15In some of the chapters, we provide general criteria for evaluating helping skills.
You might also wish to develop a standard form or checklist for observers. For
instance, you could include the dimensions suggested by Barkham ( 1988 ):
- Type of behavior (primary empathy, open question, etc.)
- Skillfulness of the genetic counselor (timeliness, plausibility, relevance, appro-
priateness, discrepant from patient’s viewpoint, etc.) - Interpersonal manner (empathic, respectful, distant, mechanical, etc.)
Observers can check off any categories the counselor demonstrates, and/or rate
the degree of effectiveness (e.g., poor, adequate, good, excellent).
In our course, we stress that behavioral feedback is more important than checks
on a rating form. Students learn by hearing specific examples of what they did (e.g.,
“When you said the patient might be a little nervous about talking to you, she
seemed to relax”). They also learn by receiving specific suggestions as to how they
might improve (e.g., “Try asking one question at a time so the patient doesn’t get too
overwhelmed”).
1.3.3 Development or Deficiency?
Research has demonstrated that systematic training can improve helping skills. For
example, individuals can be taught to formulate more concise primary empathy
responses. Timing and choosing of responses, however, are more advanced skills
that will develop gradually as students gain supervised counseling experience
(Bernard and Goodyear 2013 ; McCarthy Veach and LeRoy 2009 ). It also appears to
be the case that the rich will get richer. In other words, students who have adequate
levels of cognitive development and who possess enough self-awareness and inter-
personal sensitivity to choose appropriate responses in different situations will tend
to become more effective helpers. One challenge you will face is evaluating whether
poor performance is due to developmental issues (e.g., lack of experience, naivete)
or to deficiencies that may or may not be teachable [e.g., poor communication skills,
immaturity, lack of self-awareness, lack of intellectual reasoning (Veilleux et al.
2012 )].
Criteria for helping to make this determination include four identified by Lamb
et al. ( 1987 ):
- The problem behavior is pervasive.
- The student does not acknowledge, understand, or try to do anything about the
behavior when it is identified. - The problem behavior does not improve with training, feedback, or other reme-
diation efforts. - The student and her or his problematic behavior require a disproportionate
amount of instructor time.
1.3 Grading and Evaluation