Basic counseling skills in psychology and teaching: validation of a short version of the counselor activity self-efficacy scales.

BACKGROUND: Counseling self-efficacy is a relevant measure to examine trainees' beliefs about their counseling skills. This study aimed to validate three scales of the revised German version of the Counselor Activity Self-Efficacy Scales (CASES-R) measuring basic counseling skills. To ascertain the scales' sensitivity to change, counseling self-efficacy was assessed before and after specific training. METHOD: The sample comprised 163 university students enrolled either in psychology or education. Students were examined before and after participating in training focusing on basic counseling skills. We applied confirmatory factor analysis and tested internal consistency, convergent validity, and criterion validity. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis supported the three-factor structure of the CASES-R scales for basic counseling skills. The scales provided acceptable to good internal consistency (α = 0.77 - 0.87). Significant relations with general self-efficacy (r =.23, p <.01) provided first indication for convergent validity. We also found a significant correlation of the CASES-R with positive affect (r =.22), and significant correlations of some subscales with empathetic concern (r =.16 -.21) and mastery goal orientation (r =.16), overall supporting criterion validity. The CASES-R scales proved to be sensitive to change, as participants' scores were higher after (M = 6.18, SD = 1.05) than before (M = 5.37, SD = 1.16) counseling training (F(1, 309) = 42.27, p <.001). CONCLUSION: We found support for the proposed factor structure and reliability of the German version of the three CASES-R scales, indicating its suitability for use in basic counseling settings. Future research should further examine the scales' validity.

The Influence of Individual and Situational Factors on Teachers' Justice Ratings of Classroom Interactions.

Teachers, as role models, are crucial in promoting inclusion in society through their actions. Being perceived as fair by their students is linked to students' feelings of belonging in school. In addition, their decisions of resource allocations also affect students' academic success. Both aspects underpin the importance of teachers' views on justice. This article aims to investigate what teachers consider to be just and how teacher characteristics and situational factors affect justice ratings of hypothetical student-teacher-interactions. In an experimental design, we randomly varied the description of the interacting student in text vignettes regarding his/her special educational need (SEN) (situational factor). We also collected data on teachers' attitudes toward inclusion and experiences with persons with disabilities (individual factors). A sample of in-service teachers in Germany (N = 2,254) rated randomized versions of two text vignettes. To also consider the effect of professional status, a sample of pre-service teachers (N = 275) did the same. Linear mixed effect models point to a negative effect of the SEN on justice ratings, meaning situations in which the interacting student is described with a SEN were rated less just compared to the control condition. As the interacting student in the situations was treated worse than the rest, this was indicative for the application of the need principle. Teachers with more positive attitudes toward inclusion rated the vignettes as significantly less just. Professional status also had a negative effect on justice ratings, with in-service teachers rating the interactions significantly lower than the pre-service teachers. Our results suggest that the teachers applied the principle of need in their ratings. Implications for inclusive teaching practices and future research are discussed further.