a survey of preservice consultation training in school psychology programs

This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University]On: 13 November 2014, At: 20:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Educational andPsychological ConsultationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hepc20

A Survey of PreserviceConsultation Training in SchoolPsychology ProgramsJennifer Anton-LaHart & Sylvia RosenfieldPublished online: 09 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Jennifer Anton-LaHart & Sylvia Rosenfield (2004) A Surveyof Preservice Consultation Training in School Psychology Programs, Journalof Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15:1, 41-62, DOI: 10.1207/s1532768xjepc1501_2

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc1501_2

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hepc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1207/s1532768xjepc1501_2

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1207/s1532768xjepc1501_2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc1501_2

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A Survey of Preservice ConsultationTraining in School Psychology

Programs

Jennifer Anton-LaHartAnne Arundel Public Schools

Sylvia RosenfieldUniversity of Maryland

In this study, we investigated the state of preservice consultation training andsupervision in school psychology programs. Consultation trainers or super-visors in school psychology programs were surveyed to determine how theyprepared students for working as consultants. Specifically addressed werethe theoretical models or formats of consultation training used and the struc-ture of such training. In addition, information regarding the supervision pro-cess was explored. Through the results of the survey, we found thatnondoctoral and doctoral training programs offered more consultation-spe-cific coursework and field experience than they have in the past. Regardingsupervision, the majority of programs did not provide consultation studentswith regular (weekly or biweekly) or individualized supervision, and super-vision techniques such as tape recording were rarely implemented. The re-sults of this study should create an awareness of the recent trends in consulta-tion training and supervision. The study serves as an updated baselineagainst which improvement of consultation training and supervision, partic-ularly with regard to the need for additional supervisory techniques, can beassessed in the future.

School-based consultation has emerged over the last several decades to be-come one of the professional roles most preferred by school psychologists

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION, 15(1), 41–62Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Correspondence should be addressed to Jennifer Anton-LaHart, Anne Arundel PublicSchools, 1681 Millersville Road, Millersville, MD 21108. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(Reschly & Wilson, 1995). In addition, consultation, along with interper-sonal communication and collaboration, was listed as a domain of schoolpsychology leadership and function in School Psychology: A Blueprint forTraining and Practice II by the National Association of School Psychologists(NASP; 1997). However, although school psychologists frequently reportthat they wish to engage in consultation, they also report that they feel inad-equately prepared to do so because of insufficient training and supervision(e.g., Costenbader, Swartz, & Petrix, 1992; Guest, 2000).

One reason that school psychologists may feel ill prepared to tackle con-sultation is that they received insufficient training in consultation in theirpreservice program. Meyers, Wurtz, and Flanagan’s (1981) survey ofschool psychology training programs found that 60% of the respondingprograms did not offer a course focused exclusively on consultation.Moreover, they discovered that doctoral programs emphasized consulta-tion training more than nondoctoral programs, noteworthy because themajority of school psychologists are trained at the nondoctoral level(Pryzwansky, 1999). Stewart (1985) asked practitioners about the variousmeans on which they depended when doing consultation: 49% reportedusing “self-developed techniques,” 36% reported relying on “skills ob-tained through continuing education programs,” and only 20% said theydepended on “skills learned in training programs.” More recently, Hughes(1992) found that although approximately 40% of a sample of school psy-chologists and educational specialists had completed a required course inconsultation during preservice training, the most frequently indicatedmethods for acquiring consultation knowledge was through professionalarticles and work experiences. These methods and skills represent spo-radic and poorly structured training (Rosenfield & Gravois, 1993).

TRAINING ISSUES

The number of consultation courses is not the only important preservicetraining issue. Several other training issues have emerged in the consulta-tion literature, including an emphasis on one or more than one model of con-sultation, an emphasis on content or process, and supervision processes.

Models of Training

When consultation skills are taught in preservice training programs, thetype of training appears to be largely determined by the theoretical models

42 ANTON-LAHART AND ROSENFIELD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

of consultation offered by the program. Meyers et al. (1981) found that pro-grams used the behavioral and mental health models more than they usedthe organizational development model. They also found that more pro-grams (47%) used some combination of the three training models men-tioned in their survey (i.e., mental health, organization development, andbehavioral) than used only one model (39%). More recently, the behavioralmodel has been reported to be the most widely taught in preservicecoursework, and the consultation model has been reported to be the mostoften used (Costenbader et al., 1992).

How many models to teach has also been a point of contention. Idol(1988), for example, stated that it may be better to train students to compe-tency in a single model of consultation rather than developing a generaland eclectic knowledge of several models without specific, measurableskills in any one particular model. Earlier, Gallessich (1974) presented adifferent perspective, saying that training should provide a broad concep-tual framework of consultative theory and practice so that the student willnot only be cognizant of the number of choices available but of their under-lying values, presumptions, and likely consequences. She also suggestedthat although a high level of competency in all consultative models is obvi-ously not feasible, the decision as to which models are to be highlightedshould relate to the general philosophy and objectives of the whole train-ing program. The debate, however, becomes more critical if only onecourse in consultation is taught, as it decreases the amount of time avail-able for both discussion of models and skill development.

Content Versus Process

Another issue in training is the relative emphasis on theoretical or concep-tual information, such as the historical foundations and procedural tenetsof the major consultation models, in comparison to interpersonal or processmaintenance skills. For instance, Henning-Stout (1999) reported that effec-tive consultants must not only be competent in content, they must also becompetent in the process of consultation. This competence grows fromunderstanding theories of systems, communications, and change and de-pends on the development of personal and interpersonal skills. Althoughthe consultation literature suggests that sound interpersonal or processmaintenance skills are the most significant determinants of consultationsuccess (Conoley & Conoley, 1982; Gallessich & MacDonald, 1981), Idoland West (1987) found that a heavier emphasis was placed on the develop-

PRESERVICE CONSULTATION TRAINING 43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ment of knowledge bases than on the development of a thorough under-standing and application of the consultation process itself.

Supervision

The role of supervision of students is also considered a crucial componentof preservice consultation training. However, supervision practice andresearch has been largely ignored by school psychology and is practicallynonexistent in the consultation literature (Cramer & Rosenfield, in press).Brown (1985) offered one reason for the current paucity of material onconsultation supervision. He posed the possibility that psychologistsassume that the existing models of supervision, such as that forcounseling supervision, will generalize to consultation. However, as heexplained, these models cannot account for the complexity ofconsultation.

The consultation literature indicates that instructors should use learn-ing objectives to help them to choose from a variety of different teachingtechniques with demonstrated effectiveness, including direct instruction,microtraining, modeling, behavioral rehearsal, behavioral feedback, andself-observation or self-monitoring procedures (Forsyth & Ivey, 1980;Hosford & Barmann, 1983; Kratochwill, Bergan, & Mace, 1981; Lambert &Arnold, 1987; Leddick & Bernard, 1980). However, there are techniquesfrequently used in counseling and therapy training, which are largelyoverlooked by consultation training programs. For instance, the tape re-cording of consultation sessions is a training and supervision techniquethat has received little attention in the consultation literature.

In this study, consultation trainers and supervisors in preserviceschool psychology programs were surveyed on a number of areasrelated to consultation training and supervision to provide a baselinefor the understanding of how training is being delivered. The surveyfocused on describing (a) the experience and theoretical orientation ofthe faculty teaching and supervising consultation; (b) the nature ofcoursework in training programs, particularly around models andcontent of training; and (c) the supervision of consultation experiences.In addition, a copy of the program’s consultation course andconsultation practicum syllabi or both was requested from therespondents to determine what textbooks and journal articles wererequired reading for consultation students in the various programs andto ascertain what topics in consultation were frequently discussed overthe course of the semester.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

METHOD

Participants

The participants in this study consisted of preservice trainers or supervi-sors of consultation. Surveys were mailed to 217 graduate training pro-grams in school psychology across the United States, on the basis of a listobtained from NASP. Of the 217 programs, 131 were nondoctoral trainingprograms only, 22 were doctoral only, and 64 were both nondoctoral anddoctoral training programs in school psychology.

Of the 217 surveys mailed to programs, 104 were returned, for a 48% re-turn rate. Of the 104 returned surveys, 58 (44%) of nondoctoral-only pro-grams, 15 (68%) of doctoral-only programs, and 33 (52%) of the combineddoctoral–nondoctoral programs returned the survey. Faculty membersteaching the consultation courses were asked to submit course syllabi withthe completed survey. Only 25 syllabi accompanied the returned surveys.Eleven (44%) of the syllabi were from nondoctoral-only programs, 6 (24%)were from doctoral only, and 8 (32%) were from programs with bothnondoctoral and doctoral training programs.

Instrument

Participants were invited to respond to a survey based on how theytaught and supervised consultation. The survey was essentially dividedinto three sections (copy of the survey available from authors). The pur-pose of the first section was to obtain personal information, particularlythe respondent’s background and training in consultation and supervi-sion. The second section sought to gather information regarding the con-sultation coursework required in the training program. This sectionincluded questions about the number and size of the consultationcourses, the models of consultation taught, and the amount of time spenton theoretical and conceptual information versus process maintenanceand communication skills. This section was designed to answer ques-tions debated in the research, such as whether the training programs in-structed students in more than one theoretical model of consultation andwhether programs stress the importance of process rather than theoreti-cal and conceptual information only. The third section was designed tocollect information on the type and frequency of supervision practices.

Two terms were defined on the survey in an attempt to decrease vari-ability in interpretation. Consultation cases were defined on the survey as


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

cases involving teachers, parents, principals or administrators, and organi-zational projects or a combination of these in the school and not to consul-tation as part of feedback in special education assessment. Practicum wasalso defined on the survey as a consultation experience that involved train-ees working with real clients in a field-based setting.

The completion of the survey’s 13 questions was expected to take ap-proximately 15 to 20 min of the respondents’ time. Almost all of the ques-tions in the survey were followed by a list of choices, except for thequestions that asked for a number corresponding to an amount of time orsize. At the end of the survey, an opportunity was provided to elaborate onany of the survey items or to describe any unique training experiences. Inaddition, the survey requested that a copy of the program’s consultationcourse and consultation practicum syllabi or both be enclosed with thecompleted survey to provide supplemental information about theircourses without extending the length of the survey.

The survey was piloted with six school psychology interns, who pro-vided feedback on the clarity and structure of the questions and suggestedwhat should be added, deleted, or further defined. In addition, three train-ers or supervisors of consultation piloted the survey and provided addi-tional suggestions.

Procedures

The survey and two cover letters were mailed to the program directors ofevery NASP-approved program in November 1999 and again in January2000. One cover letter was for the program director and requested that theyforward the survey with the second cover letter to the instructor or to the in-dividuals with the primary responsibility for teaching and supervising stu-dents in consultation. The participants were provided with a prepaidstamped envelope to encourage the mailing of the completed survey and acopy of the consultation course and consultation practicum syllabi or both.The cover letter stated that completion of the survey was voluntary andconstituted consent to participate in the study. Although participants mayhave been identifiable to us through the syllabi, they were told that theidentifying information would be removed and kept confidential. In an ef-fort to further increase the return rate, a card was enclosed with the surveyon which the participants could write their name and address if theywished to be entered in a drawing for a gift certificate or to receive the re-sults of the study. This information was kept confidential and separatefrom the surveys.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Data Analyses

Descriptive statistics were used to code each survey question. Because notevery survey question was answered by all of the respondents, there weredifferent response rates for each survey question, as indicated in the tables.In addition, the respondents were encouraged to check all options thatapplied to their particular program. As a result, most respondents checkedoff more than one item under each survey question.

The course syllabi were first reviewed to determine what textbooks andjournal articles were required reading for consultation students in the vari-ous programs. The frequency with which the textbooks and articles werecited in the available syllabi was calculated. In addition, the total numberof times a consultation topic was referenced on the submitted syllabi wasanalyzed. Topics were taken from course outlines on the syllabi. Similartopics were grouped together and then placed into tables according tobroad themes. The themes, or table titles, were created by the researcherson the basis of common subject headings found in the consultation litera-ture and the actual course syllabi or both as submitted by the training pro-grams. Syllabi were also reviewed to determine the type of consultationcases that were assigned.

RESULTS

Faculty Experience and Theoretical Orientation

Participants (N = 100) reported a mean of 12.36 and a mode of 10 semestersof teaching consultation courses, with a range between 1 and 60 semesters.In terms of theoretical orientation (see Table 1), several respondentschecked more than one orientation with the largest number checking cog-nitive–behavioral and the fewest checking psychodynamic. However, 20%checked “other.” The other orientations listed were systems (n = 5), ecologi-cal (n = 4), humanistic–existential (n = 2), social–learning (n = 2), develop-mental (n = 2), constructivist (n = 2), solution focused (n = 1), best practices(n = 1), collaborative (n = 1), and transactional (n = 1).

Coursework in Consultation

As shown in Table 2, the majority of responding programs offered onecourse in consultation. One quarter of the doctoral programs, however, re-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

quired two or more courses in consultation. Some respondents (11% ofnondoctoral training program respondents and 8% of doctoral program re-spondents) checked more than one option, reflecting the fact that their pro-gram offered a separate consultation course and that consultation was alsointegrated into other coursework. One nondoctoral and two doctoral pro-grams indicated that they offered two separate consultation courses andthat they also integrated consultation into other coursework. Class sizeranged between 3 and 40, with a mean of 12.14 students (n = 99). The mode,or most frequently occurring response for this question, was 8 students,with the second most frequently occurring response being 15 students.

As shown in Table 3, the consultation models most often used inpreservice programs were behavioral (91%), mental health (59%), instruc-tional (53%), and organizational (52%). In terms of number of modelstaught, 19% indicated the use of only one consultation model, whereas18% reported teaching two different models that typically included behav-


TABLE 1Theoretical Orientation of Instructors

Theoretical Orientation n Percentage of Respondents

Behavioral 34 33Cognitive–behavioral 38 37Eclectic 31 30Psychodynamic 4 4Other 21 20

Note. N = 103.

TABLE 2Consultation Coursework Requirements

Non-doctorala Doctoralb

Type of Coursework nPercentage ofRespondents n

Percentage ofRespondents

No course offered 3 3 0 0Part of one course 3 3 0 0Part of two or more courses 16 18 4 8One separate course 66 63 34 71Two or more separate courses 9 10 12 25Other 2 2 1 2

aN = 91. bN = 48.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ioral consultation. However, the majority of respondents (63%) reportedusing more than two consultation models.

The content of the coursework was also explored in the survey. For in-stance, respondents were asked if a stage-based approach to consultationwas taught and, if so, in what stages of consultation were students in-structed. Ninety-seven of the 101 respondents to this question reportedthat a stage-based model of consultation was taught in their program.They indicated teaching the following stages: contracting (56%), problemidentification (97%), problem analysis (98%), intervention (97%), evalua-tion (96%), and other (16%). The most common other stages were entry(7%) and closure (3%).

Another survey question had trainers estimate the percentage of timethey spent teaching various consultation skills. Respondents were directedto complete the section under Consultation Course I if they only offeredone consultation course and to complete both sections, ConsultationCourse I and II, if they offered two consultation courses. As shown in Table4, most of the responding programs reported that a relatively large propor-tion of time was spent discussing theory and content and intervention de-velopment during the first consultation course. When a program indicatedthat a second course was taught, the majority of those programs tended tospend a little more time on intervention and process maintenance skillsrather than on theory and content (see Table 5). However, process mainte-nance skills were generally taught between 0 and 30% of the time through-out consultation coursework. Communication skills were typicallyfocused on 0 to 20% of the time, whereas multicultural skills received littleemphasis and were taught between 0 and 10% of the time.


TABLE 3Models of Consultation Taught

Consultation Model n Percentage of Respondents

Advocacy 18 18Behavioral 92 91Instructional 54 53Mental Health 60 59Organizational 53 52Process 34 34Other (please specify) 22 22

Note. N = 101.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Experience in Consultation

The survey also requested information regarding how students receivedexperience or practice in consultation before internship. Again, many of therespondents checked off more than one type of consultation experience.Eighty-eight percent of the participants held classroom role plays and


TABLE 4Estimated Percentage of Time Spent on Different Consultation Skills During Course I

Skill

Theoretical–Conceptual

InterventionDevelopment

Process–Maintenance Communication Multicultural

Percentage ofTime n % n % n % n % n %

0–10% 16 17 20 21 25 26 38 40 72 7611–20% 25 26 33 35 36 38 35 37 14 1521–30% 31 33 24 25 24 25 15 16 4 431–40% 8 8 7 7 4 4 4 4 2 241–50% 11 12 9 9 3 3 1 1 0 0> 50% 4 4 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0

Notes. % refers to the percentage of respondents. N = 25.

TABLE 5Estimated Percentage of Time Spent on Different Consultation Skills During Course II

Skill

Theoretical–Conceptual

InterventionDevelopment

Process–Maintenance Communication Multicultural

Percentage ofTime n % n % n % n % n %

0–10% 9 36 4 16 4 16 9 36 20 8011–20% 7 28 4 16 9 36 9 36 3 1221–30% 5 20 9 36 7 28 3 12 0 031–40% 2 8 2 8 1 4 1 4 1 441–50% 2 8 4 16 1 4 0 0 0 0> 50% 0 0 1 4 1 4 0 0 0 0

Notes. % refers to the percentage of respondents. N = 25.Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

simulation experiences, 80% required consultation cases as part of the firstconsultation course with the number of cases varying between one and sixcases (M = 2.19), 23% required consultation cases as part of a secondconsultationcoursewiththenumberofcasesvaryingbetweenoneandeight(M = 2.53), and 82% required cases as part of a practicum experience with thenumber of cases varying between one and eight (M = 3.00). Two percent ofresponding programs did not require any fieldwork experience inconsultation, and four percent of respondents reported other forms ofconsultation experience, which included a supervision practicum fordoctoralstudents (n=1),practicumroleplays(n=1),asemester-longprojectinvolving the application of consultation skills (n = 1), and a programevaluation (n = 1).

Supervision

Participants were asked to indicate what type of consultation supervi-sion was provided to students and how frequently each type of supervi-sion was provided to students during coursework and practicaexperiences. Although 103 participants responded regarding the supervi-sion provided during coursework and 82 participants responded aboutthe supervision provided during practicum, several participants left por-tions of the question blank even though “never provided” was an optionon the survey. As a result of blank responses, each type of supervisionlisted on the survey had a different response rate, which is indicated inparentheses in Table 6. A few respondents listed additional forms of su-pervision under the other heading for this survey question. However,none of the other supervision types were mentioned more than once.These included log feedback, observation in the field, written feedbackfrom the supervisor, and peer critique or supervision.

Figure 1 demonstrates how often regular supervision, defined asweekly or biweekly, was provided during coursework and practicum, re-spectively. These percentages were calculated by dividing the amount ofregular supervision (weekly plus biweekly) by the total number of respon-dents who answered the question, as it was assumed that if they left thesection blank, supervision was not provided on a regular basis. Duringcoursework, 14% required weekly or biweekly taping of consultation ses-sions with only 9% of those reviewing their tapes with a supervisor.Twenty-seven percent of respondents provided individual supervisionwithout taping on a regular basis. Forty-three percent held small-groupconsultation supervision, whereas 66% provided supervision through


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

52

TABLE 6Type and Frequency of Supervision Involved in Consultation Training During Coursework and Practicum

Weekly BiweeklyAs

Needed Never Other

Type of Supervision n % n % n % n % n %

During coursework (N = 103)Consultation sessions taped (n = 95) 9 9 5 5 31 33 32 34 18 19Sessions taped and reviewed with

supervisor (n = 87)7 8 2 2 29 33 31 36 18 21

Individual supervision without taping(n = 70)

25 36 3 4 35 50 5 7 2 3

Supervision through class discussion (n = 88) 56 64 12 14 17 19 2 2 1 1Small group supervision (n = 74) 39 53 5 7 17 23 12 16 1 1

During practicum (N = 82)Consultation sessions taped (n = 63) 5 8 2 3 20 32 32 51 4 6Sessions taped and reviewed with

supervisor (n= 59)4 7 1 2 20 34 31 53 3 5

Individual supervision without taping(n=68)

30 44 8 12 25 37 3 4 2 3

Supervision through class discussion (n = 66) 42 64 7 11 13 20 3 5 1 2Small group supervision (n = 58) 34 59 5 9 12 21 7 12 0 0

Note. % refers to the percentage of respondents

FIGURE 1 Type of consultation supervision provided on a regular basis (weekly or bi-weekly) during coursework and practicum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

class discussion on a weekly or biweekly basis. However, 43% of respond-ing programs did not provide any type of regular supervision to consulta-tion students during coursework activities.

During practicum, the situation was not considerably improved, as thefollowing forms of regular consultation supervision were reported: 9% ofresponding programs required taping of consultation sessions, 6% hadtapes reviewed with a supervisor, 46% provided individual supervisionwithout taping, 48% held small-group supervision, and 60% provided su-pervision through class discussion. Interestingly, 32% of responding pro-grams did not provide any type of regular supervision during practicum.

Syllabi

The 25 syllabi submitted with the surveys were reviewed to determinewhat textbooks and journal articles were required reading for consultationstudents in the various programs and to ascertain what topics in consulta-tion were frequently discussed over the course of the semester. The major-ity of responding programs focused on broad and introductory material(e.g., history of consultation, introduction to consultation models, legal andethical issues). There was also considerable diversity in the textbooks se-lected. One textbook (Brown, Pryzwansky, & Schulte, 1998) was used innine of the programs that submitted their syllabi, whereas another text(Kratochwill & Bergan, 1990) was used in seven of the responding pro-grams. The other texts referenced on the available syllabi were not cited bymore than three different programs. Readings were even more diverse,with few of the extensive list of readings used more than in one course. (Thespecific list of readings is available from the authors on request.)

Because of the large number of consultation cases that were reportedlyassigned to students during coursework, the syllabi were reviewed to as-certain course requirements. Fifteen of the 25 syllabi indicated that stu-dents were required to work with at least one consultee in a field-basedsetting. However, the other 10 syllabi appeared to require only simulationor role-play activities. When these 10 syllabi were compared to their ac-companying surveys, six of the programs indicated that students were as-signed two or more consultation cases during coursework.

DISCUSSION

Although consultation has continued to be a valued professional role ofschool psychologists, past preservice consultation training andsupervision have been perceived as insufficient to provide a basis for


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

services in this domain. Although interest in consultation training hasexpanded recently (see, e.g., the special issue on consultation training in theJournal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, edited by Alpert &Taufique, 2002), the literature on training remains sparse. The purpose ofthis study was to explore the current status of consultation training at thegraduate level for school psychologists.

Consultation Course Faculty

The instructors who completed the survey varied in the amount of experi-ence they had, but the majority were not new to the consultation trainingexperience. As for their theoretical orientation, most consultation trainersreported having a behavioral or cognitive–behavioral background. Fur-thermore, the respondents’ theoretical orientation did appear to contributeto the consultation models selected, as the majority taught the behavioralconsultation model.

Coursework in Consultation

Previous studies have found limited consultation coursework in schoolpsychology programs, despite continuing calls for school psychologiststo be competent in this domain (e.g., NASP, 2000). Meyers et al. (1981)found that 60% of responding school psychology training programs didnot offer a course focused exclusively on consultation. A decade later,Hughes (1992) found that approximately 40% of a sample of schoolpsychologists had completed a required course in consultation duringpreservice training. The survey presented here, after another decade,however, found improvement, in that 87% of nondoctoral programsoffered a course focused exclusively on consultation, and all of thedoctoral programs responding offered at least one course focusedexclusively on consultation. This increase in required consultationcoursework seems to be a significant improvement in preservice trainingand should begin to eliminate the need for practitioners to rely almostentirely on self-developed consultation techniques (Stewart, 1985) or onskills obtained through professional articles and work experiences(Hughes, 1992), as previously reported. However, three of the respondingnondoctoral programs still did not offer a course focused exclusively onconsultation.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Models of Consultation Taught

Respondents to the survey were asked to indicate all the consultation mod-els taught in their program. The behavioral consultation model was namedby 91% of responding programs as at least one of the models taught. Thenext most commonly used models were mental health consultation, in-structional consultation, and organizational consultation. With respect tothe debate in the literature over whether training should involve instruc-tion in one consultation model or encompass several models as describedearlier, the current trend seems to be to teach more than one model. Thisfinding indicates a growth in the proclivity of programs to train more thanone model, as Meyers et al. (1981) found 39% taught one model and 47%cited some combination of the three consultation models provided on theirsurvey (i.e., behavioral, mental health, and organizational).

On the basis of this information, it seems that preservice programs havechosen to focus on breadth rather than depth in consultation courses whentraining students. Trainers may feel that they need to provide a more gen-eral introduction to consultation in their course. Although students mayachieve an understanding of the theory behind various consultation mod-els, teaching multiple models leaves little time for practicing and refiningskills. As a result, students are most likely not reaching competency intheir consultation skills. Furthermore, as described in more detail later,sufficient time is not being devoted to the development of communicationand process maintenance skills during training, and these interpersonalskills contribute greatly to a consultant’s effectiveness in the field.

The 25 course syllabi obtained also reflected the tendency to teach stu-dents a variety of consultation models and to provide a broad overview ofconsultation theory. The required textbooks for the majority of these pro-grams were introductory in nature. These textbooks provide backgroundinformation regarding several consultation models and include other gen-eral topics, such as the history of consultation, the stages of consultation,the relationship between the consultant and consultee, and ethical and le-gal considerations.

According to previous research, preservice training programs typicallyplace a heavier emphasis on the theoretical and conceptual bases of consul-tation rather than on the interpersonal processes involved, which are con-sidered by many to be the most significant determinants of consultationsuccess (Conoley & Conoley, 1982; Gallessich & MacDonald, 1981; Idol &West, 1987). This propensity to focus on content rather than process wasalso reflected in this survey. The responding programs reported spendingmore time during coursework on theoretical and conceptual and interven-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

tion development skills. On the basis of the data presented in Tables 4 and5, consultation theory and content clearly take precedence over interper-sonal and multicultural skills during preservice training. This is unfortu-nate because Hasbrouck, Parker, and Tindal (1999) found that consultantsand teachers rated exchanging information, listening, and interpersonalcommunication as most valuable in contributing to the outcome of cases.In addition, there was little focus on multicultural issues. Recent publica-tions have begun to address issues of multicultural consultation (see, e.g.,the special issue of School Psychology Review, edited by Ingraham & Meyers,2000, on multicultural and cross-cultural consultation), which might pro-vide resources to introduce these important issues into courses.

According to the survey results, some of the responding programs re-ported offering two separate courses in consultation. Because the firstcourse was typically driven by theory and content, one would anticipatethat the second course would focus on the development and practice of in-terpersonal and communication skills. However, on the basis of the datapresented in Table 5, it appears that a relatively large proportion of pro-grams that offered a second course were still working on theoretical andconceptual skills and intervention development.

Supervision

Although the number of courses may have increased, the level of supervi-sion provided seems to reflect a more superficial approach to skill develop-ment. Because most respondents indicated teaching multiple models ofconsultation, the depth of supervised practice in any one model was likelyto be minimal. In addition, many respondents reported relatively largeclass sizes. The importance of this finding resides in its implications for su-pervision, as the number of students in a consultation course can be a majorfactor in determining the quantity and quality of supervision. It is likelythat the training and supervision provided to students would look signifi-cantly different in a class of 15 or 40 than in a class of 5 or 8.

The supervision of consultation students plays a more significant role asthe student moves from the classroom environment to the application ofhis or her skills in a field-based or practicum setting. Students typicallygain field experience in consultation by working with a consultee on a spe-cific case. According to the survey results, the majority of training pro-grams require students to take on consultation “cases.” The number ofcases assigned to students ranged from one to eight, with a mean of twocases during coursework and a mean of three cases during practicum.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ten of the 25 submitted syllabi did not indicate that students were re-quired to work with a consultee in a field-based setting. However, on theaccompanying survey, 6 of these 10 programs indicated that students wereassigned two or more consultation cases during coursework. Althoughconsultation cases was defined on the survey, it appears that some respon-dents interpreted cases differently. As a result, participants may have re-ported a higher number of consultation cases on the survey. Respondentsin some instances appeared to have been defining cases as (a) conductingproblem identification and analysis interviews with classmates, (b) ob-serving consultation cases, and (c) writing reaction papers in response toprovided consultation situations. This difference in reported case numbersoccurred more often when the respondents reported assigning more thanthree cases to consultation students.

Research regarding supervision is practically nonexistent in the consul-tation literature. Of particular interest in this survey was the type of con-sultation supervision provided to students and how frequently thatsupervision was rendered. On the basis of the results presented in Table 6,it appears that a large proportion of responding programs did not provideweekly or biweekly supervision of consultation students’ skills. This isnoteworthy, as direct supervision in a given skill has been shown to in-crease the likelihood of the skill being used in the field (Shapiro & Lentz,1985). Furthermore, the majority of programs seemed to rely on class orsmall-group discussions to foster individual skill development. As a re-sult, student consultation skills may not have been accurately assessed,and appropriate and individually driven feedback, particularly on processskills, may not have been provided. As Ross and Sisenwein (1990) stated,feedback and evaluation should occur continuously, and the supervisorshould provide information regarding the strengths and weaknesses in astudent’s performance and ways to improve.

The use of audiotaping or videotaping of consultation sessions has re-ceived little attention in the consultation literature (Cramer & Rosenfield,in press) but has been found to be an effective supervision tool in otherhelping skills, including counseling and psychotherapy. Goldberg (1985)identified several supervision goals that could be accomplished with taperecordings, including focusing on specific therapy techniques, helping thestudent see the relation between process and content, and focusing on howthings are said. In addition, when tape recordings are not used, the studentmust rely on his or her recollections during supervision. As a result, seg-ments of the interaction that were not recorded in memory will be ignored,key statements may be misheard or not heard, elements of the sessioncould be magnified or diminished, and interpretations could take on a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

“wishful perfection” (Aveline, 1997). However, if sessions are taped, onecan have direct and unfiltered access to what occurred during the session,there is an opportunity to explore verbal communication, and supervisorsand students can replay interactions to closely examine process and tech-nique (Aveline, 1997). Therefore, it allows students the opportunity topractice and refine their process maintenance and communication skills,which are often neglected during coursework. Although notes may betaken during sessions and process logs written after the session, noviceconsultants are less likely to capture their process and communicationskills (Cramer & Rosenfield, in press). Cramer and Rosenfield describe indetail how the taping of consultation sessions adds to the development ofconsultation process skills in novice consultants. However, according tothe results of this survey, most preservice training programs do not usethis technique nor do the faculty recognize its potential for supervisingstudents at the beginning stage of skill development in consultation. Thus,it is likely that most practitioners enter the field with relatively limited ex-pertise in the process and communication skills of consultation.

Limitations

There were several limitations of this study. Primarily, the survey allowedfor subjectivity in responses, especially for those questions requesting esti-mation of time. In addition, although some terms were defined on the sur-vey, there was likely disparity in how respondents interpreted what wasbeing asked. Specifically, the models of consultation were not defined (e.g.,mental health consultation) nor were the skills taught (e.g., process mainte-nance skills). Although we used terms that were most frequently cited inthe consultation literature, differences in interpretation may have influ-enced the results or impacted the return rate.

It also became evident as the results of the survey were interpreted thatconclusions regarding some aspects of consultation training and supervi-sion could not be easily drawn because of incomplete responses and itemswhere responders were asked to check multiple options. Interviews withfaculty or a higher return rate on syllabi might have enabled more preciseinformation about students’ training experiences.

Additionally, the survey’s return rate was a limitation. Over half of thepreservice programs did not return the survey. Although more than 50%of doctoral-only and combined (both nondoctoral and doctoral) programsreturned their surveys, less than 50% of nondoctoral-only programs sub-mitted their responses. Therefore, nondoctoral-only programs were less


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

represented than programs that offered a doctoral degree. This return rate,however, was similar to another study of consultation course instructors;Hellkamp, Zins, Ferguson, and Hodge (1998) had a return rate of 46.9% intheir survey of clinical, counseling, industrial–organizational, and schoolpsychology faculty on their program’s training practices in consultation.The return rate of this survey (48%) was higher than the return rate for theHughes (1992) survey (43% return rate) of practitioners.

One possible explanation for this low return rate could be the fact thatthe survey was mailed to the program director. The program director wasthen asked in the first cover letter to pass the survey along to the individualprimarily responsible for the training of consultation students. Therefore,it is possible that the consultation faculty never received the survey, as itwas not directly mailed to them.

It was anticipated that those returning surveys would also return coursesyllabi, but that was not the case, as only 25 course syllabi were returned.The low return rate of syllabi may have been due to the loss of anonymity,as syllabi typically have the name of the course instructor printed on them.The syllabi also pointed up discrepancies between survey responses andinformation on the syllabi that could have been explored had more syllabibeen returned. An example of this was discussed previously with regardto the number of consultation cases assigned to students duringcoursework and practicum or both.

IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The research and literature regarding consultation training and supervi-sion is small. The literature typically presents personal preferences and ex-periences about ideal training formats and techniques or both. However, itwas unknown what was actually being implemented in preservice pro-grams to prepare students for the application of consultation skills out inthe field. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the currentstate of preservice consultation training and supervision in school psychol-ogy graduate programs.

On the basis of the results of this study, it seems that preservice pro-grams are offering more consultation-specific coursework and field expe-rience. Moreover, students in the majority of preservice programs learnseveral different consultation theories and models and are trained with avariety of techniques, particularly those related to behavioral consultation.However, there was considerable diversity captured in this survey oftraining and supervision, even though 91% of responding programs re-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ported with the behavioral consultation model. Furthermore, supervisionwas rarely provided to students on a regular or individual basis, a tech-nique that has been shown to increase students’ skill level and implemen-tation in the field.

These results inform the school psychology profession by illustratingthe progress that has been made in the area of consultation training and thecurrent needs of preservice programs. However, growth in the number ofcourses required in school psychology programs is only a first step in thedevelopment of consultation competence in professionals. Supervisorsand practitioners must educate themselves about effective training tech-niques that will increase student skill development in both content andprocess. This may involve taking their cues from the counseling literature,which offers several supervisory models and effective techniques (i.e.,tape recording). Nevertheless, there exists a need for more empiricallysupported training and supervisory methods that will inform preservicetrainers and improve the quality of consultation students’ skills and thelikelihood that they will apply those skills in the field.

Future studies may want to obtain feedback from preservice trainersand supervisors in the field as to what they have found to be effective inbuilding students’ skill level in consultation. In addition, information re-garding the obstacles and challenges preservice trainers and supervisorsface when attempting to provide appropriate supervision should be inves-tigated to work toward remedying the situation. For instance, are supervi-sors not providing regular supervision to consultation students becausethey lack knowledge, experience, or resources? What are the other issueswith which preservice trainers wrestle? Answers to these questions arenecessary if graduate programs are going to produce effective and compe-tent consultants. As consultation increasingly becomes a more prominentmode of service delivery in the field, training programs will be expected todevelop training models to ensure their students are able to provide effec-tive delivery of consultation services.

REFERENCES

Alpert, J. L., & Taufique, S. R. (Eds.). (2002). Training in consultation: State of the Field [Specialissue]. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13(1–2).

Aveline, M. (1997). The use of audiotapes in supervision of psychotherapy. In G. Shipton (Ed.),Supervision of psychotherapy and counseling: Making a place to think (pp. 80–92). Buckingham,England: Open University Press.

Brown, D. (1985). The preservice training and supervision of consultants. Counseling Psycholo-gist, 13, 410–425.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Brown, D., Pryzwansky, W. B., & Schulte, A. C. (1998). Psychological consultation: Introduction totheory and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Conoley, J. C., & Conoley, C. W. (1982). School consultation: A guide to practice and training. NewYork: Pergamon.

Costenbader, V., Swartz, J., & Petrix, L. (1992). Consultation in the schools: The relationshipbetween preservice training, perception of consultative skills, and actual time spent in con-sultation. School Psychology Review, 21, 95–108.

Cramer, K., & Rosenfield, S. (in press). Clinical supervision of consultation. Clinical Supervisor.Forsyth, D. R., & Ivey, A. E. (1980). Microtraining: An approach to differential supervision. In

A. K. Hess (Ed.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 242–261). NewYork: Wiley.

Gallessich, J. (1974). Training the school psychologist for consultation. Journal of School Psychol-ogy, 12, 138–149.

Gallessich, J., & MacDonald, J. (1981). Facilitating professional development through groupanalogic methods. Professional Psychology, 12, 209–215.

Goldberg, D. A. (1985). Process notes, audio, and videotape: Modes of presentation in psycho-therapy training. Clinical Supervisor, 3, 3–13.

Guest, K. E. (2000). Career development of school psychologists. Journal of School Psychology,38, 237–257.

Hasbrouck, J. E., Parker, R. I., & Tindal, G. A. (1999). Perceptions of usefulness of case-relatedactivities: Implicationsfor training. JournalofEducationalandPsychologicalConsultation,10,83–90.

Hellkamp, D. T., Zins, J. E., Ferguson, K., & Hodge, M. (1998). Training practices in consulta-tion: A national survey of clinical, counseling, industrial/organizational, and school psy-chology faculty. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 50, 228–236.

Henning-Stout, M. (1999). Learning consultation: An ethnographic analysis. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 37, 73–98.

Hosford, R. E., & Barmann, B. (1983). A social learning approach to counselor supervision.Counseling Psychologist, 11, 51–59.

Hughes, C. A. (1992). A knowledge utilization investigation of the adoption and implementation of aconsultation-based indirect service delivery model by multidisciplinary teams. Unpublished doc-toral dissertation, Fordham University, New York.

Idol, L. (1988). Training in special education consultation. In J. F. West (Ed.), School consulta-tion: Interdisciplinary perspectives on theory, research, training, and practice (pp. 105–126). Aus-tin, TX: Association of Educational and Psychological Consultants.

Idol, L., & West, J. F. (1987). Consultation in special education (Part II): Training and practice.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 474–494.

Ingraham, C. L., & Meyers, J. (Eds.). (2000). Multicultural and cross-cultural consultation inschools. [Special issue]. School Psychology Review, 29(3).

Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation in applied settings. New York:Plenum.

Kratochwill, T. R., Bergan, J. R., & Mace, F. C. (1981). Practitioner competencies needed for im-plementation of behavioral psychology in the schools: Issues in supervision. School Psy-chology Review, 10, 434–444.

Lambert, M. J., & Arnold, R. C. (1987). Research and the supervisory process. Professional Psy-chology: Research and Practice, 18, 217–224.

Leddick, G. R., & Bernard, J. M. (1980). The history of supervision: A critical review. CounselorEducation and Supervision, 19, 186–196.

Meyers, J., Wurtz, R., & Flanagan, D. (1981). A national survey investigating consultationtraining occurring in school psychology programs. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 297–302.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

National Association of School Psychologists. (1997). School psychology: A blueprint for trainingand practice II. Bethesda, MD: Author.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2000). Standards for training and field placementprograms in school psychology and standards for the credentialing of school psychologists. Wash-ington, DC: Author.

Pryzwansky, W. B. (1999). Accreditation and credentialing systems in school psychology. InC. Reynolds & T. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed.; pp. 1145–1158).New York: Wiley.

Reschly, D. J., & Wilson, M. S. (1995). School psychology practitioners and faculty: 1986 to1991–92—Trends in Demographics, roles, satisfaction, and system reform. School Psychol-ogy Review, 24, 62–80.

Rosenfield, S. A. (2002). Developing instructional consultants: From novice to competent toexpert. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13, 97–111.

Rosenfield, S. A., & Gravois, T. A. (1993). Educating consultants for applied clinical and educa-tional settings. In J. Zins, T. Kratochwill, & S. Elliott (Eds.), Handbook of consultation servicesfor children (pp. 373–393). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ross, R. P., & Sisenwein, F. E. (1990). Best practices in internship supervision. In A. Thomas & J.Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology—II (pp. 441–454). Washington, DC: Na-tional Association of School Psychologists.

Shapiro, E. S., & Lentz, F. E. (1985). A survey of school psychologists’ use of behavior modifica-tion procedures. Journal of School Psychology, 23, 327–336.

Stewart, K. J. (1985, August). Academic consultation: Differences in doctoral and non-doctoral train-ing and practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological As-sociation, Los Angeles.

Jennifer Anton-LaHart is a school psychologist in Anne Arundel County Public Schools. Shereceived her Master’s and Advance Graduate Specialist degrees in school psychology fromthe University of Maryland in 2001. This study is based on her master’s thesis.

Sylvia Rosenfield is Professor of school psychology at the University of Maryland. Her teach-ing and research interests include instructional consultation/instructional consultationteams, consultation training, and implementation of change in schools.

Action Editor: Emilia C. Lopez


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:54

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

a survey of preservice consultation training in school psychology programs

Documents