Week 6: Nelson Article

            This week’s article by Nelson (2002) took me back to Theory and Practice 1 and one of our initial conversations about the need for a counselor to be strongly rooted in theory.  I remember learning about the concept of being eclectic in counseling and its negative connotation.  As Nelson (2002) stated, “eclecticism…is often associated with an intellectually sloppy orientation to clinical practice involving a hit-or-miss process of trying techniques to see what works” (p. 416).  As we went through both Theory & Practice classes, as well as Brief, I sometimes wondered how I would describe which theory(ies) I use in my counseling, when adjusting our selection of theory based on a client’s needs was an acceptable practice.   I appreciated the differentiation in this article between unsystematic eclecticism (what to avoid) and technical eclecticism.  I believe that a counselor should be grounded in a particular theory (i.e. Solution Focused) but be flexible enough to utilize other theories when needed.  A knowledge of theories and how or in what situations they are applied must be present in order for this to be an effective method of counseling, just as a knowledge of assessment tools and their purpose is essential for a psychologist when conducting a Multi-Disciplinary Evaluation.

            The article stresses the need for informal assessment of a client’s goals, needs, and desired outcomes.  All components must be considered in order to successfully counsel a client, just as a holistic view of a child must be considered when conducting an evaluation and interpreting its results to make recommendations.  I am reminded of Dr. Garner encouraging us to invite clients to teach us about their stories and perspectives.  The counselor is constantly “in the moment” and assessing the needs of the client, while keeping in mind the original goals, or, in the framework of Solution Focused, what he/she wants to change or do differently.  Understanding where the client is in the process and utilizing appropriate strategies to meet him/her where he/she is could be related to test validity.  Whereas validity refers to whether or not the decisions made based on an assessment are meaningful and relate to the purpose of the assessment, selecting a counseling strategy should relate to the client’s concerns, goals, and needs in the counseling process; it is purposefully chosen.  It would seem that the recommendations made in this article are based on reliability, or the degree to which particular strategies have been found to be effective when applied to certain situations or types of clients.

            I found this article to be helpful and informative, and one that I could see myself referring back to as I enter the counseling field.  I realized through reading it that I do still have a lot to learn when it comes to developing technical eclecticism.

Nelson, M. L. (2002).  An assessment-based model for counseling strategy selection.

            Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 416-421.

Week 5

            Intelligence has often seemed a very strange term to me.  Although, I was certainly aware of the differing abilities a person may have, I have found it difficult to say what intelligence actually is.  I was relieved to see through our readings that I do not stand alone in that confusion.  I was amazed at the various ways over the years that scholars and theorists have attempted to define that very illusive and yet prevalent term.  As a parent, I have heard it bandied around, particularly in terms of tracking students and affording them certain opportunities.  This has been particularly true in terms of gifted placement.  Having moved several times to different states with my children it has been interesting to see how the various places dealt with the assessment of intelligence and placement in gifted programs.  Some assessed in kindergarten and then placed students in a separate gifted class, where they would remain until reaching junior high school.  Others waited until the later elementary years, and pulled students out for special classes based on teacher recommendation and achievement tests.  Others had school psychologists complete an extensive test battery at the request of a teacher.  And if a student met a certain number they were in a gifted program for the rest of their tenure in the school system.  Some schools recognized a student’s designation from another district while others found it necessary to conduct their own investigation into the intelligence of the student.  While some programs were essential to some of my children, and others were more of an interesting experience but not of utmost importance, my overall impression of this process of intelligence determination was a mixed affair.  In almost all cases, intelligence assessments and labeling students as gifted created a well-known elite in the school system.  Neither my children not I found this to be a helpful thing for students within or outside the “group”.  Labels have a way of defining people.  And yes, one might say the same is true of AP, honors classes, and tracked courses.  But those distinctions have more fluidity with various students being able to move in and out of them by choice, interest, and work ethic.  Those types of groupings are more reflective of what one chooses to do rather than a label of who one is.  On the other hand, the gifted label whether given or not given, can stay with students for may years and can be quite powerful in inspiring or limiting a student’s academic success.  Because the assessment of intelligence, and the concomitant labeling that ensues can be so powerful, any assessment of intelligence should proceed with great care. And sometimes I wonder how useful it is at all.  Although I realize intelligence assessments can be used in many contexts, I am most familiar with their use in gifted placement.  Gifted programs can be a lifesaver for some students, but I do have concerns about districts that rely extensively on a gateway number on an intelligence test rather than a more holistic assessment of whether a student needs a specialized education due to their needs which may be more on the outside edges of the bell curve.

Drummond, R. J. and Jones, K. (2010). Assessment Procedures for Counselors and Helping Professionals. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Week 6

            It was interesting reading the Nelson article, because this highlighted a different kind of assessment.  Up to this point we have focused more on testing and the psychometric properties of those tests.  But in this case, we are invited to utilize what might be likened to the personal interview as a means of assessment.  To some extent, the personal interview or counselor assessment might contain some factual information.  But from reading and looking at Nelson’s diagram, it seems that the assessment process is as much art as science.  The success of the assessment would seem to rely on the art and skill of the assessor or counselor.  In that sense the assessment might produce quite different conclusions for direction of treatment depending on the practitioner.  Although there may be a great deal of inter-rater variability, this does not negate the importance of such an approach.

            This approach to choosing a counseling strategy or strategies takes seriously the notion of assessment at the beginning and throughout the counseling relationship.  As Nelson sees things, each step along the way is guided by the practitioner’s continual assessment of what is needed, what is working, and what the client seems receptive to pursuing.  This notion is a departure from a pre- and post-test mentality, and rather equates assessment with an eye to assessment that is pervasive throughout each session with a client.

            The approach presented also takes into account the ability and desire of the counselor to respond to continual assessment by changing methods and approaches.  If a counselor feels comfortable with only a singular approach, then he/she would be ill suited for Nelson’s approach.  His approach necessitates a flexible counselor with skills and familiarity for a variety of approaches.  I appreciated the perspective offered that in the world of managed health care and fewer school counselors, a client’s options may be limited in terms of who may serve as a counselor.  Therefore, a counselor who is adaptable in a very intentional and disciplined way could be very well suited for the demands and limitations present for many clients.

           

Issues with Assessing Intelligence

I have always found intelligence to be an interesting subject to learn about and in particular my own intelligence.  It is often used to describe how book smart a person is or how high they scored on an exam or IQ test.  Too often I believe that the focus is put in these areas and we lose sight of what else intelligence really means to an individual.  Another aspect we forget about is the effect that a person's genetics, lifestyle, environment and other factors influence their intelligence.  Over time I have had the opportunity to do a lot of exploring in regards to my intelligence and I think that has changed the way I view others in terms of it.  During high school, I had the chance to take a few different viewpoints on intelligence and then describe who I am in relation to its variables.  In particular one theory we looked in to was that of Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences.  I remember this so clearly because it was the first time I thought of intelligence as something other than being book smart.  There are different realms of smart and each individual has their own strengths and weaknesses.  This theory and concept has always stuck with me for that reason.  It allowed each person to have their own type of intelligence. 

As I was reading this week, I noticed the theme of problems in defining and assessing intelligence come up throughout each of the articles and chapter in Drummond and Jones (2010).  Although there are researchers and people who have been exploring this field for years and years, there is still no solid confirmation on how we can define this construct.  Yet even without this confirmation, schools, teachers and parents are looking to find answers amongst intelligence tests which seem to be very one dimensional in their assessment.  Some issues that have arose throughout time are: whether intelligence is hereditary or environmental, whether intelligence is different/how different over cultures, how stable a person's intelligence stays during their lifetime and the differences between IQs discovered today and found in a past generation (Drummond and Jones, 2010).  Due to these numerous dilemmas it is no wonder that there is a struggle to find common ground.  Neisser et. al (1996) just begin to describe all the loads of variables that may influence a person's intelligence if we have at first even defined it.  A person's genes, environmental factors (occupation, education, culture, previous interventions, family life), biological factors (nutrition, chemical or drug use), and individual life experiences (Neisser et. al, 1996).  The mound of information seems to be a difficult place to even start.  How as school counselors are we going to be able to use what we do know to the best of our ability and apply it successfully in our schools? 

"A theory of intelligence is useful to educators and school counselors only if it leads to a better understanding of how children learn or if it assists in predicting future performance" (Esters and Ittenbach, p. 373, 1999).  Esters and Ittenbach's (1999) article began to give me an idea of what I can be doing to benefit my school.  The more that we can learn about the idea of intelligence and all of its theories surrounding it the better suited we will be to take IQ scores and other forms of intelligence for what they are.  The tests can provide valuable information but we must know their structure and limitations as well.  Gaining this background knowledge will allow us to make more informed decisions within a school incorporating all variables of the construct of intelligence that may be at play.

Drummond, R. J. and Jones, K. (2010). Assessment Procedures for Counselors and Helping Professionals. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Esters, I. & Ittenbach, R. (1999). Contemporary theories and assessments of intelligence: A primer. Professional School Counseling, 2(5), 373-9.

Neisser, U. , Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J., Halpern, D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, J.C., Sternberg, R., Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.

IQ tests

                I was so happy when reading this article that while due credit was given to the Weschler for previously being the foremost used intelligence test- it is recognized that it is not the most suitable tool for assessing intelligence now. It boggles me a little that this test was used for so long, with so much invested in this test and its predictive results when the test itself was not developed with a clear understanding of what intelligence is. The validity issues that accompany that statement itself confirm my frustration with the “intelligence results” of the Weschler. It is a complete construct validity fail.  I personally have not had success with the Weschler as testing issues are not an uncommon thing for me. The Weschler is not able to adequately assess my intelligence and I have met the results with frustration for years. I have always known I am smarter than that test gave me credit for so finally- seeing research that supports my frustrations is a very rewarding thing. 

                I very much liked and supported the part of the article that said theory should drive test development but I’m a little confused. This article is under 20 years old but this is being presented as though it is a novel idea. Should we really be expecting to potentially walk into work positions where support team members/administrators believe something besides theory drives test development? The thought of this worries me immensely. I feel that I will be unprepared and unable to defend my stance enough to change years’ worth of mind sets that other things are suitable measures by which to develop tests for individuals. 

                As an individual with a verbal processing disorder- I am intensely interested in looking further into the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. I am very interested to see what types of intelligence results it would yield for me. It doesn’t sound like this test is very widely used in schools but I question why? If we know that the Weschler only have a predictive validity of X, or that there are serious issues with it not being designed with a clear understanding of what intelligence is…why are other measures not more widely used….I really wish the article would have gone deeper into explaining the reliability and validity issues with the UNVI.

Esters, I., & Ittenbach, R. (1999, June). Contemporary theories and assessments of intelligence: A primer.            Professional School Counseling, 2(5), 373. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from Academic Search        Complete database

Blog 5: IQ Tests

            Neisser (1996) started off stating, “Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought” (pg. 77).  This hit home for me due to being an educator for the past five years.  All students are different in their own way and that includes their learning styles.  When working with students you always want to make sure you are presenting information in a variety of ways to ensure that you are meeting each of the students needs.  However, there are factors that affect the students learning performance. 

Nesisser (1996) brought up the fact that many factors correlate with intelligence which is school performance, years of education, social status and income, job performance, and social outcomes.  The first factor, school performance, depends on personal characteristics of the students.  If the student wants to do well, then they will put their full effort to be successful.  Encouragement goes hand in hand because it is vital that the students receive support not only at school but at home as well.  The second factor, years of education, which has shown that the higher the test scores the more education they receive.  In this section, Neisser (1996) brought up the example of SAT’s and GRE’s.  This example affected me in many ways and made me question the research that was found.  I understand that this could be true to a point; however, the scores that I received would not predict that I accomplished my masters.  I do not take test well which I am aware is a weakness of mine.  Due to this reality, I have pushed myself to work hard so that I could accomplish the many things that I have.  Next, with social status and income, it comes down to the support that they are receiving at home.  It has been found that the children that are more likely to achieve high school status are those of privileged family.  Then, with job performance, it was stated that IQ scores are to be the “best available predictor.”  This can determine the job that you will most likely achieve when you are older.  Finally, with social outcomes, the students that are alienated or unsuccessful in school will most likely lead to delinquent behavior. 

In conclusion, I feel as though IQ can help you in determining aspects of people’s lives but at the same point should not be the sole instrument we use as educators and counselors.  As stated before, we all learn differently and there are many social factors that can affect our performance.     

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R.J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.

Week 5

I’d like to start with a quote from the end of the Esters and Ittenbach article: “It may be that the contemporary theories of intelligence and the next generation of intelligence tests will help us answer some of the most fundamental questions about students’ success in school and in life. It may also prove true that so many other factors enter into the equation, that a measure of intelligence is not as predictive of success as some believe. In either case, armed with a more thorough understanding of intelligence assessment instruments and theories from which they were developed, school counselors will be able to communicate more knowledgeably with students, parents, and teachers about what intelligence tests can and cannot tell us regarding the students we serve.” (1999)

This summed up our readings this week in many ways for me. While we do know a lot about intelligence and many different researchers have come up with various testing instruments over the years, the truth is that there is still much we do not know. This is humbling. The human brain is still a mystery and I respect that.  Intelligence testing is another tool that we have to understand a student. While it can yield much information, it is one piece of the puzzle. Esters and Ittenbach write that school counselors can benefit from a theory of intelligence, “only if it leads to a better understanding of how children learn or if it assists in predicting future performance.” (1999)

I enjoyed reading about the various intelligence theories, and Gardner’s theory of “multiple intelligences” intrigued me the most. (Neisser et.al., 1996). It felt more comprehensive and took into account a broader definition of intelligence. I also found the section in Neisser’s article on Environmental Effects on Intelligence  interesting as it made me think about my cousin John. The first 2 ½ years of my life were spent in Vietnam where my parents and my Dad’s sister and her family were working to help rebuild from the war. My Dad’s sister is a medical doctor (a psychiatrist actually but she worked a lot with medical needs at the time). There was a baby boy who was a few weeks old in the hospital where she worked. He had been abandoned by his mother. He was very malnourished and covered in sores. My Aunt brought him back to our house so she and our servants could care for him as she knew he probably wouldn’t make it in the hospital. She soon fell in love with him and after a difficult and long adoption process; he came to his new home in the United States and became a US citizen at age three. John went on to live a privileged life in many ways and decided to go to medical school. He is now a successful Emergency Room doctor living on the West coast. At 46, he also is in such amazing physical shape that he competes in the extremely strenuous Ironman triathalons. I have often thought about how his life might have turned out if he had stayed in Vietnam. I doubt he would still be alive. It is amazing to me that such a malnourished baby living in a war torn country could become a medical doctor living a yuppie lifestyle in Seattle. The potential was there. He just needed the opportunity. It makes me think about the students I will encounter in the future. Whatever their intelligence test scores may be, everyone has potential to succeed in their own way. Each person is so unique and so will be their story. John has always been an inspiration to me and makes me remember to never underestimate the human brain and what people are capable of doing.

 Esters, I., & Ittenbach, R. (1999). Contemporary theories and assessments of         

            intelligence: A primer. Professional School Counseling, 2(5), 373.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern,    

            D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R.J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence:

                Knowns and Unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.