Results from the survey are displayed in this chapter. Detailed discussion of the survey result in comparison with the accreditation standard from the IACS is presented in the next chapter.

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS

The purpose of this research is to use the accreditation standards of the university and college counseling centers used by the International Association of Counseling Services (IACS) as a reference to review the current status of the university and college counseling centers in Taiwan. The survey based on the accreditation standards has been revised to fit the education and counseling system of Taiwan.

Results from the survey are displayed in this chapter. Detailed discussion of the survey result in comparison with the accreditation standard from the IACS is presented in the next chapter.

This chapter includes the data analysis of basic information, relationship of the Center to the institute, counseling service’s roles and functions, ethical standards, counseling service personnel, and the Center’s location and physical facilities.

I. Basic Information

A total of 162 surveys were sent out to all of the universities and colleges across Taiwan. The return rate was 80 out of 162 or 49.4%. Six of the returned surveys completed less than two-thirds of the total questions, hence were disregarded as part of analysis. The remaining 74 surveys were used in the analysis.

Basic information acquired on the first page of the survey is relating to the background of the Center and the institute. Data analysis was divided into two categories, the university and the college. In the categories, 44 institutes or 60%

belong to the category of university, and 30 institutes or 40% are in the category of

college.

As for the individual who filled out the survey on behalf of the Center, 27 institutes or 37% had the survey answered by the director of the counseling center, 29 institutes or 39% were answered by a professional counseling staff, 17 institutes or 23% were answered by an administrative staff, and one institute did not provide answer to the question.

The region of belonging defines the approximate geographic location of the institute in Taiwan. Institutes are roughly divided equally among the four regions.

The categories are first northern region, second northern region, central region, and southern region. Institutes that were uncertain about their region of belonging could select the “uncertain” option. There are 15 institutes or 20% that belongs to the first northern region. The second northern region consists of 18 institutes or 24%. For the central region, there are 19 institutes or 26%. The southern region consists of 22 institutes or 30%. The data verifies that the returned surveys are distributed relatively equal from the four regions.

The number of student bodies is listed as part of basic information. However, this set of information was analyzed and displayed with the counseling personnel of the Center in section five of the chapter.

II. Relationship of the Center to the Institute

Seven questions were asked in this section of the survey. Results are presented below in Table 1 to Table 7.

Over 70% of the Centers from both of the groups answered that the Center

remains neutral and independent in its functions (Table 1). Institutes with first

degree means it’s administratively independent from other units or offices. Whereas

second degrees means the Center is housed under the office of the student affairs, which majority, over 84%, of the institutes are (Table 1). The analysis shows no significant difference between the institute type and response in both questions.

Table 1. Neutrality and independency

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 35 79.5 21 70.0 56 75.7 1.113

No 5 11.4 4 13.3 9 12.2

Uncertain 4 9.1 5 16.7 9 12.2 Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Table 2. Administrative level

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

1st Degree 7 15.9 2 6.7 9 12.2 1.426 2nd Degree 37 84.1 28 93.3 65 87.8

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

As shown in Table 3, among the twelve units within the institute that the Center

has interaction with, high level of interaction, over 50% of institutes in both groups,

includes health services, special education, drillmaster’s office, and faculty or

academic unit. Units that have medium level of interaction the Center, where the

sum of high level and medium level is over 50%, are the rest of the units, career

development or placement, academic advising, academic support or tutoring, overseas

and international students, residence hall or dormitory, community mental health

services, clubs or religious organizations, and campus security. The only significant

difference between the groups is the interaction level with the drillmaster’s office

(x

=9.354, p<.01), where the university group has a much higher interaction level

with the drillmaster’s office. Institutes that provided answer for the other units within the institute include office of student affairs, technology cooperation program, office of life affairs, and office of extra-curricular activity.

For promotional or publicity efforts for the Center, over 93% of institutes in both groups answered yes. Results show no significant difference between the institute types in Table 4.

Table 3. Interaction level with other units

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

High 25 58.1 21 70.0 46 63.0 1.067 Medium 14 32.6 7 23.3 21 28.8

Low 4 9.3 2 6.7 6 8.2

health services

Total 43 100.0 30 100.0 73 100.0

High 17 40.5 13 43.3 30 41.7 0.211 Medium 19 45.2 12 40.0 31 43.1

Low 6 14.3 5 16.7 11 15.3

career development/

placement

Total 42 100.0 30 100.0 72 100.0

High 9 25.7 7 25.9 16 25.8 0.174 Medium 14 40.0 12 44.4 26 41.9

Low 12 34.3 8 29.6 20 32.3 academic

advising

Total 35 100.0 27 100.0 62 100.0

High 9 26.5 12 46.2 21 35.0 2.718 Medium 16 47.1 10 38.5 26 43.3

Low 9 26.5 4 15.4 13 21.7

academic support/

tutoring

Total 34 100.0 26 100.0 60 100.0

High 27 71.1 17 81.0 44 74.6 0.845 Medium 7 18.4 3 14.3 10 16.9

Low 4 10.5 1 4.8 5 8.5

special education

Total 38 100.0 21 100.0 59 100.0

Table 3. Interaction level with other units (continued)

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

High 13 36.1 5 25.0 18 32.1 4.116 Medium 16 44.4 6 30.0 22 39.3

Low 7 19.4 9 45.0 16 28.6

overseas and international

students

Total 36 100.0 20 100.0 56 100.0

High 40 93.0 21 70.0 61 83.6 9.354**

Medium 2 4.7 9 30.0 11 15.1

Low 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.4

drillmaster’s office

Total 43 100.0 30 100.0 73 100.0

High 16 36.4 13 44.8 29 39.7 1.417 Medium 17 38.6 12 41.4 29 39.7

Low 11 25.0 4 13.8 15 20.5 residence

hall/

dormitory

Total 44 100.0 29 100.0 73 100.0

High 28 65.1 22 73.3 50 68.5 1.075 Medium 14 32.6 8 26.7 22 30.1

Low 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.4

faculty/

academic unit

Total 43 100.0 30 100.0 73 100.0

High 4 9.8 8 26.7 12 16.9 5.243 Medium 25 61.0 11 36.7 36 50.7

Low 12 29.3 11 36.7 23 32.4 community

mental health services

Total 41 100.0 30 100.0 71 100.0

High 11 26.8 8 26.7 19 26.8 0.422 Medium 15 36.6 13 43.3 28 39.4

Low 15 36.6 9 30.0 24 33.8 clubs/

religious organizations

Total 41 100.0 30 100.0 71 100.0

High 6 14.6 7 26.9 13 19.4 7.917 Medium 16 39.0 7 26.9 23 34.3

Low 19 46.3 12 46.2 31 46.3 campus

security

Total 41 100.0 26 100.0 67 100.0

**p<.01

Table 3. Interaction level with other units (continued)

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

High 2 50.0 4 66.7 6 60.0 4.444

Medium 2 50.0 0 0.0 2 20.0

Low 0 0.0 2 33.3 2 20.0

other

Total 4 100.0 6 100.0 10 100.0

Table 4. Promotional or publicity efforts

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 42 95.5 28 93.3 70 94.6 0.157

No 1 2.3 1 3.3 2 2.7

Uncertain 1 2.3 1 3.3 2 2.7

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Since the majority of institutes have the counseling center housed in the office of student affairs, it is consistent that, over 79% of the Centers, the upper administrator of the Center is the chief of student affairs. The rest of the Centers are under the direct administration of the president of the institute. The institute that selected other, explained that the Center is administratively responsible to the president, the chief of student affairs, and students. Results show no significant difference between the groups in Table 5.

The next questions rated the level of support that the Center receives from the upper administrative unit. Over 68% of the Centers rated high level of support with no significant difference between the groups as shown in Table 6.

As for the question regarding budgetary support for the Center, over 63% of the

Center from both groups agree that budgetary support is adequate to keep the Center

functioning in providing service for the students’ needs. The results show no

significant difference between the groups as shown in Table 7.

Table 5. Upper administrator

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

President 8 19.0 2 7.1 10 14.3 2.740

Chief of

student affairs 33 78.6 26 92.9 59 84.3

other 1 2.4 0 0.0 1 1.4

Total 42 100.0 28 100.0 70 100.0

Table 6. Level of support from upper administration

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

High 30 68.2 25 83.3 55 74.3 4.665

Medium 8 18.2 5 16.7 13 17.6

Low 3 6.8 0 0.0 3 4.1

Uncertain 3 6.8 0 0.0 3 4.1

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Table 7. Budgetary support

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 27 62.8 23 76.7 50 68.5 1.628

No 10 23.3 4 13.3 14 19.2

Uncertain 6 14.0 3 10.0 9 12.3

Total 43 100.0 30 100.0 73 100.0

III. Counseling Services Roles and Functions

Sixteen questions were asked in this section of the survey. Results are presented below in Table 8 to Table 24.

Questions that were not able to (n/a) conduct chi-squared test was because all the survey provided the same answer to the question. For example, all counseling centers in both the university and the college group provide individual counseling and outreach program as part of its services, as shown in Table 8. This question regards the main or primary services that the Center provides. The first five variables, individual counseling, group counseling, crisis intervention or emergency, outreach program, and consultation, are services provided by over 97% of the Centers from both groups. About 50% of the Centers participate in researches. The only significant difference between the groups is professional development or training, where the university has a much higher percentage that provide the service than the college group (x

=6.985, p<.05) as shown in Table 8.

Questions in the survey with fill-in-the-blank answers were displayed with the

mean, standard deviation, and t-test results. In Table 9, we come across this type of

analysis for the first time. It calculated the total hour of service the Centers provide

each week. The mean is between 47 hours to 49 hours per week for both of the

groups, with no significant difference between the groups.

Table 8. Services provided

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0 n/a

No 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Uncertain 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

individual counseling

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 43 97.7 29 96.7 72 97.3 2.151

No 0 0.0 1 3.3 1 1.4

Uncertain 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.4

group counseling

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 44 100.0 29 96.7 73 98.6 1.487

No 0 0.0 1 3.3 1 1.4

Uncertain 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

crisis intervention/

emergency

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0 n/a

No 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Uncertain 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

outreach program

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 43 97.7 30 100.0 73 98.6 0.691

No 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Uncertain 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.4

consultation

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 22 52.4 14 46.7 36 50.0 1.829

No 14 33.3 14 46.7 28 38.9

Uncertain 6 14.3 2 6.7 8 11.1

research participation

Total 42 100.0 30 100.0 72 100.0

Yes 35 81.4 16 53.3 51 69.9 6.985*

No 6 14.0 12 40.0 18 24.7

Uncertain 2 4.7 2 6.7 4 5.5

professional development/

training

Total 43 100.0 30 100.0 73 100.0

*p<.05

Table 9. Total hours in service per week

University College

N Mean SD N Mean SD t

43 49.24 15.273 30 47.37 10.401 0.585

Client population that the Center serves is similar between the groups in Table 10.

Students, faculty, and staff are the majority of clients, over 87% of the Centers for both of the groups. As for the population of alumni, the university group has around 64% of Centers that serve this clientele. However, in the college group, only 40% of the Centers serve the alumni population. Hence the chi-square test shows a significant difference for this item (x

=4.013, p<.05). As for the public clientele, less than 25% of the Centers from both groups serve this population. Institutes that provided answer for the other population that the Center serve include student parents, adolescent students near the district, and family members of faculty and staff.

Table 10. Client population

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0 n/a

No 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

students

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 41 93.2 29 96.7 70 94.6 0.424

No 3 6.8 1 3.3 4 5.4

faculty

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 40 90.9 26 86.7 66 89.2 0.333

No 4 9.1 4 13.3 8 10.8

staff

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Table 10. Client population (continued)

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 28 63.6 12 40.0 40 54.1 4.013*

No 16 36.4 18 60.0 34 45.9

alumni

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 11 25.0 5 16.7 16 21.6 0.731

No 33 75.0 25 83.3 58 78.4

public

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 4 9.1 4 13.3 8 10.8 0.333

No 40 90.9 26 86.7 66 89.2

other*

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

*p<.05

Other or secondary services incorporated as part of the Center’s functions shows

no significant difference between the two groups in all of the variables as shown in

Table 11. Psychological assessment and career development are provided by over

97% of the Centers in both groups. Academic advising and learning skills are

provided by over 75% of the Centers in both groups. Academic support or tutoring

and career advising are roughly provided by around 60% of the Centers in both

groups. Institutes that provided answer for the other services include psychiatrist

on-site visit, internet counseling, counseling-related equipments rental, outreach

intervention, gender issue, interpersonal issue, parent-child issues, self-care, physical

and mental health.

Table 11. Services incorporated

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 44 100.0 29 96.7 73 98.6 1.487

No 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Uncertain 0 0.0 1 3.3 1 1.4

psychological assessment

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 33 75.0 21 75.0 54 75.0 0.004

No 8 18.2 5 17.9 13 18.1

Uncertain 3 6.8 2 7.1 5 6.9

academic advising

Total 44 100.0 28 100.0 72 100.0

Yes 28 63.6 17 63.0 45 63.4 1.222

No 14 31.8 7 25.9 21 29.6

Uncertain 2 4.5 3 11.1 5 7.0

academic support/

tutoring

Total 44 100.0 27 100.0 71 100.0

Yes 31 70.5 15 51.7 46 63.0 2.638

No 11 25.0 12 41.4 23 31.5

Uncertain 2 4.5 2 6.9 4 5.5

career advising

Total 44 100.0 29 100.0 73 100.0

Yes 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0 n/a

No 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Uncertain 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

career development

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 39 90.7 23 85.2 62 88.6 0.498

No 3 7.0 3 11.1 6 8.6

Uncertain 1 2.3 1 3.7 2 2.9

learning skills

Total 43 100.0 27 100.0 70 100.0

Yes 6 100.0 2 50.0 8 80.0 3.750

No 0 0.0 1 25.0 1 10.0

Uncertain 0 0.0 1 25.0 1 10.0

other

Total 6 100.0 4 100.0 10 100.0

The following two questions asked whether the Center maintain a library of counseling or psychotherapy materials and a library of career development materials, and whether the library is updated regularly. Both groups have 100% of the Centers that consists a library of counseling or psychotherapy materials, with around 90% that updates regularly. As for the library of career development materials, 91% to 97%

of the Centers answered yes, and 80% to 86% updates the library regularly. Results show no significant difference between the groups as shown in Table 12.

Table 12. Library of counseling or psychotherapy materials

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0 n/a

No 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Uncertain 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

counseling materials

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 39 88.6 27 90.0 66 89.2 0.207

No 4 9.1 2 6.7 6 8.1

Uncertain 1 2.3 1 3.3 2 2.7

updates regularly

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Table 13. Library of career development materials

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 40 90.9 29 96.7 69 93.2 0.939

No 4 9.1 1 3.3 5 6.8

Uncertain 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

career materials

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 32 80.0 25 86.2 57 82.6 0.451

No 6 15.0 3 10.3 9 13.0

Uncertain 2 5.0 1 3.4 3 4.3

updates regularly

Total 40 100.0 29 100.0 69 100.0

The next three questions are related to the resources provided by the Center.

First question stated that besides the Center, are there other agencies within or near the institute that provide crisis intervention and emergency service? Over 91% of the Centers from both groups have other agencies within the institute for crisis and emergency service. The Center is a little bit less certain about other agencies near the institute, where the result showed 53% and 71% from the two groups. No significant difference between the groups is shown in Table 14.

In Table 15, result displayed whether referral resources are well-utilized between the institute and the community. The analysis shows 73% and 80% of the Centers from the groups that answered yes, with no significant difference between the groups.

In Table 16, result displayed whether psychiatric resources are available through

the Center. The university group has a result of 100% of the Center that provide

psychiatric referrals. As for the college group, 87% of the Center provide this

service, hence the chi-square test shows a significant difference (x

=6.202, p<.05).

Table 14. Other agencies that provide crisis and emergency service

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 40 90.9 29 96.7 69 93.2 1.492

No 2 4.5 1 3.3 3 4.1

Uncertain 2 4.5 0 0.0 2 2.7

within the institute

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 31 70.5 16 53.3 47 63.5 2.959

No 2 4.5 4 13.3 6 8.1

Uncertain 11 25.0 10 33.3 21 28.4

near the institute

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Table 15. Referral utility

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 35 79.5 22 73.3 57 77.0 2.471

No 2 4.5 0 0.0 2 2.7

Uncertain 7 15.9 8 26.7 15 20.3

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Table 16. Psychiatric resources

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 44 100.0 26 86.7 70 94.6 6.202*

No 0 0.0 2 6.7 2 2.7

Uncertain 0 0.0 2 6.7 2 2.7

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

*p<.05

The results for the items relating to outreach interventions are displayed in Table

17. Six out of the seven items, workshops, presentations, informational programs,

self-help resources, and minority or non-traditional students are all over 90% for the

Centers from both of the groups. Only the item of credited courses showed low

percentage of 14% and 19% that answered yes for the groups. All the items showed no significant difference between the groups.

Table 17. Outreach interventions

University College Sum x

Variables

N % N % N %

Yes 42 95.5 28 96.6 70 95.9 0.053

No 2 4.5 1 3.4 3 4.1

Uncertain 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

workshops

Total 44 100.0 29 100.0 73 100.0

Yes 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0 n/a

No 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Uncertain 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

presentations

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 44 100.0 29 96.7 73 98.6 1.487

No 0 0.0 1 3.3 1 1.4

Uncertain 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

informational programs

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 6 14.3 5 18.5 11 15.9 0.230

No 33 78.6 20 74.1 53 76.8

Uncertain 3 7.1 2 7.4 5 7.2

credited courses

Total 42 100.0 27 100.0 69 100.0

Yes 43 97.7 30 100.0 73 98.6 0.691

No 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.4

Uncertain 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

self-help resources

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 40 90.9 27 90.0 67 90.5 0.215

No 2 4.5 2 6.7 4 5.4

Uncertain 2 4.5 1 3.3 3 4.1

minority/

non-traditional students

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

The next question is the Center’s involvement in any committees within the institute regarding student rights and advocacy, such as student appeal or gender equality. Both groups show very similar results of 97% and 98% for the groups, with no significant difference between the groups as shown in Table 18.

In Table 19, results show whether referral resources are available within the institution and the local community to meet the needs of students whose problems are outside the scope of services provided by the Center. Referral within the institute ranges form 90% to 96% from the groups. Referral from the local community ranges from 97% to 100% from the groups, and no significant difference are shown between the groups.

Table 18. Committees of student rights and advocacy

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 43 97.7 29 96.7 72 97.3 0.076

No 1 2.3 1 3.3 2 2.7

Uncertain 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Table 19. Referral resources

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 42 95.5 27 90.0 69 93.2 2.709

No 1 2.3 3 10.0 4 5.4

Uncertain 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.4

within the institute

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 44 100.0 29 96.7 73 98.6 1.487

No 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Uncertain 0 0.0 1 3.3 1 1.4

local community

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

In Table 20, results showed whether the Center is involved in academic or research publishing. Majority of the Center, 74% and 87% from the groups do not participate in academic or research publishing, and no significant difference is shown between the groups.

The next question is regular self-evaluation that the Center conducts for its services, and whether comparative data from other institutes is used in the evaluation process. For the university group, 70% of the Centers conduct self-evaluation and 59% of these Centers use comparative data. As for the college group, 50% of the Centers conduct self-evaluation and 47% of these Centers use comparative data.

Results in Table 21 show no significant difference between the groups.

Table 20. Academic or research publishing

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 7 16.7 3 10.0 10 13.9 1.891

No 31 73.8 26 86.7 57 79.2

Uncertain 4 9.5 1 3.3 5 6.9

Total 42 100.0 30 100.0 72 100.0

Table 21. Self-evaluation

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 30 69.8 15 50.0 45 61.6 3.289

No 10 23.3 10 33.3 20 27.4

Uncertain 3 7.0 5 16.7 8 11.0

evaluation

Total 43 100.0 30 100.0 73 100.0

Yes 17 58.6 8 47.1 25 54.3 0.737

No 7 24.1 6 35.3 13 28.3

Uncertain 5 17.2 3 17.6 8 17.4

uses comparative

data

Total 29 100.0 17 100.0 46 100.0

The next two questions are about training, supervision, and professional development of the Center. In Table 22, result show if the Center provide training and supervision of practicum or internship students. In the university group, 74% of the Centers answered yes, and in the college group, 53% of the Centers do. No significant difference is shown between the groups. In Table 23, Centers that answered yes is asked to fill in the approximate percentage of the Center’s direct counseling service that is provided by the trainees. The university group has about 29% of service by trainees, and the college group has about 36% of service by trainees. The t-value in this Table appears to be negative. It simply means that the first mean is smaller than the second, and no significant difference is between the groups in this question.

For the last table of this section, Table 24 has the result that shows regularity of

items in trainings and professional development for the staff. The Centers answered

mostly regularly or irregularly for the items. The item of training or workshop or

seminars has a slightly higher percentage than the other items where the groups

answered no to the question. Both groups have 39% of the Centers that do not

provide such professional development item. The only item with significant

difference between the groups is group supervision (x

=10.674, p<.05), where the no

and the uncertain answers added up to 12% in the university group and 45% in the

college group.

Table 22. Training and supervision

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 32 74.4 16 53.3 48 65.8 5.379

No 8 18.6 13 43.3 21 28.8

Uncertain 3 7.0 1 3.3 4 5.5

Total 43 100.0 30 100.0 73 100.0

Table 23. Percentage of service provided by trainees

University College

N Mean SD N Mean SD t

20 28.52 20.939 14 36.07 17.993 -1.095

Table 24. Trainings and professional development

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Regularly 24 55.8 10 33.3 34 46.6 4.970

Irregularly 11 25.6 8 26.7 19 26.0

No 7 16.3 11 36.7 18 24.7

Uncertain 1 2.3 1 3.3 2 2.7

individual supervision

Total 43 100.0 30 100.0 73 100.0

Regularly 19 44.2 7 24.1 26 36.1 10.674*

Irregularly 19 44.2 9 31.0 28 38.9

No 5 11.6 12 41.4 17 23.6

Uncertain 0 0.0 1 3.4 1 1.4

group supervision

Total 43 100.0 29 100.0 72 100.0

Regularly 18 40.9 11 36.7 29 39.2 1.851

Irregularly 24 54.5 15 50.0 39 52.7

No 2 4.5 4 13.3 6 8.1

Uncertain 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

case conference

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Table 24. Trainings and professional development (continued)

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Regularly 32 72.7 21 70.0 53 71.6 0.112

Irregularly 11 25.0 8 26.7 19 25.7

No 1 2.3 1 3.3 2 2.7

Uncertain 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Center meeting

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Regularly 24 54.5 16 55.2 40 54.8 1.383

Irregularly 18 40.9 13 44.8 31 2.5

No 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.4

Uncertain 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.4

training/

workshop/

seminars

Total 44 100.0 29 100.0 73 100.0

Regularly 5 11.4 2 7.1 7 9.7 1.279

Irregularly 20 45.5 12 42.9 32 44.4

No 17 38.6 11 39.3 28 38.9

Uncertain 2 4.5 3 10.7 5 6.9

off-campus/

community seminars

Total 44 100.0 28 100.0 72 100.0

Regularly 17 39.5 7 24.1 24 33.3 2.503

Irregularly 16 37.2 12 41.4 28 38.9

No 9 20.9 8 27.6 17 23.6

Uncertain 1 2.3 2 6.9 3 4.2

general supervision

Total 43 100.0 29 100.0 72 100.0

*p<.05

IV. Ethical Standards

Eight questions were asked in this section of the survey. Results are presented below in Table 25 to Table 32.

In Table 25 and Table 26, there is no significant difference between the groups.

To answer whether the Center’s procedure for training includes agency policies and

ethical or legal issues, 86% of the Centers in the university answered yes, and 69% for the college group. About whether the Center have written statement on policies regarding handling of imminent danger, 90% of the Centers in the university answered yes, and 83% for the college group.

Table 25. Training of ethical or legal issues

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 36 85.7 20 69.1 56 78.9 2.983

No 5 11.9 8 27.6 13 18.3

Uncertain 1 2.4 1 3.4 2 2.8

Total 42 100.0 29 100.0 71 100.0

Table 26. Policy on imminent danger

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 37 90.2 25 83.3 62 87.3 0.780

No 3 7.3 4 13.3 7 9.9

Uncertain 1 2.4 1 3.3 2 2.8

Total 41 100.0 30 100.0 71 100.0

In Table 27, contents of a case folder were analyzed. The Centers show very high percentage for the client’s basic information, over 97% for both groups. There is a significant difference for counseling consent form (x

=6.467, p<.05), where 73%

of the university group answered yes, but only 43% for the college group. Both

groups have similar result for intake record, 61% answered yes for the university

group and 50% for the college group. The Centers show very high percentage for

the counseling record, over 97% for both groups. Institutes that provided answer for

the other content in a case folder include transcript, psychological assessments,

clinical record with on-site psychiatrist, case termination record, client referral sheet and counseling feedback sheet.

Table 27. Case folder content

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 43 97.7 29 96.7 72 97.3 0.076

No 1 2.3 1 3.3 2 2.7

client’s basic

information Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 32 72.7 13 43.3 45 60.8 6.467*

No 12 27.3 17 56.7 29 39.2

counseling consent

form Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 27 61.4 15 50.0 42 56.8 0.939

No 17 38.6 15 50.0 32 43.2

intake record

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 44 100.0 29 96.7 73 98.6 1.487

No 0 0.0 1 3.3 1 1.4

counseling record

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 10 22.7 1 3.3 11 14.9 5.302*

No 34 77.3 29 96.7 63 85.1

other

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

*p<.05

In Table 28, Table 29, and Table 30, there is no significant difference between the

groups. Question about whether hard copy case records are kept in locked file

cabinets, 89% of the Centers from the university group answered yes, and 97% for the

college group. Answer about whether the Center have written statement on the

policy that case records belong to the Center, both group have similar results of

around 30% that answered yes. For whether the Center have written statement on

the policy regarding the disposing of confidential materials, 48% of the Centers in the university group answered yes, and 40% for the college group.

Table 28. File security

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 39 88.6 29 96.7 68 91.9 1.682

No 4 9.1 1 3.3 5 6.8

Uncertain 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.4

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Table 29. Policy on case record property

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 13 31.7 9 30.0 22 31.0 0.066

No 22 53.7 17 56.7 39 54.9

Uncertain 6 14.6 4 13.3 10 14.1

Total 41 100.0 30 100.0 71 100.0

Table 30. Policy on disposing of confidential materials

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 20 47.6 12 40.0 32 44.4 1.671

No 19 45.2 13 43.3 32 44.4

Uncertain 3 7.1 5 16.7 8 11.1

Total 42 100.0 30 100.0 72 100.0

In Table 31, the mean length of case records maintained at the Center was calculated and showed no significant difference between the groups. For the university group, the mean is 7.85 years, and 7.11 years for the college group.

The last table of the section, Table 32 shows whether the Center computerize its

client data and case records. Both group have similar results, where the university

group has 44% of the Centers that answered yes, and 41% for the college group.

Table 31. Length of case records maintained

University College

N Mean SD N Mean SD t

39 7.85 2.996 23 7.11 2.763 0.963

Table 32. Record computerization

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 19 44.2 12 41.4 31 43.1 0.249

No 20 46.5 15 51.7 35 48.6

Uncertain 4 9.3 2 6.9 6 8.3

Total 43 100.0 29 100.0 72 100.0

V. Counseling Service Personnel

Information about the Center’s personnel was acquired in this section of the survey. Eight different job titles were listed. The analysis of the number of student bodies is also in this section. Results are presented below in Table 33 to Table 41.

The first question is about the Center’s director as shown in Table 33. In the university group, 69% of the directors have a doctoral and 31% have a master’s as the highest education level. In the college group, 38% of the directors have a doctoral degree and 55% have a master’s degree. This data shows a significant difference between the group where he university group’s directors have an overall higher education level (x

=8.309, p<.05). The Centers that answered “other” explained that the director is a candidate for doctoral degree.

Information was also acquired whether the directors’ degree is in counseling or

related field. In the university group, 78% of the directors have a degree in

counseling or related degree, and 67% for the college group. The last part is about psychologist licensure. In the university group, 33% of the directors are licensed and 21% for the college group, with no significant difference between the groups.

Table 33. Center director

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Ph. D 29 69.0 11 37.9 40 56.3 8.309*

Master’s 13 31.0 16 55.2 29 40.8

Bachelor 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Other 0 0.0 2 6.9 2 2.8

Education Level

Total 42 100.0 29 100.0 71 100.0

Yes 32 78.0 19 65.5 51 72.9 1.349

No 9 22.0 10 34.5 19 27.1

Counseling Related

Degree Total 41 100.0 29 100.0 70 100.0

Yes 14 32.6 6 21.4 20 28.2 1.038

No 29 67.4 22 78.6 51 71.8

Licensed

Total 43 100.0 28 100.0 71 100.0

*p<.05

The next two questions discuss professional staff’s background and workload.

In Table 34, results about the full-time professional staff are displayed, with no significant difference between the groups for all of the variables. The mean of number of personnel in the Center is 2.84 staffs for the university group and 2.06 staffs for the college group. Among these staff, 2.19 people from the university group are licensed as a psychologist and 1.57 people from the college group.

The education level of the staff in the university group shows that the mean of 1

staff in the Center has a doctoral degree, 2.33 staffs have a master’s degree, and 1.54

staffs have a bachelor degree. For the college group, a mean of 1.80 staffs have a

master’s degree, 1.64 staffs have a bachelor degree and 1 staff have an unspecified degree.

The average or mean work hour per week per staff is 40.64 hours for the university group and 39.16 hours for the college group. The staffs’ workload was asked to be divided into percentage among professional or counseling work, administrative work and other. For the university group, about 44% of the workload is professional work, 52% is administration work and 14% is other work. In the college group, 40% of the workload is professional work, 45% is administration work and 19% is other work.

Table 34 . Full-time professional staff

University College

Variables

N Mean SD N Mean SD t

Personnel 38 2.84 1.586 18 2.06 1.110 1.892

Licensed 27 2.19 1.594 7 1.57 1.134 0.953

Ph. D 3 1.00 0.000 0 0.0 n/a

Master’s 36 2.33 1.454 10 1.80 0.919 1.096 Bachelor 13 1.54 0.776 11 1.64 0.674 -0.327

Other 0 0.0 1 1.00 0.000 n/a

Work Hour 36 40.64 2.997 19 39.16 3.671 1.611

Pro % 32 43.97 18.055 16 40.31 15.107 0.696 Admin % 32 51.72 17.853 16 45.31 18.927 1.149 Other % 10 13.80 5.266 6 19.17 13.571 -1.137

In Table 35, results about the part-time professional staff are displayed. The

mean of number of part-time staff in the Center is 7 staffs for the university group and

6.45 staffs for the college group. Among these staff, 5.55 people from the university

group are licensed as a psychologist and 2.36 people from the college group. This difference is significant between the groups with the t-test result (t=2.290, p<.05).

The education level of the staff in the university group shows that the mean of 2.76 staff in the Center have a doctoral degree, 5.31 staffs have a master’s degree, 1.25 staffs have a bachelor’s, and 1 staff have an unspecified degree. For the college group, a mean of 3.91 staffs have a doctoral degree, 4.76 staffs have a master’s degree, and 1 staff has a bachelor degree.

The average work hour per week per staff is 6.66 hours for the university group and 9.16 hours for the college group. The staffs’ workload was asked to be divided into percentage among professional or counseling work, administrative work and other. For the university group, about 94% of the workload is professional work, 35% is administration work and 10% is other work. In the college group, 73% of the workload is professional work, 33% is administration work and 17% is other work.

There a significant difference between the groups for professional work of the part-time staffs, where the mean from the university is approximately 20% higher than that of the college group (t=2.695, p<.05).

A simple comparison between the full-time and part-time professional staff

shows that more individuals are licensed and provide a much higher percentage of

workload in professional service for the part-time staffs.

Table 35. Part-time professional staff

University College

Variables

N Mean SD N Mean SD t

Personnel 40 7.00 5.588 22 6.45 6.345 0.350

Licensed 33 5.55 5.069 14 2.36 1.646 2.290*

Ph. D 21 2.76 1.868 11 3.91 3.727 -0.960 Master’s 35 5.31 5.262 17 4.76 4.409 0.371 Bachelor 8 1.25 0.463 4 1.00 0.000 1.528 Other 2 1.00 0.000 0 0.00 n/a

Work Hour 37 6.66 7.055 22 9.16 13.169 -0.824

Pro % 36 94.03 16.768 20 73.00 32.582 2.695*

Admin % 5 35.00 32.404 9 33.33 18.708 0.106 Other % 4 10.00 0.000 3 16.67 11.547 -1.000

*p<.05

In the next two tables shows trainees’ background and workload. In Table 36, results about the full-time trainees are displayed. The mean of number of personnel in the Center is 2.36 staffs for the university group and 1.45 staffs for the college group. There is a significant difference between the group (t=2.293, p<.05)

Among these trainees in both groups, none of them are licensed as a psychologist.

Also, all of the trainees are currently pursuing a master’s degree. A mean of 2.42 trainees for the university group, and 1.45 trainees for the college group, with a significant difference (t=2.444, p<.05).

The average work hour per week per trainee is about 33 hours for the trainees

from both groups. The trainees’ workload was asked to be divided into percentage

among professional or counseling work, administrative work and other. For the

university group, about 53% of the workload is professional work, 43% is

administration work and 12% is other work. In the college group, 51% of the workload is professional work, 36% is administration work and 21% is other work.

Table 36. Full-time trainee

University College

Variables

N Mean SD N Mean SD t

Personnel 25 2.36 1.221 11 1.45 0.688 2.293*

Licensed 0 0.00 0 0.00 n/a

Ph. D 0 0.00 0 0.00 n/a

Master’s 24 2.42 1.213 11 1.45 0.688 2.444*

Bachelor 0 0.00 0 0.00 n/a

Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 n/a

Work Hour 23 33.30 3.169 11 33.09 2.587 0.194

Pro % 21 52.90 16.130 11 51.36 21.690 0.228 Admin % 21 42.62 14.800 10 36.00 17.764 1.092 Other % 8 11.75 5.365 4 21.25 13.150 -1.388

*p<.05

In Table 37, results about the part-time trainees are displayed, with no significant difference between the groups for all of the variables. The mean of number of trainees in the Center is 3.13 staffs for the university group and 1.83 staffs for the college group. Among these trainees, a mean of 0.20 trainees is licensed as a psychologist in the university group.

In the university group, a mean of 1 trainee is currently in a doctoral program and 3.58 trainees are in a master’s program. As for the college group, a mean of 1.83 trainees are in a master’s program.

The average work hour per week per trainee is about 8 hours for the trainees

from both groups. The trainees’ workload was asked to be divided into percentage among professional or counseling work, administrative work and other. For the university group, about 79% of the workload is professional work, 29% is administration work and 16% is other work. In the college group, 70% of the workload is professional work, 33% is administration work and 25% is other work.

A comparison between full-time and part-time trainee, similar to the professional staff, part-time trainee focus a much higher percentage of workload on the professional service.

Table 37. Part-time trainee

University College

Variables

N Mean SD N Mean SD t

Personnel 15 3.13 4.121 6 1.83 0.753 0.756

Licensed 5 0.20 0.447 0 0.00 n/a

Ph. D 3 1.00 0.000 0 0.00 n/a

Master’s 12 3.58 4.441 6 1.83 0.753 0.944

Bachelor 0 0.00 0 0.00 n/a

Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 n/a

Work Hour 14 8.32 7.070 6 8.00 0.000 0.110

Pro % 10 78.50 26.040 5 70.00 28.284 0.580 Admin % 5 28.60 14.993 3 33.33 15.275 -0.430 Other % 2 16.00 5.657 2 25.00 21.213 -0.580

In the next three tables, we see results about the administrative staff, student

assistants, and other staff. In Table 38, there is no significant difference between the

groups. The mean number of staff is 1.69 for the university group and 1.38 for the

college group. The average work hour per week per staff is 40.62 hours for the

university group and 39.56 hours for the college group.

In Table 39, the mean number of student assistants is 3.25 for the university group and 2.80 for the college group. The average work hour per week per assistant is 20.70 hours for the university group and 34.57 hours for the college group. The average of hours shows a significant difference between the group (t=-2.146, p<.05).

In Table 40, the Centers that provided answer for the other staff of the Center include volunteers, resource center staff, special education staff, caretaker, on-site psychiatrist, and social worker. The mean number of other staff is 4.71 for the university group and 7.14 for the college group. The average work house per week per staff is 22.86 hours for the university group, and 19.71 hours for the college group.

Table 38. Administrative staff

University College

Variables

N Mean SD N Mean SD t

Personnel 29 1.69 1.105 21 1.38 0.740 1.111

Work Hour 29 40.62 2.355 21 39.56 2.036 1.668

Table 39. Student assistants

University College

Variables

N Mean SD N Mean SD t

Personnel 40 3.25 2.715 23 2.80 3.531 0.561

Work Hour 39 20.70 16.109 23 34.57 34.620 -2.146*

*p<.05

Table 40. Other staff

University College

Variables

N Mean SD N Mean SD t

Personnel 17 4.71 6.391 14 7.14 7.284 -0.992

Work Hour 17 22.86 19.398 14 19.71 18.817 0.457

In the next table, information was collected from the survey but was not analyzed directly like the other questions. The purpose of these analyses is to find out the ratio of a professional staff to student bodies. Full-time-equivalence or FTE of professional staff means the part-time staffs were converted into full-time staff based on the working hour of 40 hours per week per staff. As we can see, the mean number of FTE staff is now 3.61 for the university group and 2.46 for the college group. And there is a statistical significant difference between the groups (t=2.844, p<.01).

Next, the number of student bodies was given in the basic information part of the survey where the sum of students from daytime, evening, and continuing studies.

The mean is 10,646 students for the university group and 5,215 for the college group.

Hence, the size of student body in the university group is twice of the college group, and provides a significant difference between the groups (t=5.617, p<.001).

With the results from the above information, the ratio of staff to students is

1:6,289 for the university group, and 1:2,747 for the college group.

Table 41. Ratio of staff to students

University College

Variables

N Mean SD N Mean SD t

FTE 42 3.61 1.871 29 2.46 1.341 2.844**

Students 41 10646.24 5303.840 30 5215.83 2730.326 5.617***

Ratio 40 6288.91 16041.018 29 2746.72 2149.116 1.179

**p<.01, ***p<.001

VI. Center’s Location and Physical Facilities

Two questions were asked in this section of the survey. Results are presented below in Table 42 and Table 43.

In Table 42, there is no significant difference between the groups in the Center’s location. About 61% of the Centers from the university think that the Center is located at the center of the institute, and 53% for the college group. As for separation from other administrative office, 40% of the Centers in the university group answered yes, and 21% in the college group answered yes.

For the physical facilities of the Center as shown in Table 43, only the variable of

career library area shows a significant difference between the groups (x

=6.348,

p<.05). Accessibility for disabilities is provided by 59% of the Centers in the

university group and 63% in the college group. Sound-proof measures are provided

by 65% of the university group and 47% of the college group. Reception area is

provided by 89% of the university group and 77% of college group. Both groups

have over 98% of the Centers that put files in a secured location. Counseling

material library area is provided by 95% of the university group and 87% of the

college group. Career material library area is provided by 62% of the university

group and 47% of the college group. Psychological assessment room is provided by 74% of the university group and 63% of the college group. Around 72% of all the Centers think they have adequate individual counseling rooms. For the university group, 84% think they have adequate group counseling rooms, and 73% for the college group. Both groups have over 96% of Centers with computer equipments.

Around 73% of all the Centers have recording or observational tools. And lastly, over 95% of all the Centers have their own homepage.

Table 42. Center’s location

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 26 60.5 16 53.3 42 57.5 3.166

No 14 32.6 14 46.7 28 38.4

Uncertain 3 7.0 0 0.0 3 4.1

located at the center of

institute

Total 43 100.0 30 100.0 73 100.0

Yes 15 39.5 6 21.4 21 31.8 2.602

No 20 52.6 20 71.4 40 60.6

Uncertain 3 7.9 2 7.1 5 7.6

separated from administrative

offices Total 38 100.0 28 100.0 66 100.0

Table 43. Physical facilities

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 26 59.1 19 63.3 45 60.8 0.164

No 16 36.4 10 33.3 26 35.1

Uncertain 2 4.5 1 3.3 3 4.1

accessibility for disabilities

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 28 65.1 14 46.7 42 57.5 3.349

No 10 23.3 13 43.3 23 31.5

Uncertain 5 11.6 3 10.0 8 11.0

sound-proof measures

Total 43 100.0 30 100.0 73 100.0

Yes 39 88.6 23 76.7 62 83.8 2.667

No 5 11.4 6 20.0 11 14.9

Uncertain 0 0.0 1 3.3 1 1.4

reception area

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 43 97.7 29 100.0 72 98.6 0.668

No 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Uncertain 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.4

secured file location

Total 44 100.0 29 100.0 73 100.0

Yes 41 95.3 26 86.7 67 91.8 3.143

No 2 4.7 2 6.7 4 5.5

Uncertain 0 0.0 2 6.7 2 2.7

counseling material library area

Total 43 100.0 30 100.0 73 100.0

Yes 26 61.9 14 46.7 40 55.6 6.348*

No 16 38.1 12 40.0 28 38.9

Uncertain 0 0.0 4 13.3 4 5.6

career material library area

Total 42 100.0 30 100.0 72 100.0

Yes 31 73.8 19 63.3 50 69.4 0.905

No 10 23.8 10 33.3 20 27.8

Uncertain 1 2.4 1 3.3 2 2.8

assessment room

Total 42 100.0 30 100.0 72 100.0

Table 43. Physical facilities (continued)

University College Sum

Variables

N % N % N % x

Yes 31 72.1 22 73.3 53 72.6 1.649

No 8 18.6 3 10.0 11 15.1

Uncertain 4 9.3 5 16.7 9 12.3

adequate individual counseling

rooms Total 43 100.0 30 100.0 73 100.0

Yes 36 83.7 22 73.3 58 79.5 1.306

No 5 11.6 5 16.7 10 13.7

Uncertain 2 4.7 3 10.0 5 6.8

adequate group counseling

rooms Total 43 100.0 30 100.0 73 100.0

Yes 42 95.5 30 100.0 72 97.3 1.402

No 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.4

Uncertain 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.4

computer equipment

Total 44 100.0 30 100.0 74 100.0

Yes 33 76.7 22 73.3 55 75.3 0.845

No 9 20.9 6 20.2 15 20.5

Uncertain 1 2.3 2 6.7 3 4.1

recording/

observational tools

Total 43 100.0 30 100.0 73 100.0

Yes 40 95.2 28 96.6 68 95.8 0.073

No 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Uncertain 2 4.8 1 3.4 3 4.2

homepage

Total 42 100.0 29 100.0 71 100.0

*p<.05