Developing the Social Cognitive Model of Counselor Training (SCMCT) over the past 2 1/2 years has been analogous to wanting to be accepted to the major leagues in baseball. In the metaphor, the major leagues are the dominant themes within the supervision literature. Previously, my conceptualizations of the SCMCT had been restricted to the minor leagues (contained within my own supervision courses and my supervisees). In presenting the idea to The Counseling Psychologist, I was asking for the SCMCT to be considered for the major leagues--"the show." My manager has been primarily Albert Bandura's (1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991a, 1991b, 1993) writings with Bruning (R. Bruning, personal communication, October 10, 1998) and Schraw (G. Schraw, personal communication, May 10, 1997) as first-base coaches, and later Lent, Hackett, and Brown (1998 [this issue]) as third-base coaches. As coaches, they have kept me anchored in social cognitive theory (SCT) and provided constructive criticism when I have strayed too far afield. Bandura was considered the mastermind behind the outstanding success of SCT in other arenas such as math performance, weight loss, and smoking cessation. The third-base coaches' social cognitive career model of interest, choice, and performance (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) had become a major force in how people have begun to view a related sport (career development). Heppner, the editor of The Counseling Psychologist, was the baseball commissioner of the major leagues, the senior gatekeeper of the move to the major leagues. He valued SCT's contribution to other arenas and thought it showed promise for the supervision arena as well. Heppner relied on input from his scouts to assess the adequacy of the SCMCT as a new team. The scouts, who were the editorial board of The Counseling Psychologist, served to both inform Heppner of the adequacy of the SCMCT and, with Heppner, provided me specific constructive feedback. Slowly, the SCMCT developed to the extent that the baseball commissioner thought the model was ready to emerge as a new team in the major leagues. In making it to the show, this issue of The Counseling Psychologist serves to debut the new team. To get reactions from the league, the baseball commissioner asked several key people in the league to formally react to the new team. One set of reactants were the third-base coaches, Lent et al. (1998), who were mentioned earlier. The other reactants were key people in the major leagues fulfilling crucial functions. The Developmentalists, led by Stoltenberg (1998 [this issue]), constituted one of the most successful, established teams in the major leagues. Another established team in the leagues, the Supervisors, were represented by Kincade (1998 [this issue]) and Steward (1998 [this issue]). The Supervisors were experts and were the team with the most experience playing the game. One well-known game analyst of the major leagues, Goodyear (1998 [this issue]), was consulted. He provided a larger context and was well respected for his commentary. A final group, the Multiculturalists, were originally a separate league, due to being excluded from the major leagues. However, their value had been recognized to the extent that their view was incorporated into all teams to a greater or lesser extent. My current task was to reflect again on this new team, the SCMCT, with the intent of soliciting members and building bridges to the other teams.
In addressing the reactants' comments, I would like to address four criteria that could be used to evaluate the SCMCT. The first two criteria are somewhat in conflict and overlap with the dynamic tension embedded in the scientist-practitioner model. First, the SCMCT needs to further our knowledge base. To do that, the SCMCT must be parsimonious and must have the constructs well defined and operationalized in a way that captures the complexity of the construct (e.g., counseling actions) and, at the same time, be measurable. Second, the SCMCT must have practical use for supervisors. To be helpful for supervisors, the SCMCT must address the usefulness of the SCMCT beyond initial skill development.
The third and fourth criteria are also somewhat in conflict: that is, the extent to which SCMCT should be inclusive or exclusive of other knowledge bases outside SCT The third criteria is the extent to which the SCMCT adheres to the tenets of SCT. The fourth criteria is the extent to which new knowledge is gained by bridging to other areas. In closing, future development of the SCMCT will be discussed. CAN THE SCMCT FURTHER OUR KNOWLEDGE BASE?
CAN THE SCMCT FURTHER OUR KNOWLEDGE BASE?
This question refers to the research application of the model. Specifically, I will discuss parsimony of the model and measurement issues.
Parsimony of the Model
Lent et al. (1998) suggested that the model may be too cumbersome to translate to research, particularly with the number of personal agency variables named in the model. They suggested a stripped-down version of SCT on the counselor side to be restricted to knowledge or skills, counseling self-efficacy (CSE),(1) and goals--excluding affective processing, cognitive processing, outcome expectancies, and self-evaluation. It is important to point out that these personal agency variables that Lent et al. are suggesting excluding are not atheoretical or drawn from other theories. For example, Bandura (e.g., 1991) included cognitive processing as crucial to SCT. His extensive discussion of the reactive and proactive processes involved in triadic reciprocal causation was to a large extent the discussion of people's cognitive processing. The issue they raise is an important one. The more pared down the personal agency variables are, the easier it is to generate hypotheses. On the other hand, to exclude affective processing, cognitive processing, self-evaluation, and outcome expectancies from the model would have been to create a model that neither captures the complexity of SCT nor captures the complexity that supervisors have long described. For example, self-evaluation is an essential part of the feedback loop that Bandura describes. People use their self-evaluation to both react to their prior actions and to modify and/or construct goals and plans for the future. Also, it is vital for the supervisor to know how the counselor evaluates her or his counseling actions.
SCT is complex; as such, the SCMCT model is complex. Moreover, the domain of concern involves a complex action: namely, what counselors do in session with clients. As several reactants noted, and as was noted in both Larson (1998 [this issue]) and Larson and Daniels (1998 [this issue]), this reality raises difficult measurement issues. I will discuss the specificity of measuring CSE, what item content should be included in measures of CSE, the definition of CSE, and the operational definition of counseling …