CACREP Accreditation: A Solution to License Portability and Counselor Identity Problems

A confluence of forces addressing counselor identity occurred with the 20/20: A Vision for the Future of Counseling initiative, the 2009 Standards of the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Education Programs (CACREP), and the quest by the American Association of State Counseling Boards to establish license portability. This article provides a historical context for the profession's struggles with these issues, 1 state's experience, TRICARE's impact, and the role CACREP standards can play in their resolution.     

Perceived Impact of Professional Counselor Identity: An Exploratory Study

Counselor educators (N= 378) provided their viewpoints regarding the impact of counselor identity on professional advancement and recognition. Respondents indicated that counselors, the American Counseling Association, and other counseling organizations are responsible for advocacy of the counseling profession. Collaboration among counselors for the development of a single coherent message is necessary for advocacy efforts aimed at congressional Medicare leaders, managed care organizations, state licensing boards, and allied professions.     

To drive or not to drive: Neuropsychological assessment for driver's license among stroke patients

Seventy-two stroke patients, 43 with right hemisphere (RHD) and 29 with left hemisphere damage (LHD), and 7 coronary infarct controls with no evidence of cerebral damage, were neuropsychologically tested as part of an assessment program for driver's license. Mean age in the group was 53 years. Stroke patients were tested on average 4 months post injury. The groups did not differ on major demographic variables except that RHD patients were more often hemiplegic than LHD patients. The test battery was factor analyzed into 4 valid principal components: (I) visual perception , (II) spatial attention , (III) visuospatial processing , and (IV) language/praxis. The presence of hemianopia (factor I) excludes driving. In addition, measures of neglect and reduced speed of mental processing from factor II, III and IV, were found to be the most discriminating variables when classifying patients for driving. Even though neglect was more frequently observed among RHD than LHD patients, the two hemisphere groups did not differ significantly in number of patients denied driving, 58% RHD compared to 41% LHD patients. The need for comprehensive neuropsychological assessment is underlined.     

Comprehensive driving assessment: neuropsychological testing and on-road evaluation of brain injured patients

The study investigates the correspondence between neuropsychological test results and on-road driving performance among 55 patients with a CT-verified brain damage or documented neurological disorder (cerebrovascular accident: 43, traumatic brain injury: 5, multiple sclerosis: 4, other: 3). 5 patients showed unimpaired test profiles and passed the on-road evaluation. 18 patients showed severe neuropsychological deficits contrary to driving and were not recommended for on-road evaluation. Of the remaining 32 patients with some neuropsychological deficits, all 100% in the minor impaired group (n = 8) passed the driving evaluation, compared to 69% in the mildly impaired (n = 16) and 38% in the moderately impaired group (n = 8). Measures of reduced visuoconstructive ability, reaction time, visual attention, and awareness of cognitive impairments, were found to discriminate between groups. It is concluded that neuropsychological assessment of targeted functions provide an ecological valid prediction of driving skill after brain damage, but that on-road evaluation is needed as supplement in cases with ambiguous test findings.     

Driving examiners’ views on data-driven assessment of test candidates: An interview study

Vehicles are increasingly equipped with sensors that capture the state of the driver, the vehicle, and the environment. These developments are relevant to formal driver testing, but little is known about the extent to which driving examiners would support the use of sensor data in their job. This semi-structured interview study examined the opinions of 37 driving examiners about data-driven assessment of test candidates. The results showed that the examiners were supportive of using data to explain their pass/fail verdict to the candidate. According to the examiners, data in an easily accessible form such as graphs of eye movements, headway, speed, or braking behavior, and color-coded scores, supplemented with camera images, would allow them to eliminate doubt or help them convince disagreeing test-takers. The examiners were skeptical about higher levels of decision support, noting that forming an overall picture of the candidate’s abilities requires integrating multiple context-dependent sources of information. The interviews yielded other possible applications of data collection and sharing, such as selecting optimal routes, improving standardization, and training and pre-selecting candidates before they are allowed to take the driving test. Finally, the interviews focused on an increasingly viable form of data collection: simulator-based driver testing. This yielded a divided picture, with about half of the examiners being positive and half negative about using simulators in driver testing. In conclusion, this study has provided important insights regarding the use of data as an explanation aid for examiners. Future research should consider the views of test candidates and experimentally evaluate different forms of data-driven support in the driving test.     

行为公共管理学视角下公共决策的社会许可机制：“一提两抑”

公共管理的本质是公共决策。“公共决策的社会许可”指当地民众对于公共决策的持续接受和支持程度, 是公共决策合法性的基石。本研究借助“行为公共管理学”的理论视角, 通过两个调查实验(N = 354 + 354), 一个现场调查(N = 520), 全面考察公共决策透明(过程透明和内容透明)与社会许可之间的因果关系, 进而明确这一关系的作用边界。结果发现：1) 决策过程透明与内容透明正向影响社会许可; 2) 政府信任调节决策内容透明与社会许可的关系; 3) 结果依赖调节两类透明与社会许可的关系。基于这些结果, 作者总结出正性的“决策透明效应”以及“谨慎的不介意”和“有选择的忽视”之双缓冲作用, 即“一提两抑”, 以更好地理解公共决策的社会许可机制。     

Five Licensure Portability Models for the Counseling Profession to Consider

This article presents licensure portability models for the counseling profession to consider. On the basis of a review of licensure portability literature discussed in other professions, the authors found 5 distinctive models: (a) nonprofit organization model, (b) mutual recognition model, (c) federal licensure model, (d) national licensure model, and (e) licensure language model. The article includes examples of professions using the models, application and implications of each model, and a call to the counseling profession for next steps.     

Building Blocks to Portability: Culmination of the 20/20 Initiative

The profession of counseling has now endorsed a consensus licensure title and scope of practice for all U.S. states and jurisdictions. This article describes the development of the title and scope of practice through the Building Blocks to Portability Project of the 20/20: A Vision for the Future of Counseling initiative. Outcomes and implications of this final stage of the 20/20 project intended to ease interstate licensure portability are presented.     

Counselor Supervision: A Comparison Across States and Jurisdictions

Counselor licensure portability models have focused primarily on academic training with only little discussion concerning postgraduate supervision. Using a qualitative content analysis, the authors analyzed the supervision rules and laws in all 53 licensing jurisdictions. The results of this study reflect the lack of a consistent set of supervision guidelines across all 53 jurisdictions. Further study and reflection on these results could lead to the development of a supervision model for postgraduate supervision.