an intervention was delivered by a graduate student in a counseling program, the decision whether to exclude the article was not always clear based on our relevant exclusion criterion: an intervention delivered by clinical mental health professionals or counselor educators who provided school-based mental health counseling interventions.
Another limitation is that relying on abstracts may not always capture all the specific aspects of an article to meet our inclusion criteria in the initial screening process, when manually reviewing all titles and abstracts (N = 9687) within the timeframe (Clark et al., 2022). A third limitation of this study pertained to the inclusion criteria, which specifically focused on controlled trials. Although this was consistent with the previous systematic review studies that investigated the use of theory in intervention studies (Colquhoun et al., 2013; Rigby et al., 2020), future studies might benefit from including other research designs, such as single case research designs (Lenz, 2018). Expanding to other research design studies could provide a more comprehensive representation of the current status of theory-informed school counseling interventions. Last, the possibility exists that we might have inaccurately coded the use of theory in school-counselor-led interventions because we solely relied on the information provided by the authors in their articles. As we noticed in several Student Success Skills articles (e.g., Urbina et al., 2017), authors may have integrated theory into their intervention research but either did not mention it in their article or offered only minimal information about it (Albarqouni et al., 2018).
Conclusion
As the first attempt to investigate the use of theory in school-counselor-led interventions, this study serves as a springboard to demonstrate the unique contribution of school counselors in providing preventative, systemic, and efficacious services to students and other relevant members of school communities. Although the findings were disheartening, we hope to see more active discussion regarding the use of theory in designing, implementing, and evaluating school counseling interventions. Building on previous studies in other disciplines (Taylor et al., 2012), Future studies would also benefit from investigating common factors in interventions facilitated for children and adolescents (e.g., Warwick et al., 2023).
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.
