[acb-hsp] Article: Disclosure of Disability of Counselors

Fri Nov 16 11:01:18 EST 2012

Hi.  I had a very interesting call a few days ago.  A lady called and got my voicemail.  She didn't leave a message so I immediately called her back.  She said that she wanted to be honest and that she had decided not to leave a message because she realized I am the lady who uses a guide dog and she was not sure she would feel comfortable working with someone who does.  I told her I appreciated her honesty and asked if she was allergic or fearful of dogs.  She assured me that no, she in fact had dogs, loved them ...it was the blind thing.  She went on to tell me that she'd been without power for two weeks, how fearful she was, etc., all of which I listened to, validated and asked about her safety and comfort with the cold.  She assured me she is warm enough as she has backup heat, however does not feel safe at all as she is single and rather isolated.  I asked if she might have friends, family or coworkers (I knew she worked for the federal government by now) with whom she might stay, especially at night.  She indicated she could but does not feel comfortable being away from her dogs ...again, which I validated.  She told me she needed to conserve her cell because of the power and disconnected.
Well, a few days later, she called back to tell me she wanted to schedule with me ...because out of all the therapists she'd called, I was the only one who had either 1. Called her back; or 2. Taken the time to listen to her concerns which she believes are very real.
We met, she was nervous about the "blind thing" but then became curious about braille and such, then quite comfortable and very happy we have many things in common.

I do not make any effort whatsoever to hide the "blind thing".  I have, first of all, a very obvious dog and some people are indeed very allergic to them, and phobic.  There is no reason for them to be miserable in therapy if they are either, or waste their time coming here if either is the case, or they simply don't like dogs that much.  If I did not like dogs, I'd not want to go to a therapist with one in the office.  Occasionally, dogs do dog things ...sorry, they're dogs and they do.
Secondly, if they really just don't want to deal with "blind", then that's fine too.  I know what I want in a therapist, and I've got the right to make that choice ...so do my potential clients.
In all the 25+ years I"ve been a therapist, I'e not hidden it, and I've never lacked for clients.  In fact, I believe they appreciate the openness, I think it helps them be more open, and, I'm not so sure it does not get me more clients from diverse cultures ...because I seem to have a higher caseload of diverse cultures than my nondisabled cohorts seem to have.  
Jessie Rayl
thedogmom63 at frontier.com
www.facebook.com/Eaglewings10
www.pathtogrowth.org

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Baracco, Andrew W 
  To: Discussion list for ACB human service professionals 
  Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 2:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [acb-hsp] Article: Disclosure of Disability of Counselors

  In general, clients are comfortable with me. I think that they feel that there will be greater empathy coming from one that has a disability. I have had a few, a very few, who absolutely refused to see someone who is blind.

  Andy

  From: acb-hsp-bounces at acb.org [mailto:acb-hsp-bounces at acb.org] On Behalf Of J.Rayl
  Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:17 AM
  To: Discussion list for ACB human service professionals
  Subject: [acb-hsp] Article: Disclosure of Disability of Counselors

  Effect of disabled counselors' self-disclosures on client perceptions of the counselor.

  Author: Mallinckrodt, Brent 1 ; Helms, Janet E. 1 U Maryland, College Park

  Publication info: Journal of Counseling Psychology 33. 3 (Jul 1986): 343-348.

  https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/614333158?accountid=34899

  Abstract: In a videotaped counseling analog, 2 male counselors each portrayed (a)

  an obviously disabled counselor in a wheelchair and (b) a not obviously disabled

  counselor with visual impairment. Within each condition, counselors did or did not

  make self-disclosures about their disability. Ss were 169 university students, none

  of whom was disabled or had close friends or relatives who were disabled. Results

  indicate that counselors in several of the disability conditions were rated as being

  significantly more expert and attractive than able-bodied counselors. Counselor self-disclosures

  did not have a clearly negative or positive effect on Ss' perceptions. The hypothesis

  that awareness of a counselor's disability may enhance client perceptions of his

  all rights reserved)

  Links: null

  Full Text: Contents - Abstract

  Method Subjects

  Instruments Counselor Rating Form

  Counseling Situations Inventory

  Counseling Interactions

  Procedure

  Results

  Discussion

  Show less

  Figures and Tables - Table 1

  - Table 2

  Show less Abstract In a videotaped counseling analogue, two male counselors each

  portrayed (a) an obviously disabled counselor in a wheelchair and (b) a not obviously

  disabled counselor with visual impairment. Within each condition, counselors did

  or did not make self-disclosures about their disability. Subjects were 169 university

  students who had no disabled friends or relatives. Results indicated that counselors

  in several of the disability conditions were rated as being significantly more expert

  and attractive than able-bodied counselors. Counselor self-disclosures did not have

  a clearly negative or positive effect on subjects' perceptions. The hypothesis that

  awareness of a counselor's disability may enhance client perceptions of his or her

  credibility is discussed.

  Considerable controversy exists concerning whether physically disabled counselors

  enjoy certain therapeutic advantages relative to able-bodied counselors simply because

  they are disabled. Among the advantages cited are unique life experiences and coping

  strategies ( Brearly, 1980 ; Grantham & Joslyn, 1981 ) that may enhance their function

  as role models in working with both able-bodied and disabled clients. Biscardi, Helms,

  and Harren (1979) also suggested that some clients may believe that the disabilities

  make counselors more empathic, and thus, disabled counselors may enjoy the advantages

  of greater client acceptance and more positive evaluations of their skills.

  In support of this enhancement hypothesis are Mitchell and Allen's (1975) findings

  that counselors in wheelchairs in a videotape counseling analogue were rated more

  favorably than able-bodied counselors with regard to perceived empathy, level of

  regard, unconditional regard, and congruence. Similarly, Toner and Johnson (1979)

  found that 6th- and 10th-grade students preferred disabled to able-bodied counselors.

  Other counseling analogue studies, however, seem to suggest that whether or not clients

  are more willing to see an able-bodied counselor rather than a disabled counselor

  may depend on the nature of the hypothetical presenting problem ( Brabham & Thoreson,

  1973 ; Mitchell & Frederickson, 1975 ) and the level of anticipated interaction with

  the counselor ( Allen & Cohen, 1980 ) or on the client's disability status ( Strohmer

  & Biggs, 1983 ). With the exception of Strohmer and Biggs, all previously mentioned

  researchers used able-bodied subjects.

  Still other authors have suggested that the disabled counselor may actually operate

  from a position of disadvantage. This position seems to be based on research suggesting

  that obviously disabled persons evaluate themselves and are evaluated by others more

  negatively than are able-bodied persons ( Bowman, 1979 ; Dailey, 1977 , 1978 ; Goldberg,

  1974 ; Stovall & Sedlacek, 1981 ). If negative attitudes about disabled persons generalize

  to disabled counselors, then such attitudes could potentially surface in the form

  of negative perceptions of the counselor, decreased willingness to see the counselor

  again, or both.

  Given the disparity in viewpoints concerning the effects on the counseling process

  of a visible disability, it is not clear how counselors should handle the matter

  of their disability when dealing with clients. They might ignore it in hopes that

  the counseling process would be enhanced by positive attributions that clients may

  make, or they might discuss it in hopes of overcoming barriers caused by any unspoken

  negative stereotypes. If they choose discussion, a question still remains as to how

  that discussion should occur.

  One manner of initiating discussions about the counselor's disability is via counselor

  self-disclosure. Yet previous studies of able-bodied counselors' self-disclosures

  have often yielded mixed results concerning their effectiveness in improving perceptions

  of the counselors' credibility. In several counseling analogue studies, researchers

  have found that perceptions of counselor characteristics, such as credibility and

  unconditional regard ( Hoffman & Spencer, 1977 ), attractiveness ( Merluzzi, Banikiotes,

  & Missbach, 1978 ), and nurturance ( Bundza & Simonson, 1973 ) were greater when

  the counselor used self-disclosure. Other researchers ( Giannandrea & Murphy, 1973

  ; Jourard & Jaffe, 1970 ) have found that clients' level of self-disclosure and willingness

  to interact with the counselor increased with increasing counselor self-disclosure.

  Negative client perceptions of counselors have been found to result, however, if

  the self-disclosures are perceived as being too frequent ( Mann & Murphy, 1975 ;

  Simonson, 1976 ) or inappropriate for the level of the relationship ( Chaikin & Derlega,

  1974 ). For instance, Curtis (1981) , using as subjects actual clients currently

  in therapy, presented written transcripts of counseling sessions and found that the

  clients rated high-self-disclosing counselors as significantly less empathic and

  competent than the non-self-disclosing counselors.

  With regard to subject matter of the disclosure, Nilsson, Strassberg, and Bannon

  (1979) found that counselor statements calling attention to similarities in life

  problems faced by the counselor and client produced the greatest increases in subjects'

  perceptions of counselor warmth. Danish, D'Augelli, and Hauer (1980) distinguished

  between self-involving statements (those concerning the counselor's personal reactions

  to the client during the counseling session) and self-disclosing statements (those

  concerning the counselor's personal experiences and feelings outside the counseling

  session). McCarthy and Betz (1978) found that counselors making self-involving statements

  were rated higher in trustworthiness and expertness than counselors making self-disclosing

  statements. In a subsequent study, however, McCarthy (1982) found that self-disclosing

  counselor statements containing a high level of intimacy were associated with as

  equally positive client perceptions as self-involving statements. Remer, Roffey,

  and Buckholtz (1983) found that self-involving statements with positive, in contrast

  to negative, content (i.e., favorable reactions to the clients) resulted in more

  favorable ratings of counselors, but Reynolds and Fisher (1983) found no significant

  differences between negative and positive content in both types of statements. Dowd

  and Boroto (1982) examined past-oriented self-disclosures, present-oriented self-disclosures,

  and self-involving statements and found all three to be more effective in enhancing

  perceptions of counselor attractiveness than either counselor summary statements

  or dynamic interpretations. Despite this pattern of ratings, subjects indicated a

  greater willingness to see the counselors who made the dynamic interpretations.

  These findings suggest that more favorable ratings on a dependent variable measure

  such as the Counselor Rating Form may not necessarily be associated with increased

  self-reported willingness to see the counselor. Furthermore, little is known about

  the relation between self-reported willingness to see the counselor and actual behavioral

  evidence that the subject will indeed act according to the stated preference. In

  none of the previously reviewed studies was any such behavioral evidence gathered

  in addition to the self-report information. Giannandrea and Murphy (1973) , however,

  used face-to-face counseling interviews to test the effect of varying the frequency

  of self-disclosure. Subjects were asked at the conclusion of the interview to sign

  up for a second session with the same counselor. The resulting pattern of subjects'

  sign-ups was not related to the pattern of favorable ratings of the counselor on

  the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory.

  In a review of the literature, we failed to find any studies that investigated the

  effects of self-disclosures by disabled counselors. An investigation of these effects

  is important because (a) the presence of an observable disability is itself an unavoidable

  type of self-disclosure to clients, and if negative attitudes and perceptions are

  generated by the awareness of a disability, then barriers that can interfere with

  the quality of the counseling relationship may be raised by such awareness; (b) if

  negative attitudes are present, then disabled counselors may be able to alter some

  of their clients' impressions through the use of self-disclosure. In addition, although

  increasingly sophisticated prosthetic devices make it possible that a counselor's

  disability may not be readily apparent to clients, some of these "nonobviously" disabled

  persons may have impairments that may require self-disclosures about the disability

  to permit them to conduct an effective counseling session. For example, counselors

  who are hearing impaired may have to ask clients not to cover their mouths so that

  lipreading is possible, or counselors who have impaired vision despite partial correction

  by contact lenses may need to sit somewhat closer to a client than usual.

  In this study, we examined the following three questions: (a) Are there differences

  in subjects' perceptions of and willingness to see disabled counselors, as compared

  to able-bodied ones? (b) What is the effect of disabled counselors' self-involving

  type of self-disclosure about their disability on subjects' perceptions of the counselors

  and on subjects' willingness to see them? (c) Are there differences between the effects

  of such self-disclosures when the counselor's disability is nonobvious rather than

  obvious?

  Method

  Subjects Subjects were 72 male and 97 female undergraduate students enrolled in introductory

  psychology courses in a large eastern university. They received credit toward their

  course grade for participation in the study. Mean age of male and female subjects

  was 21.4 ( SD = 3.25) and 21.3 ( SD = 4.95) years, respectively. To avoid potential

  bias, we excluded from the analyses data from 10 students who were disabled themselves

  or who had close friends or relatives who were disabled.

  Instruments The Counselor Rating Form (CRF; Barak & LaCrosse, 1975 ) was used to

  assess subjects' perceptions of the counselors, and the Counseling Situations Inventory

  (CSI), designed for this study, was used to measure their willingness to see the

  counselors.

  Counselor Rating Form The CRF consists of 36 bipolar adjective pairs presented via

  7-point Likert-type scales ( Barak & LaCrosse, 1975 ). The three CRF subscales, Expertness

  (e.g., skillful-unskillful), Trustworthiness (e.g., genuine-phony), and Attractiveness

  (e.g., friendly-unfriendly), are composed of 12 items each. Scores are computed by

  summing subjects' responses to each item, with high scores indicating positive evaluations.

  For the 169 subjects used in the present study, the internal consistency of the Expertness,

  Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness subscales as estimated by Cronbach's alpha was

  .91, .93, and .87, respectively; test-retest reliabilities ( n = 18) after a 2-week

  interval were .86, .88, and .95, respectively.

  Counseling Situations Inventory The CSI was composed of 18 hypothetical counseling

  problems that subjects were asked to imagine having (e.g., getting along with roommate,

  loneliness, and feeling socially isolated). Subjects used a 5-point Likert-type scale

  ranging from not willing (1) to willing (5) to rate their willingness to discuss

  each of the problems with the counselor observed. Of these situations, 13 were adapted

  from Mitchell and Frederickson's (1975) study of preferences for male disabled or

  able-bodied counselors. In their study, only 1 item involved sexual concerns; however,

  because responses to this item suggested that male subjects preferred able-bodied

  counselors more than disabled ones, 5 additional items dealing with sexual concerns

  were added to the scale in the present study. After data collection was completed,

  a principal-components factor analysis was used to analyze the 18 items of the CSI.

  However, the three factors that were identified were so highly intercorrelated (range

  = .67 to .82) that only the total scale score was used in subsequent analyses. For

  the total scale, Cronbach's alpha, based on the entire sample, was .91, with a test-retest

  correlation of .79 ( n = 18).

  Counseling Interactions Two kinds of disabled male counselors were depicted in a

  counseling analogue-a counselor in a wheelchair and a counselor with a visual impairment.

  Each type of counselor was shown in a counseling session that included a discussion

  of his disability (i.e., self-disclosure condition) and a session that did not. Because

  the visually impaired counselors were depicted in contact lenses, their impairment

  was known to subjects only in the self-disclosure condition and not in both conditions

  of disclosure level (as was the case for the counselors in wheelchairs). Thus, the

  design involved four conditions as follows: (a) able-bodied, or no apparent disability

  and no self-disclosure; (b) obvious disability with no self-disclosure, that is,

  counselors in wheelchairs who made no mention of disability; (c) obvious disability

  with self-disclosure, counselors in wheelchairs who discussed their disability; and

  (d) nonobvious disability, apparently able-bodied counselors who disclosed a visual

  impairment.

  Two male, master's-level graduate students (one of whom has a nonobvious visual impairment)

  role played the therapists in an excerpt from one of Rogers's (1977) interviews.

  In the segment, a young woman discussed a presenting problem involving anxiety about

  her perceived lack of social skills. The same female undergraduate student role played

  the client in all of the counselor conditions. Each of the four conditions was portrayed

  by the two counselors. The self-disclosure interactions were approximately 2 min

  long and occurred after 13 min of the 17-min counseling session. They consisted of

  a brief statement about the nature of the disability, followed by a self-involving

  discussion of how the counselor's disabled status might effect the current counseling

  relationship. Each of the two counselors was taped only in the two disability disclosure

  conditions (visual impairment and wheelchair). The no-disclosure tapes were then

  created by removing the disclosure portions from duplicates of these tapes. The transcript

  was constructed so that this editing did not interrupt the natural flow of the sessions.

  Procedure Subjects were contacted by telephone and instructed to view a specific

  videotape filed at the university library. Subjects individually checked out the

  videotape and a packet of materials from the library staff. They were instructed

  to view the taped counseling session, complete the dependent measures, and return

  the materials to the library staff. The CRF and CSI were presented in counterbalanced

  order. Test-retest reliabilities were assessed by contacting a subsample of 18 subjects

  2 weeks after their initial ratings and asking them to repeat the procedure. All

  subjects were given debriefing information at the conclusion of the study.

  Results A two-way (Counselor × Sex) analysis of variance ( ANOVA ) was performed

  to compare ratings of the two counselors across all conditions and to test for differences

  between ratings of male and female subjects. There were no significant differences

  between perceptions of the two counselors for any of the dependent variables, including

  perceived physical attractiveness, F s(1, 167) ranging from 0.39 to 1.17, p s > .28.

  There were also no significant differences between male and female subjects' ratings

  for any dependent variable, F s(1, 167) ranging from 0.23 to 2.18, p s > .14. Therefore,

  in subsequent analyses, the data pertaining to the two counselors were combined,

  and the data for male and female subjects were combined.

  A 2 × 2 ANOVA examining the effect of self-disclosure and the effects of type of

  disability was not possible. These variables were unavoidably confounded because

  the counselors who did not disclose a hidden visual impairment appeared to be able-bodied,

  and the nondisclosing counselors in wheelchairs were obviously disabled. Investigation

  of the research questions required comparisons between various pairs of the four

  experimental conditions. Therefore a one-way ANOVA was performed with Duncan's multiple-range

  tests to assess significant differences between experimental conditions. An overall

  Type I error rate of .05 was chosen for each set of Duncan's multiple-range comparisons.

  The one-way ANOVA revealed that there were significant differences between the four

  experimental conditions with regard to ratings of expertness, F (3, 165) = 3.88,

  p < .02; trustworthiness, F (3, 165) = 2.80, p < .05; and attractiveness, F (3, 165)

  = 3.88, p < .02. Means, standard deviations, and significant differences between

  conditions are shown in Table 1 .

  600?'600px':'auto');"> Enlarge this Image.

  Means and Standard Deviations of Counselor Ratings

  With regard to the general trend of expertness, trustworthiness, and attractiveness

  ratings, disabled counselors received either equivalent or more positive ratings

  than able-bodied counselors. Self-disclosure did not have a clearly negative or positive

  effect on ratings. Non-self-disclosing counselors in wheelchairs (Condition B) were

  rated as being significantly more expert and attractive than were the apparently

  able-bodied counselors (Condition A). Self-disclosures from the counselors in wheelchairs

  (Condition C) further increased the numerical margin of positive ratings for expertness

  and attractiveness relative to those of the able-bodied counselors (A). In addition,

  ratings of trustworthiness, which did not differ significantly when able-bodied counselors

  (A) and counselors in wheelchairs (B) were compared, were significantly more positive

  for counselors in wheelchairs when they made self-disclosures (A vs. C). Self-disclosure

  itself did not, however, have a clearly positive effect because there were no significant

  differences in the multiple-range analyses between counselors in wheelchairs who

  self-disclosed (C) and those who did not (B). Counselors who were apparently able-bodied

  but subsequently disclosed a nonobvious disability (D) were rated as significantly

  more attractive than were able-bodied counselors (A).

  Despite the differences in CRF ratings, there were no significant differences in

  reported willingness to see the counselors on the CSI. Inspection of the mean scores

  shown in Table 1 indicates a general trend of increased CSI scores (i.e., greater

  willingness) for conditions receiving higher CRF ratings. Intercorrelations among

  the dependent variables shown in Table 2 suggest that the relations between favorable

  CRF ratings and willingness to see the counselors were not particularly strong, although

  the CRF subscales themselves were highly intercorrelated.

  600?'600px':'auto');"> Enlarge this Image.

  Correlations Between Dependent Variables (N = 169)

  Discussion In general, the results of the present study offer support for Biscardi

  et al.'s (1979) disability enhancement hypothesis regarding clients' perceptions

  of disabled counselors. Counselors in all three conditions of disability and self-disclosure

  were perceived significantly more favorably than the apparently able-bodied counselors

  on one or more of the CRF subscales, and the disabled counselors were not perceived

  more negatively on any of the four dependent variables. The positive ratings may

  have been due, in part, to subjects' assumptions that the disabled counselors had,

  in the course of some potentially difficult life experiences, become experts at coping

  or perhaps had become better able to empathize with the problems of others. Whatever

  the nature of subjects' implicit assumptions about disabled counselors, the findings

  of the current study suggest that the net effect of these assumptions was enhanced

  perceptions of the disabled counselors.

  The general effect of counselor self-disclosure about the disability seems to have

  been neither clearly positive nor negative. On all of the dependent variables, mean

  ratings given the self-disclosing counselors in wheelchairs were numerically more

  positive than those given to the same counselors when they did not make self-disclosure

  but not significantly so. In contrast to the findings of Merluzzi et al. (1978) and

  Curtis (1981) , increased self-disclosure was not associated with decreased ratings

  of expertness. When the disclosure was about a disability that had not been apparent

  to subjects, the counselors were rated as more attractive than the able-bodied counselors.

  In addition, there were no significant differences between subjects' ratings of counselors

  who disclosed about a nonobvious versus an obvious disability.

  To the extent that the results of this study are generalizable to actual counselors

  with actual disabilities, the findings suggest that self-disclosure about a nonobvious

  disability may enhance subjects' perceptions of the counseling, particularly with

  regard to attractiveness. A nonobviously disabled counselor who must inform clients

  about a disability can probably do so during the first counseling session without

  negatively influencing the counseling relationship. For counselors with readily apparent

  disabilities, the effects of self-disclosures are probably neutral; subjects seem

  to react positively to visible disability whether or not counselors self-disclose

  about it. None of the current findings suggest that such self-disclosures would have

  a negative effect, and perhaps both obviously and nonobviously disabled counselors

  might be able to make productive use of self-involving self-disclosures as a means

  of potentially enhancing their therapeutic effectiveness. Such a strategy may be

  especially appropriate when working with able-bodied clients whose initial attitudes

  toward disabled persons are somewhat negative.

  Only one specific type of obvious and one type of nonobvious disability were portrayed

  in the current study, however. The portrayal was by two white male counselors of

  essentially the same physical attractiveness. Only one relatively lengthy self-disclosure

  was used. Researchers ( Mann & Murphy, 1975 ; Simonson, 1976 ) have suggested that

  there may be an optimum frequency of self-disclosure for given circumstances beyond

  which the positive effects begin to decrease. Further research is needed to investigate

  the effects of self-disclosures of various lengths; frequencies; and content from

  counselors who differ with regard to race, sex, and type of disability. The counselors

  in wheelchairs in this study were not actually disabled in this manner, so at best,

  they represented those counselors in wheelchairs who are not disfigured. In addition,

  all the subjects were college students. Further research using different subject

  populations and counselors with a variety of actual disabilities is needed.

  Finally, much more investigation of the relation between perceptions of counselors

  and self-reported willingness to see them for actual sessions is needed. Dowd and

  Boroto (1982) found that counselors rated most favorably on CRF variables were not

  the ones subjects expressed the greatest willingness to see. In the current study,

  self-reported willingness ratings were all in the expected directions but were not

  significantly different across conditions.

  Because the videotape methodology used more closely simulated an actual counseling

  session, the present study represents an improvement over previous studies of disabled

  counselors in which slides or audiotape recordings were used. Nevertheless, because

  it was an analogue, relations found between perceptions of counselors and willingness

  to see them might be different in actual counseling situations. An important next

  step in exploring the effects of counselor disability and self-disclosure would be

  an examination of actual face-to-face counseling interactions.

  References

  1 . Allen, H. A., & Cohen, M. S. (1980). Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.

  2 . Barak, A., & LaCrosse, M. B. (1975). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  3 . Biscardi, D. L., Helms, J. E., & Harren, V. A. (1979). The effect of perceived

  expertness on preference for disabled vs. nondisabled counselors.

  4 . Bowman, J. (1979). Dissertation Abstracts International.

  5 . Brabham, R. E., & Thoreson, R. W. (1973). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  6 . Brearly, G. (1980). Sexuality and Disability.

  7 . Bundza, K. A., & Simonson, N. R. (1973). Psychotherapy Theory, Research and Practice.

  8 . Chaikin, A. L., & Derlega, V. J. (1974). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

  9 . Curtis, J. M. (1981). Psychological Reports.

  10 . Dailey, L. A. (1977). Journal of College Student Personnel.

  11 . Dailey, L. A. (1978). Journal of College Student Personnel.

  12 . Danish, S. J., D'Augelli, A. R., & Hauer, A. L. (1980). Helping skills: A basic

  training program. New York: Human Services Press.

  13 . Dowd, E. T., & Boroto, D. R. (1982). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  14 . Giannandrea, V., & Murphy, K. C. (1973). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  15 . Goldberg, R. T. (1974). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  16 . Grantham, R. J., & Joslyn, M. S. (1981). Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.

  17 . Hoffman, M. A., & Spencer, G. P. (1977). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  18 . Jourard, S. M., & Jaffe, P. E. (1970). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  19 . Mann, B., & Murphy, K. C. (1975). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  20 . McCarthy, P. R. (1982). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  21 . McCarthy, P. R., & Betz, N. E. (1978). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  22 . Merluzzi, T. V., Banikiotes, P. G., & Missbach, J. W. (1978). Journal of Counseling

  Psychology.

  23 . Mitchell, D. C., & Frederickson, W. A. (1975). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  24 . Mitchell, J., & Allen, H. (1975). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  25 . Nilsson, D. E., Strassberg, D. S., & Bannon, J. (1979). Journal of Counseling

  Psychology.

  26 . Remer, P., Roffey, B. H., & Buckholtz, A. (1983). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  27 . Reynolds, C. L., & Fisher, C. H. (1983). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  28 . Rogers, C. R., Morse, S. J., & Watson, R. I. (1977). Psychotherapies: A comparative

  casebook. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

  29 . Simonson, N. R. (1976). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  30 . Stovall, C., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1981). Attitudes of male and female university

  students toward students with different physical disabilities (Research Rep. No.

  10-81). College Park: University of Maryland, Counseling Center.

  31 . Strohmer, D. C., & Biggs, D. A. (1983). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

  32 . Toner, I. J., & Johnson, M. L. (1979). Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.

  Show less

  Address for Correspondence: Brent Mallinckrodt, Department of Psychology, University

  of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742

  © 1986 American Psychological Association

  Subject: Client Attitudes (major); Counselor Characteristics (major); Physical Disorders

  (major); Self Disclosure (major)

  Classification: 3370: Health&Mental Health Services

  Age: Adulthood (18 yrs&older)

  Population: Human

  Identifier (keyword): counselors' self disclosure about their obvious vs nonobvious

  disability, perceptions of counselor, college students

  Methodology: Empirical Study

  Title: Effect of disabled counselors' self-disclosures on client perceptions of the

  counselor.

  Publication title: Journal of Counseling Psychology

  Volume: 33

  Issue: 3

  Pages: 343-348

  Publication date: Jul 1986

  Format covered: Print

  Publisher: American Psychological Association

  Country of publication: United States

  ISSN: 0022-0167

  eISSN: 1939-2168

  Peer reviewed: Yes

  Document type: Journal, Journal Article, Peer Reviewed Journal

  Number of references: 32

  Publication history :

  Revised date: 27 Dec 1985

  First submitted date: 02 Oct 1985

  DOI: <a href="

  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.33.3.343">http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.33.3.343</a

  > 

  Release date: 01 Nov 1986 (PsycINFO); ; 10 Jul 2006 (PsycARTICLES);

  Correction date: 25 Jan 2010 (PsycINFO)

  Accession number: 1986-28123-001

  ProQuest document ID: 614333158

  Document URL:

  https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/614333158?accountid=34899

  Copyright: ©American Psychological Association 1986

  Database: PsycARTICLES

  ____________________________________________________________

  Contact us at:

  http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupport

  Terms and Conditions:

  http://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions

  Jessie Rayl
  thedogmom63 at frontier.com
  www.facebook.com/Eaglewings10
  www.pathtogrowth.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  acb-hsp mailing list
  acb-hsp at acb.org
  http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-hsp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.acb.org/pipermail/acb-hsp/attachments/20121116/bc808f16/attachment-0001.html>