A revisited inquiry: A survey of the members of the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association (ARCA)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

In recognition of the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association’s (ARCA) 60th anniversary and the need to gather and provide data to further inform the Rehabilitation Counseling (RC) field with recent developments, a replication of the Peterson, Hautamaki, and Hershenson (2006) study that included surveying ARCA members at the time as well as similar studies in the field (Trotter & Kozochowicz, 1970) was completed.

METHODS:

Similar questions related to overall membership benefits, motivations, concerns and future directions for the field were duplicated. In addition, given the recent major changes in the field including the merger between the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) and the Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) and the new Clinical Rehabilitation Counselor degree were included.

CONCLUSIONS:

Similar to the 50th Anniversary survey, the results of the study informed the ARCA leadership in their future strategic planning activities, organizational development and in better meeting the needs of ARCA members.

Keywords

Rehabilitation counseling ARCA American Rehabilitation Counseling Associations membership

1 Introduction

In 2006, the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association (ARCA) celebrated its 50th Anniversary. Peterson, Hautamaki, and Hershenson (2006) reviewed, summarized and discussed the formation, history, and leadership in the field of rehabilitation counseling (RC) and hallmark issues that occurred over the 50 years of ARCA’s existence. For a thorough review of the past 50-year history of the tremendous leadership and the commitment shown within the Association see Carnes (1971), Jaques (1967), Muthard and Salomone (1972), Peterson et al. (2006), Peterson and Aguiar (2004), Rubin and Roessler (2001), and Trotter and Kozochowicz (1970). Due to the dated nature of this data, as well as evolving issues in the field of RC, it is important to provide current up-to-date data to ARCA members as well as the community at-large. This document will review past ARCA member data and discuss the results of a current survey of ARCA members.

In addition to presenting a thorough review of the history of ARCA, Peterson et al. (2006) reported data from surveyed ARCA members and summarized the results of their investigation in the same report. The survey, which was approved by the ARCA executive board prior to the US mailing, was composed of demographic information, questions based on a Likert-type scale rating related to ARCA membership and services provided, and open-ended questions about the future direction of ARCA. The study had a response rate of 28%, with 287 completed surveys. Eighty-seven percent of the members were American Counseling Association (ACA) members as well as ARCA members. The number of Certified Rehabilitation Counselors (CRC) totaled 76.5% of the sample. Besides the CRC credential, the most common credentials noted were Licensed Professional Counselors (12%), National Certified Counselor (11%), and licensed psychologist (5%). The average number of years as a member of ARCA was 13.7 years. The employment setting of respondents included 21.3% in a rehabilitation education program, 12.5% working in a private-for-profit environment, 12.5% in a “nonacademic” setting, 10.1% working in private-nonprofit, and 9.8% reported working in state-federal vocational rehabilitation (VR) settings.

One of the main objectives of the Peterson et al. (2006) inquiry was to question members as to the importance of various benefits offered by ARCA. Benefits were rated from 5 (high) to 1 (low). The highest rated benefit was receiving the ARCA journal, the Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin (RCB), which had a mean of 4.29, followed by professional standards (4.23), professional code of ethics (4.22), lobbying and advocacy (4.10), continuing education (3.69), the newsletter (3.30), annual conference (3.14), website (2.66), and awards (2.25). The most frequently made suggestions that were noted in the “other” category included member connection with ACA, networking opportunities, insurance, and licensure support.

Another second objective of the survey was to inquire about why members decided to join ARCA. Themes included professional identity (34.3%), stay current in the field (16.7%), student membership (12%), and professional development (9.3%). Finally, Peterson et al. (2006) discussed the importance of learning from ARCA members about their beliefs as to whether the field of RC was a unique discipline and profession or part of general counseling reflected in large part by their thoughts on licensure. Findings indicated that members had become increasingly involved in working toward licensure parity between RC and related counseling credentials, as evidenced by ongoing involvement with the American Association of State Counseling Boards (AASCB) and ACA’s public policy representatives. This ongoing debate was not new as others have suggested that counseling has been an important aspect of RC practice, as is evidenced by the continued affiliation with the ACA (Cook, 1990; Kauppi, 1975; Trotter & Kozochowicz, 1970).

1.1 Issues continuing in the field of rehabilitation counseling

The uniqueness and identity of the RC field continues to be debated and discussed in the literature. In 2008 an entire issue of the Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling (JARC) was devoted to RC credentialing and practices underscoring its importance. The issue included 10 articles written by well-known and highly respected educators and researchers in the field providing a historical and evolutionary perspective on issues (Leahy, 2008). In the issue, Shaw and Kuehn (2008) documented the accreditation process and provided an argument for the importance for the field of RC to maintain relevancy and viability. Other researchers have investigated the ‘identity’ phenomenon and have written position papers arguing for a specific distinct perspective: either as a counseling specialty under the umbrella of general counseling or as a separate distinctive profession (Barnes, Rak, Bryan, & Louw, 2012; Patterson, 2008). Barnes et al. (2012) surveyed RC trainee’s perceptions of the field from 12 master’s-level Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) accredited programs. The results indicated that there was much conflict around this issue and that two-thirds believed that RC is a counseling specialty and a unique field. In addition, Barnes et al. (2012) concluded that unifying the field appears to be needed yet a daunting task.

Similarly, licensure issues continue to be a theme in the field. Barros-Bailey, Benshoff, and Fischer (2008) reported on the opinions and thoughts among 529 CRC regarding the future of RC, trends in the profession, and factors that might affect the sector in which they were employed. Concerns included the aging workforce, the role of assistive technology, counseling skill development to meet the needs of a more complex consumer (e.g., SCI, TBI, PTSD due to wars), funding and resources. The issue of licensure and certification was of great concern among the respondents.

1.2 Recent issues in the field of rehabilitation counseling

Newer more recent issues in the RC field include the development of curriculum that focuses on clinical and mental health and the merger between the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) and the Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE). CORE was established in 1972 and is the accrediting body not only recognized in rehabilitation education, but also the first accrediting body in the counseling profession (CORE, 2009; Maki, 2005). CACREP was established as an accrediting body for Clinical Mental Health and School Counseling in 1981. Since the establishment of the CACREP accrediting body there has been noted fragmentation between the counseling profession and the RC specialty area questioning the professional identity among rehabilitation counselors (Barnes et al., 2012; Leahy, 2009; Myers, 1995; Patterson, 2008). To that end, counselor preparation is an area where this issue has manifested.

1.3 Merger between CORE and CACREP

Discussion of CORE and CACREP merging began as early as 1989. Under the leadership of John Thompson, a letter was presented to CORE encouraging an affiliation between CORE and CACREP (Linkowski & Szymanski, 1993). However, this recommendation was not received well. CORE council members recognized the need to collaborate, but felt that is was in the best interest of the Rehabilitation Counselor Education Programs (RCEP) to remain autonomous (Linkowski & Szymanski, 1993). Overtime though, CORE and CACREP, as reported by Rollins (2006), announced intentions to merge; however, the merger did not occur (CORE, 2009; Kennedy, 2007; Shaw & Kuehn, 2008).

More recent discussions of the merger are rooted in licensure and parity, unification, and professional identity issues (Barnes et al., 2012; Phillips & Leahy, 2009). In particular, federal programs such as U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and TRICARE now recognize counselors graduating from CACREP accredited programs (Department of Veterans Affairs Handbook, 2010; Urofsky, 2013). Consequently, in July of 2013 CORE and CAREP entered into an affiliation agreement followed by a signed Plan of Merger Agreement in 2015 (CACREP, 2016). The purpose of the merger between these two organizations is twofold; (a) to strengthen the counseling profession and (b) unify the accreditation process for counselor education programs (CACREP, 2016). Effective July of 2017, CACREP will carry out the mission of both accrediting bodies (CACREP, 2016). For more information regarding the merger see CACREP 2016.

1.4 Clinical rehabilitation counseling degree process

In 2013, due to the affiliation agreement between CORE and CACREP, RCEP had the opportunity to become dually accredited as a Clinical Mental Health Counseling (CMHC) program and a Clinical Rehabilitation Counseling (ClRC) program. Further, since CACREP and CORE developed a merger agreement in 2015, the two organizations have worked closely to establish a framework that would ensure a smooth transition for currently accredited programs, as well as to build recognition of programs accredited under the new Clinical Rehabilitation Counseling Standards (CRCS) regarding state licensure and federal hiring eligibility (CACREP, 2016). As a result, CACREP and CORE have developed a joint process that will allow RCEP to become dually accredited as both a ClRC program and a CMHC program (CACREP, 2016). As part of this process, CORE implements CACREP’s CRCS and determines which currently accredited RCEP meet the CRCS as a pre-requisite for seeking dual accreditation as a CACREP accredited program. Programs that successfully complete the conversion process will be dually accredited as both ClRC and CMHC programs (CACREP, 2016).

1.5 Eligibility conditions

Programs currently accredited by CORE as RCEP were eligible to convert their accreditation and become dually accredited as both a ClRC and a CMHC program under the following conditions: (a) current accreditation cycle of the RCEP expired by April 30, 2015 or after; (b) the currently accredited RCEP must require a minimum of 60 semester hours and all current students must be in the 60 semester hour program or be graduating prior to the CACREP Board’s rendering of an accreditation decision on the conversion; (c) the program must use a program title that clearly reflects its combined identity as a ClRC and CMHC program; (d) the currently accredited RCEP must be in good standing with CORE (i.e., no outstanding reports or fees); and (e) the currently accredited RCEP has been reviewed by CORE and found to be in substantial compliance with the CRCS. If the program is in substantial compliance with CRCS, CORE will send the documents to CACREP for review. A subcommittee completes a paper review of program’s documentation against the required standards and then the CACREP subcommittee makes a final determination on the program’s status. Once a program is converted, the accreditation and date will remain the same as its former accreditation cycle in date. Prior to the end of the accreditation cycle, the program faculty would need to apply for full review of its program (CACREP, 2016).

This particular conversion process was a time limited policy and programs can no longer apply for a dual accreditation review under this policy. CORE accredited programs that are not dually accredited, but have been making changes to become so, must have self-identified to CORE by June of 2016 and will have needed to apply for dual accreditation by January of 2017 using the 2009 CACREP Standards. Programs that successfully complete the dual accreditation review done jointly by CACREP and CORE will then be allowed to remain dually accredited through October of 2023. Prior to the October of 2023 dual accreditation expiration date, all programs that offer both the ClRC and the CMHC specialties will need to apply to CACREP for a reaccreditation review of both because they are two distinct programs of study. For the same reason, students who wish to graduate with both specialties must complete a 600-clock hour internship for each one as well as complete the required curricular offerings for each specialty (CACREP, 2016).

The 2023 accreditation cycle end date being granted to programs that have successfully completed the dual accreditation review process is intended to provide programs with due notice and enough time to make decisions regarding the specialties they wish to offer to students and to consider any new options that will be offered when CACREP revises its standards in 2023 (CACREP, 2016, p. 3).

A second component of the merger agreement is the completion of CORE’s current standards revision process:

This process will be concluded prior to the merger and, once completed another joint committee will be established to develop a set of revised standards for traditional RCEP that are formatted for inclusion as a specialty area in CACREP’s 2016 standards (CACREP, 2016). CACREP will then adopt these standards for immediate use following the merger to provide an option for those RCEP that do not wish to be either a ClRC or a CMHC program to seek accreditation within the CACREP accreditation process (CACREP, 2016, p. 1).

1.6 The 60th anniversary inquiry

In recognition of ARCA’s 60th anniversary year and the need to gather and provide data to further inform the RC field with recent developments, a replication of the Peterson et al. (2006) study as well as similar studies in the field (Trotter & Kozochowicz, 1970) was completed. Similar questions related to overall membership benefits, motivations, concerns and future directions for the field were duplicated as well as questions including the merger between CACREP and CORE and the new ClRC program. Similar to the 50th Anniversary survey, the results of this survey were expected to inform the ARCA leadership in their future strategic planning activities, organizational development and better meeting the needs of ARCA members.

2 Method

The survey was a collaborative effort among the ARCA board members. Prior instruments (Peterson et al., 2006; Trotter & Kozochowicz 1970) were used as templates, in addition to board members brainstorming and adding salient questions to address current issues. The Chair of ARCA’s Research and Knowledge Committee was the lead person on gathering and analyzing data from the survey. A Qualtrics survey was emailed to the entire membership in early 2016 (450 total sent out). Two email reminders were sent out at one week intervals following the initial mailing. Eighty members responded to the survey with 77 having complete data resulting in an 18% response rate; slightly lower than the Peterson et al. study in 2006.

3 Results

Demographic make-up of the respondents included 40% male and 60% female, average age 48.7, the majority either had a Master’s degree (49%) or a Doctorate (44%), the average number of years working in the field was 19 and the average years as a member of ARCA was 11.3. Twenty-six percent of the respondents reported that they attend the annual ACA conference. Among those individuals, 50% reported that they are motivated to go to the conference to network, with a smaller percentage (20%) being motivated to present their research. Thirty-two percent felt ARCA should have their own conference. It is important to note, similar to Leahy (2008) acknowledgement, membership rates continue to decline over the years. Current membership in ARCA is half the size of what it was during the Peterson et al. study (2006).

Similar to Peterson et al., (2006) and Trotter and Kozochowicz (1970) participants were questioned about their place of employment. Employment status from the Peterson et al. study and the current study are summarized and compared in Table 1. The largest employment category was university faculty (35%). Interestingly, there was a shift with a larger percentage of participants reporting faculty employment in 2016 (35%), 7% higher than in 2006, and a lower percentage of participants employed by a state-federal VR program (7%), 3% less than in 2006.

Table 1
Category that best describes your employment

Position 2006 2016

University Faculty 28% 35%

Private Practice or nonprofit 23% 22%

Agency or Community Rehabilitation Program 11% 11%

State VR 10% 7%

Other (majority students) 5% 11%

Veterans Administration 2% 5%

Program Coordinator 3% 3%

Retired 4% 3%

Position	2006	2016
University Faculty	28%	35%
Private Practice or nonprofit	23%	22%
Agency or Community Rehabilitation Program	11%	11%
State VR	10%	7%
Other (majority students)	5%	11%
Veterans Administration	2%	5%
Program Coordinator	3%	3%
Retired	4%	3%

Table 2 provides a summary of the responses to a question regarding a participant’s original motivation to join ARCA. Unlike Table 1, Table 2 does not include comparison data from Peterson et al. (2006) due to a lack of available information provided in that study. Respondents in this study could only choose one category. Professional development had the largest percentage of respondents (51%). The ‘other’ category had the second largest percentage of respondents (18%). Among the 14 respondents in the ‘other’ category, the majority reported either being a member was a student requirement or they wanted to be part of a professional association.

Table 2

Original motivation for becoming a member

Reason for membership	n	%
Professional Development	39	51%
Other	14	18%
Mission of ARCA	9	12%
Networking Opportunities	9	12%
Education credits	6	8%

A follow-up question concerned the reasons why members continue their membership. Again, only one option was available for response. Just over 50% continue their membership so they can receive the RCB (51%), with a smaller percentage (13%) valuing the alliance with ACA. This question was not ranked on a Likert scale as was done in the Peterson et al. study (2006) but responses were provided with the opportunity to check the most important benefit and are summarized in Table 3. The results are similar to Peterson’s findings with the RCB being the number one reason individuals become and remain members of ARCA.

Table 3

Current benefit that is most valuable to motivate continuing membership

Reason for continued membership	n	%
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin	39	51%
Alliance with ACA	10	13%
Continuing education units	8	11%
Other	8	11%
ARCA newsletter	5	7%
Networking opportunities	4	5%
Annual ACA conference	2	3%

When asked an open-ended question about the biggest challenges or obstacles facing the RC profession the themes that emerged included professional identity, licensure and/or certification concerns, and lack of professional knowledge and recognition. Regarding the new ClRC program, 52% were interested in possibly getting the new certificate for licensure purposes while others viewed the new program as a potential issue that diminishes the uniqueness of the RC profession. The merger was viewed as potentially providing a great divide and that the profession will no longer be a specialization. Some individuals felt that CACREP might marginalize the professional knowledge and qualified professionals will decrease (e.g., using terms such as “habilitation” instead of “rehabilitation”).

Despite these concerns, the vast majority of members supported the merger (78%). The major theme that emerged from respondents who were in support of the merger was unity within the counseling profession. Qualitative data indicated that some members felt that the merger will provide core additional resources necessary for sustainability because without it the profession will not survive. Members felt that due to the merger, it was important for ARCA to collaborate and work with other Associations such as the National Council on Rehabilitation Educators (NCRE), Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES), the American School Counselor Association (ASCA), the Adult Development and Aging (AADA), and the Military and Government Counseling Association (MGCA).

While some respondents were in favor of the ClRC (i.e., they felt it would be beneficial for graduate students interested in obtaining licensure), some respondents were ambivalent about the ClRC degree. Much of the concerns were related to the development of the CRCS, licensure and certification. With the creation of the CRCS, respondents wanted to uphold the rehabilitation counselor professional identity. The responses were split when asked about whether there should be a ClRC certification or not. Much of the ambivalence in this area stemmed from the desire to know more about what this type of certification would entail and how it would be different.

4 Discussion

There is great utility in reflecting on the field of RC from the perspective of the ARCA members, especially with the recent changes involving the merger and the changes in programming and licensure. The results can inform our future growth and development as well as attempt to meet the needs of ARCA members. In many ways, the findings from this study were comparable to other ARCA membership studies (Cook, 1990; Kauppi, 1975; Peterson et al., 2006; Phillips & Leahy, 2012; Trotter & Kozochowicz, 1970). The demographic make-up of the participants did not vary much from prior membership groups including gender, age, education, years in the working in the field, and average years as a member of ARCA.

Likewise, similar to Peterson et al. (2006) the majority of members stated that professional identity was the initial reason they joined ARCA and the RCB journal is the main reason they continue to be a member. In 2012, Phillips and Leahy sampled 1,257 professionals from rehabilitation counseling associations to determine what factors predicted association membership among CRC counselors. Results were similar to our qualitative findings; professional identity and perceived value predicted membership. Our qualitative data indicated that “being part of” was important to many respondents and networking with “similar professionals” was very important and influenced their membership. This suggests, as pointed out by Phillips and Leahy (2012) that strategies for retaining current members could include regularly reminding current members of the strength they add to the profession and that their active membership communicates a high level of professionalism. These strategies could be implemented and marketed by the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC). Not only could current members receive and be exposed to the strength they add to the profession but non-members could be targeted and potential recruited by demonstrating the benefits of being a member.

One of the main differences between Peterson et al. (2006) and results from this study is in the area of work settings. There were a larger percentage of reported faculty members as well as a smaller number of state-federal VR employees in this study when compared to Peterson et al. (2006). These findings support an argument put forth by Patterson (2008) that the number of work settings for RC is expanding beyond traditional VR settings suggesting an evolution in the field and associated work settings.

Interestingly, there appears to be some themes across associations in the social sciences suggesting that ARCA is similar to other associations. For example, Delmonico, Manderino, and Griffin (2014) surveyed members of the Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health (SASH) and they found that the yearly conferences, the Association’s Journal, and the listserv were highly valued resources available through SASH, while resources such as the monthly newsletter were perceived as having lower value. Likewise, Ki and Wang (2016) provided data from 18 professional associations related to human and social sciences. Over “13, 000” participants reported that personal and professional identity was positively correlated with their intentions to continue being a member in the future. These results are not unlike the ARCA membership responses.

4.1 Member perspectives of two current issues

Barnes, Rak, Bryan, and Louw (2012) noted the amount of work it would take to unify the field of RC and a merger of this magnitude could be the first steps to unifying the RC profession. One step in unifying the profession is to have a singular identity. Rehabilitation counseling will now be recognized as a specialization within the counseling profession along with the other counseling specialties such as, career; clinical mental health; college counseling and student affairs; marriage, couple, and family; and school counseling. This is in line with Barnes et al. (2012) study findings in which two-thirds of trainees believed that RC is a counseling specialty within the counseling profession. Additionally, respondents felt this merger will increase visibility of the RC profession and strengthen the lobbying efforts.

4.2 Recommendations from ARCA members

Looking at the recommendations that the membership has put forth allows for a greater understanding of the dynamic needs of RC practitioners, educators, students, and other interested parties. Results revealed several general recommendations from the ARCA membership that echoed the results from a previous membership survey (Peterson et al., 2006). The first of which is to continue to invest in the journal. RCB is one of the cornerstones of the ARCA division. The journal continues to be rated among the top RC journals in the field (Thomson Reuters, 2016). As such, keeping the journal’s quality, relevance, and dissemination of information to clients, practitioners, educators, and other stakeholders should continue to be at the forefront of ARCA’s strategic goals.

Improving upon communication to members is an area that the membership suggests ARCA can improve upon (Peterson, et al., 2006). While the RCB provides research information, ARCA members would like to see more communication between the organization and the members. This may mean taking a more active role in reaching out to state-federal VR agencies to determine how ARCA can help to effectively meet the needs of counselors and clients alike. It was with this thought of more communication that ARCA launched a new website that has been designed to promote creative engagement with members. As more content and membership engagement opportunities are showcased, barriers to communication may be alleviated and membership levels may increase as a result. Capitalizing on technology if paramount for the continued success of the ARCA.

As acknowledged in the results, to a large extent, professional development opportunities are a factor in determining why members join and retain membership in the organization. As the field continues to progress, it is critical that RC remain abreast of essential skills and knowledge for effectiveness. The professional development opportunities offered by ARCA are important for the membership and should continue to be a factor in ARCA’s future planning (Peterson, et al., 2006). Recommended topics for future issues of RCB included rehabilitation counselor wellness; ethics; social media; legislation and policy; mental health issues with a focus on substance abuse/addiction; and evidence-based practices. In addition, since the merger, licensure, and the new ClRC will continue to be salient issues over the next few years, it is suggested that RCB focus on these issues as well.

Lastly, establishing more local opportunities to be active with ARCA-related activities and increase collaboration with related professional associations were suggested (Peterson, et al., 2006). The ARCA membership is devoted to increasing the profession as a whole, however, this may mean seeking out likeminded organizations to partner with on advocacy efforts and other opportunities to advance the profession. To increase local participation, ARCA should continue to devote resources and efforts into sustaining and growing local chapters throughout the country.

5 Conclusion

Within the past year, the rehabilitation counseling profession has seen CORE and CACREP merge and the development of the 60 semester hour standards for the new C1RC specialization. With these changes, there are still many unanswered questions. Two salient questions many respondents cited throughout the survey were “What is the future of licensure and certification for clinical rehabilitation counselors” and “How will the merger impact the field of rehabilitation counseling?” Considering ARCA’s 60th Anniversary, the goal continues to be advocacy for the field of RC. In the end, it is our hope that these reflections strengthen ARCA as an association and help ARCA leadership direct the organization effectively in the future.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

Barnes

E. F.

, Rak

, Austin

, Louw

(2012). Rehabilitation counselor professional identity development in master’s-level training programs: An exploratory study of potential influencing factors, Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education26(2-3), 185–197.

Barros-Bailey

, Benshoff

J. J.

, Fischer

(2008). Rehabilitation counseling in the year 2011: Perceptions of certified rehabilitation counselors, Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling39(4), 39–45.

Carnes

G. D.

(1971). The certification of rehabilitation counselors, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin15(2), 72–79.

Cook

(1990). Characteristics and concerns of American Rehabilitation Counseling Association members, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin34, 149–154.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling Related Education Programs. (2016). Council for Accreditation of Counseling Related Education Programs Standards. Retrieved from: www.cacrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2016-CACREP-Standards.pdf

Council on Rehabilitation Education. (2009). Council on Rehabilitation Education Standards. Retrieved from CORE website: www.core-rehab.org.pdf

Council on Rehabilitation Education. (2014, October). CACREP and its affiliateCOREmove forward with accreditation reviews for Clinical Rehabilitation Counseling Programs (10.15.14). Retrieved from CORE website: www.core-rehab.org.pdf

Council on Rehabilitation Education. (2016). CACREP/CORE joint policy statement on dual accreditation. Retrieved from CORE website: www.core-rehab.org.pdf.rehab.org/Files/Doc/PDF/WhatsNewPDFs/Dual%20Accreditation%20Policy%20Document%204.29.16.pdf

Delmonico

D. L.

, Manderino

, Griffin

(2014). Society for the advancement of sexual health (SASH): Results from the membership survey 2006 and 2012, Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity21(2), 54–74.

10.

Department of Veterans Affairs Handbook (2010). Washington DC, 20420.

11.

Jaques

M. E.

(1967). The first decade, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin10(4), 145–146.

12.

Kauppi

D. R.

(1975). Publication preferences and needs of ARCA members: survey, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin19(1), 323–329.

13.

Kennedy

(2007). CORE, CACREP merger falls short, Counseling Today50(5), 16–17.

14.

E. J.

, Wang

(2016). Membership benefits matter: Exploring the factors influencing members’ behavioral intentions in professional associations, Nonprofit Management and Leadership. DOI:10.1002/nml.21230

15.

Leahy

M. J.

(2009). Rehabilitation counseling credentialing: Research, practice, and the future of the profession, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin52, 67–68.

16.

Linkowski

D. C.

, Szymanski

E. M.

(1993). Accreditation in rehabilitation counseling: Historical and current process, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 37, 81–91.

17.

Maki

(2005). CORE president’s report. CORE News, 14, 1. Retrieved from http://www.core-rehab.org/Files/Doc/PDF/Newsletters/CORENews2005Feb.pdf

18.

Muthard

J. E.

, Salomone

P. R.

(1972). The future roles of the rehabilitation counselor, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin16(2), 71–79.

19.

Myers

J. E.

(1995). Specialties in counseling: Rich heritage or force for fragmentation?Journal of Counseling & Development74(2), 115–116. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1995.tb01833.x

20.

O’Brien

, Graham

(2008). Rehabilitation counseling in the State and Federal program: Is there a future?Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling39(4), 55–59.

21.

Patterson

J. B.

(2008). Professional identity and the future of rehabilitation counseling, Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling39(4), 60–64.

22.

Peterson

D. B.

, Aguiar

L. J.

(2004). History and systems: United States. In Riggar

T. F.

and Maki

D. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of rehabilitation counseling, New York: Springer.

23.

Peterson

D. B.

, Hautamaki

J. B.

, Hershenson

D. B.

(2006). Reflections on our past and prospects for our future: A survey of the members of the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association (ARCA), Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin50(1), 4–13.

24.

Phillips

B. N.

, Leahy

M. J.

(2009). Prediction of membership in rehabilitation counseling professional association, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin52(4), 207–218.

25.

Rollins

(2006). Counseling summit could shape profession’s future, Counseling Today49, 26–27.

26.

Rubin

S. E.

, Roessler

R. T.

(2001). Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation process (5th ed..). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

27.

Shaw

L. R.

, Kuehn

M. D.

(2008). Rehabilitation Counselor Education Accreditation: History, structure, and evolution, Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling39(4), 5–11.

28.

Thomson Reuters, (2016). Journals in the 2016 release of journal reports. Retrieved April 10, 2017 http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/imgblast/JCRFullCovlist-2016.pdf

29.

Trotter

A. B.

, Kozochowicz

(1970). American Rehabilitation Counseling Association: Membership survey, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin14(1), 14–17.

30.

Urofsky

R. I.

(2013). The council for accreditation of counseling and related educational programs: Promoting quality in counselor education, Journal of Counseling & Development91(1), 6–14. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00065.x