An examination of factors contributing to public rehabilitation counselors' involvement in job placement and development activities.

Job placement and development has been identified as one of the essential roles and functions of the rehabilitation counselor (Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification, 2003; Emener & Rubin, 1980; Leahy, Chan, & Saunders, 2003; Roessler & Rubin, 1992). Despite the prominence of job placement and development in the professional activities of the rehabilitation counselor, very few consumers receive job placement services from their rehabilitation counselor in the public sector (General Accounting Office Report to Congress, 1993; Hagner, Fesko, Cadigan, Kiernan, & Butterworth, 1994). In the public sector, the expectation for the rehabilitation counselor to be involved in the job placement and development process varies from agency to agency. In some cases counselors are expected to provide such services directly, while more often those responsibilities are performed by in house specialists, or contracted to external service providers.

There have been few studies conducted recently to examine the level of involvement of the public rehabilitation counselor in the job placement and development process (Fraser, Vandergoot, Thomas, & Wagner, 2004). A longitudinal research project examining public vocational rehabilitation services and outcomes, conducted by the Research Triangle Institute (2002), indicated that only 32.5% of consumers received placement services, and of those 72.5% had their placement services contracted out to external providers, thus eliminating the public rehabilitation counselor from the placement process. Earlier studies indicate that public rehabilitation counselors devote 6-12% of their time engaged in job placement and development activities (Fraser & Clowers, 1978; Zadny & James, 1977). The apparent lack of rehabilitation counselor involvement may be of concern as there is limited evidence to indicate that increased involvement by the rehabilitation counselor is related to increased client satisfaction, increased appropriateness of the placement, and a decrease in the time to placement (Hansen, 1983). There is a strong emphasis in the rehabilitation counseling literature (Fraser, Vandergoot, Thomas, & Wagner, 2004; Szymanski & Parker, 2003), educational programming (Council on Rehabilitation Education, 2004), and continuing education programs on the rehabilitation counselor's involvement in job placement and development activities. Considering the lack of involvement in this high priority area of practice by rehabilitation counselors in the public sector, it is apparent that role confusion exists regarding their involvement in the job placement and development process (Ford & Swett, 1999).

To address the apparent confusion regarding this specific role and function for rehabilitation counselors in the public sector, the current study examined the impact of attitudinal and self-efficacy factors on the involvement of public rehabilitation counselors in job placement and development activities. The factors hypothesized as influencing the involvement of public rehabilitation counselors in the placement process were personal attitudes towards placement activities, the counselor's perception their organization's attitudes towards their involvement in the placement process, and the counselor's perceived self-efficacy regarding placement activities. The Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 2002) provides a theoretical context for understanding how these variables interact to impact counselor behavior.

The Theory of Planned Behavior

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) has developed over the years to become an influential model for explaining human behavior (Ajzen, 2002). Based on the original theoretical work of Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), Ajzen (2002) describes the basic concepts of the TPB as follows:

   Human behavior is guided by three kinds of
   considerations: beliefs about the likely consequences
   or other attributes of the behavior (behavioral beliefs),
   beliefs about the normative expectations of other
   people (normative beliefs), and beliefs about the
   presence of factors that may further or hinder
   of the behavior (control beliefs). In their respective
   aggregates, behavioral beliefs produce a favorable or
   unfavorable attitude toward the behavior; normative
   beliefs result in perceived social pressure or subjective
   norm; and control beliefs give rise to perceived
   behavioral control (p. 665).

Ajzen (2002) further explains that behavior is the result of an intention formed through the interaction of attitudes toward the behavior, a subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. By examining the lack of involvement of rehabilitation counselors in the job placement and development activities in terms of the concepts outlined by Ajzen (1991, 2002), an understanding of the barriers can be obtained and strategies developed to overcome them.

For the current study it was important to examine the attitudes towards the behavior, the subjective norms influencing the target behavior, and counselors' perceived behavioral control. In this way the interaction between attitude toward the behavior (job placement), the subjective norm (perceived organizational attitudes), and perceived behavioral control (placement efficacy) could be examined in terms of influencing the target behavior, or involvement in job placement activities.

Attitude Toward the Behavior

Attitudes have traditionally been recognized has having a significant influence on behavior (Allport, 1967; Ajzen, 2001; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Erwin, 2001; Kiesler, Collins, & Miller, 1969) and play a role in understanding wide variety of behaviors. The attitude an individual holds provides the foundation of behavioral intent. In the case of job placement activities, if counselors have negative attitudes towards job placement as a professional activity, then a behavioral intent to engage in such activities will be nonexistent. If attitudes are neutral, the strength of the intent will not be sufficient to overcome any negative influences that may result from the subjective norm.

Subjective Norm

Despite the recognized correlation, attitudes have not shown to be absolutely predictive of behavior (Erwin, 2001). In order to derive meaningful results from an attitudinal study, the process must take into account the potential influences that may cause a deviation from behavioral intent consistent with the expressed attitude, and alter the individual's behavior.

The subjective norm is the social pressure an individual experiences to behave in a certain way (Ajzen, 2002), and can alter behavioral intention if its influence is stronger than the attitude held regarding the intended behavior. In other words, if an individual holds a negative or neutral attitude toward a behavior, that individual will be more easily persuaded to alter their intent to engage in the target behavior. Such is the case when job placement is the target behavior for rehabilitation counselors. A counselor with a negative or neutral attitude toward conducting job placement activities will be easily persuaded not to engage in those activities if the perception is that the organization doesn't want him or her to do so. The converse of this principle is also true and can influence a counselor to engage in job placement activities.

Perceived Behavioral Control

Another concept linked with motivation and performance is that of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986, 2001). Ajzen (2002) indicated that the principle of self-efficacy, introduced by Albert Bandura (1977), is representative of the concept of perceived behavioral control. Self-efficacy is defined as "people's judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performance" (Bandura, 1986, pg.391). The concept of self-efficacy has been applied in the study of a wide variety of specific behaviors (e.g. exercise, condom use, career choice, etc.) across all age groups (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003; Crosby, et al., 2003; McAuley, Jerome, Marquez, Elavsky, & Blissmer, 2003; Nauta & Epperson, 2003; Turner & Johnson, 2003). Bandura (1986, 1997) distinguished between two types of expectations that contribute to the principle of self-efficacy. The first is the efficacy expectation, or a person's expectation that they can perform tasks at a certain level. The second is the outcome expectation, or the belief that the intended behavior will result in the desired outcome.

Fabian and Waugh (2001) applied the principle of self-efficacy to the practice of job placement. They developed and validated an instrument to measure professional's perceived self-efficacy in relation to the job placement process, which included items addressing both efficacy and outcome expectations. This is important as self-efficacy can be modified through instructions and dialogue (Bandura, 1986). Therefore, if self-efficacy proves to be a significant factor in a counselor's motivation to engage in job placement and development activities, then educators and agencies should be able to increase involvement through training and education. For more detailed discussion of self-efficacy in the job placement process see Fabian and Waugh (2001).

Statement of the Problem

Confusion currently exists within the public sector regarding the role of the rehabilitation counselor in the job placement process (Ford & Swett, 1999). While formal academic programs and agency in-service training are designed to prepare the public rehabilitation counselors to perform job placement duties, they continue to be minimally involved in the process. The current study will attempt to understand the apparent discrepancy between agency policy and counselor practice through an examination of the following research questions: 1) What is the extent of counselor involvement in the placement process?, and 2) What are the factors that may influence their intended behavior?

The dependent variables utilized in the data analysis include hours per week engaged in job placement activities, and the percentage of those services contracted out to vendors. The rationale for utilizing hours and percentage of services contracted is that both have been utilized as measures of counselor involvement in job placement and development activities (Fraser & Clowers, 1978; Research Triangle Institute, 2002; Zadny & James, 1977), and are indicative of the extent to which the counselors are directly engaging in those activities. Independent variables utilized in the current study include counselor's perceived self-efficacy, personal attitudes regarding job placement and development activities, and the participants' perception of their organization's attitude toward their involvement in job placement and development activities.

Hypotheses

The hypotheses that were tested are as follows:

1) Placement Efficacy would be significantly related to the hours spent each week in placement activities.

2) Placement Efficacy would be significantly related to the percentage of placement services contracted.

3) Personal attitudes toward placement activities would be significantly related to hours spent each week in placement activities.

4) Personal attitudes toward placement activities would be significantly related to the percentage of placement services contracted.

5) Perceived Organizational Attitudes toward placement would be significantly related to hours spent each week in placement activities.

6) Perceived Organizational Attitudes toward placement would be significantly related to the percentage of placement services contracted.

Method

Participants

Participants for this study were rehabilitation counselors employed by three different state rehabilitation agencies, in three different Rehabilitation Services Administration regions located in the South, Midwest, and Western United States. Individuals with other job duties in the agencies (e.g. rehabilitation technician) were not included in the study. Participants averaged 44.56 years of age (SD = 9.77), and 7.72 years with the agency (SD=7.47). The gender of the participants was 63.8% (190) female, 33.9% (101) male, and 2.3% (7) did not indicate their gender. The race of participants was 74.5% (222) White, 8.4% (25) African American, 5.4% (16) Hispanic, 1.3% (4)Asian / Pacific Islander, .7% (21) Native American, .3% (9) Multiracial, and 9.4% (28) provided no indication of race. The highest degree obtained by participants was 34.2% (102) Bachelor's Degree, 62.1% (185) Master's Degree, 1.7% (5) Doctorate Degree, and 2.0% (6) did not provide any indication. Agency administrators from each state indicated that the expectation in their organization is that the rehabilitation counselors will be personally engaged in job development and placement activities.

Procedure

Agency administrators were contacted prior to the distribution of the instrument for authorization to conduct the study with rehabilitation counselors from their respective organizations. Agency administrations provided cooperation in distributing the internet-based electronic survey instrument. Invitations to participate were sent through agency administrators to 802 rehabilitation counselors employed by the participating agencies. The email invitation contained a link to the informed consent and instrument which were posted online. A reminder email was sent by agency administrators to the same counselors two weeks following the initial invitation.

Participants received an email from their agency administrators with a link to a webpage containing information regarding the study. They were informed that consent was given by selecting the link to continue with the study. Those electing to not participate were directed to an alternative webpage. Those that elected to participate were directed to a webpage with each of the items from the instrument. They indicated their responses to each item by selecting answers on the webpage. The completed instrument was then submitted electronically by selecting the "Submit Survey" option. The electronic survey software utilized made the entire data set available at the end of collection in a spreadsheet format

Instrument

The instrument utilized in the current study consisted of five primary components, including the Job Development Efficacy Scale (Fabian & Waugh, 2001), Personal Placement Attitudes Scale, Perceived Organizational Attitudes Scale, Placement Involvement, and a Demographic Questionnaire.

To measure self-efficacy in relation to job placement and development, the Job Development Efficacy Scale (JDES; Fabian & Waugh, 2001) was utilized. The JDES is a 20 item instrument, using a 5 point rating scale. The possible scores range from 20 to 100. Some items are negatively worded, requiring reverse scoring in the data analysis. Higher scores on the JDES indicate a higher level of perceived self-efficacy in relation to job development and placement activities. In their validation study, Fabian and Waugh (2001) report an inter-item reliability (Cronbach's Alpha) of .81. Validity was addressed through a principle components analysis (PCA) which identified managing employer concerns, addressing employment barriers, and marketing services as three primary factors.

To measure participants' personal attitudes and their perception of organizational attitudes towards their involvement in job placement and development activities, it was requisite that an attitudinal scale be developed. Items were generated through a transcript-based analysis (Kreuger, 1998) of a distance-based focus group which utilized threaded discussion technology. Participants included five rehabilitation counselors currently employed within the public rehabilitation system. Smaller focus group size is called for when participants have a high level of involvement in the topic and the aim is to gain a more in-depth understanding of participant responses (Morgan, 1998). The focus group was facilitated by a rehabilitation education faculty member over an 8 day period of time. A total of 18 attitudinal items were generated through the discussion process relating to both personal and organizational attitudes. Three items were discarded following the factor analysis (see results section). The final attitudinal scales consisted of a total of 15 items. The first scale contained 10 items addressing personal attitudes, resulting in a possible score range of 10 to 50. The second subscale contained 5 items measuring the counselor's perception of his/her organizational attitudes towards counselor involvement in job placement and development activities. The range of possible scores was 5 to 25. For both subscales a higher score is indicative of a more positive attitude regarding the counselor's involvement in job placement and development activities. The reliability and validity of the attitudinal scales are discussed in the results section. To assess the level of involvement of counselors in job placement activities, participants were asked to report the average hours per week that they engaged in job development and placement activities, and the percentage of these services that they contract out to vendors.

Results

Of the original 802 invitations to participate that were sent out, 298 responses were submitted. Of those received, 10 responses contained incomplete data and were not utilized in the final data analysis (n = 288) resulting in a 36% response rate. While the response rate to electronic based surveys obtained here is higher than the 1%-6% reported in the electronic based market survey research (Basi, 1999; Kent & Brandal, 2003; Kent & Lee, 1999; Tse, 1995) and a 24% response rate reported in an electronically administered study involving a professional health organization (De Saxe, 2002), it is still lower than one would expect with the support of the participants' administrators, and is acknowledged as one of the limitations of the study.

Reliability and Validity

The combined attitudinal items resulted in an inter-item reliability (Cronbach's Alpha) of r=.89. The validity of the attitudinal items was addressed using a principal components factor analysis, rotated using Verimax rotation. The data were factorable as evidenced by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy, which was r = .82. Additionally, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was significant at the p < .001 level.

In the factor analysis two factors were extracted. This decision was based upon an examination of the Scree plot. Eigenvalues for factors one and two were 5.123 and 2.470 respectively. Factor one, a factor representing personal attitudes (e.g. "I have an essential influence on the placement process.") accounted for 22% of the variance. Factor two, representing the participants' perception of the organizational attitudes (e.g. "My state agency wants me directly involved in placement activities.") accounted for 20% of the variance. Both factors accounted for 42% of the variance. Cronbach's Alpha for factors one and two were .81 and .83 respectively. Three of the original 18 items were dropped following the PCA. One item did not adequately load on any factor, and two items loaded equally on both factors. Upon review of the items that loaded equally it was determined that both items were ambiguous, and were therefore eliminated.

Participants reported a range of 1 to 28 (M=3.25, SD=3.83) hours per week engaged in job placement and development activities. On this item 62.5% of respondents indicated that they engaged in two hours or less of placement activities each week. Participants reported contracting between zero and 100% (M= 65.57, SD=31.29) of their job placement and development services to community vendors. It should be noted that the median score for this item was 75% of placement services contracted. Job Development Efficacy Scale scores ranged from 29 to 91 (M=53.59, SD= 10.21). Personal Attitude Scale participant scores ranged from 10 to 40 (M=21.15, SD=5.78), and from 5 to 25 (M=I 3.17, SD=4.53) on the Perceived Organizational Scale. The means and standard deviations for the individual items in the Job Development Efficacy Scale, and the Personal Attitudes and Perceived Organizational Attitudes Scales, are contained in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.

Data Analysis

To test the hypotheses, two standard multiple regressions were performed. The first utilized percentage contracted as the dependent variable and personal attitudes, perceived organizational attitudes, and placement efficacy as independent variables. The second regression used the same independent variables and hours per week as the dependent variable. Because multiple testing of a single sample introduces an inflated Type I error rate (Trabachnick & Fidell, 2001), a more stringent alpha level was set at [alpha] =.025.

As a result of the evaluation of assumptions it was determined that a transformation of data was required for the hours per week variable to improve normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity of residuals. A logarithmic transformation was used with the hours per week variable. An examination of residual scatterplots following the logarithmic transformation indicated that the assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity had been met (Yabachnick & Fiddell, 2001).

In the first regression examining the relationship between personal attitudes, perceived organization attitudes, and placement efficacy to the dependent variable of percentage contracted, only one of the independent variables was significantly related. Perceived organizational attitude was significantly related (p = .000) to the percentage of placement services that were contracted out to vendors. All three variables accounted for 21% (20% adjusted) of the variability.

The second regression utilized average hours per week engaged in job placement activity as the dependent variable. Personal attitudes (p = .032) and perceived organizational attitudes (p = .034) were both related to the average number of hours each week that public rehabilitation counselors engaged in placement activities. However, with the more stringent alpha levels to account for an inflated Type I error rate, these relationships were not statistically significant. Additionally, the independent variables only accounted for 9.8% (8.9% adjusted) of the variability. Summaries of the regression analyses are contained in Tables 3 and 4.

Based on these finding, the null hypothesis of perceived organizational attitudes being significantly related to percentage contracted was rejected. In the case of the five remaining hypotheses there was a failure to reject the null hypothesis at the alpha level of significance indicated.

To better understand the data, correlations were utilized in an ad hoc manner. The Pearson correlation between the respondents personal attitudes and perceived organizational attitudes was low (r = .284). The correlation between job placement efficacy and personal attitudes was notable (r = .617).

Discussion

There are limitations to this study that must be taken into consideration when evaluating the results. The sample was limited, which restricts the generalizability of the results to only those professionals that were participants. Also, the response rate (37%) was fairly low considering the endorsement of the project by state administrators. Finally, attitudinal items were developed and scored based on the underlying assumption that it is desirable to have rehabilitation counselors in the public sector involved in the job placement process. If the reader holds the opinion that this is not the case, then a low score on the attitudinal scale is not necessarily a negative finding, as it may be portrayed in the following discussion.

Despite the limitations of the current study, the results raise questions for the field of rehabilitation counseling at two levels. The first has to do with the performance of placement activities by rehabilitation counselors in the public sector. The second has to do with job development and placement as being one of the primary roles and functions of a rehabilitation counselor.

The most surprising finding pertaining to the performance of job placement activities by public rehabilitation counselors is the low scores on the personal attitudes scale (PAS). Not only was the mean score for the PAS low (21.15 out of a possible 50), but the mean scores for some of the individual items are worth noting. On a scale of one to five (one being "Strongly Disagree" and five being "Strongly Agree"), the mean score for the item "Job placement is not an essential part of the rehabilitation process" was 4.44. This is indicative of a strong bias against placement by rehabilitation counselors in the public sector. This is especially surprising considering the amount of education and in-service training required on the topic of job placement for the public rehabilitation counselors. Additional examination of each of the personal attitude items provides the picture that counselors in the public sector do not place a priority on placement, that interacting with employers is not important to them, and that they generally do not feel they have an impact on the placement process. It is remarkable that within this sample of public rehabilitation counselors attitudes were so low regarding a service recognized as being central to achieving the organization's mandate of assisting persons with disabilities in obtaining employment.

An examination of the placement efficacy items indicate that public rehabilitation counselors are not comfortable making employer contacts, assisting employers in making accommodations, or dealing with employer complaints. Additionally, they are not comfortable explaining the purpose of their agency and marketing the agency's services. The lack of comfort in working with employers holds significant ramifications for undermining the marketing approach to placement that is essential to current practices in job placement (Millington, Asner, Linkowski, & Der-Stepanian, 1996). The expressed level of comfort in working with employers makes it extremely difficult for the rehabilitation counselor to market the agency for which they work, which will negatively impact the number and quality of placements in the community.

If public agencies do not want rehabilitation counselors involved personally in the placement process, then serious consideration should be given to the expenditures of funding and time in the provision of in-service training and education on job placement. To train rehabilitation counselors extensively in the job placement process and not require any activity sends a conflicting message to the counselor in the field.

If public agencies want the rehabilitation counselors be involved in the placement process, then attention should focus on why that message is not being effectively received. Agencies need to examine the communication structure of their organization to determine what priorities are being communicated to the counselors in the field. Is the message being sent that placement is not a priority to the agency? Are case management and paperwork tasks overriding the placement process in level of priority? Priorities are a component of the organizational culture that communicates expectations to the counselors in the field.

To summarize the findings in terms of the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 2001), counselors have negative to neutral attitudes regarding their involvement in job placement activities. Their perceived behavioral control, as measured by job placement efficacy, is neutral. This results in the subjective norm, perceived organizational attitudes, as being the driving force behind the counselors' involvement in the job placement and development process. Currently, it appears that counselors' perception that the organization does not want them conducting job placement is influencing their absence from the placement process.

In light of the current strains on the public rehabilitation system, including high caseloads and personnel shortages due to turnover and retirement, time restraints would necessitate a reduced role in the job placement process by rehabilitation counselors. It is essential, though, that the importance of the rehabilitation counselor's involvement in the placement process, however structured, is not lost through inattention. Agencies are faced with the challenge of clarifying their position regarding counselors' involvement in job placement, and training counselors to maintain at least a minimal level of involvement amidst the rest of their responsibilities.

The data presented here should not be interpreted as a failure on the part of the public rehabilitation agencies to engage in competent practice. Given the lack of outcomes research relevant to the impact of training and education on placement activities and success, the vending approach to job placement and development is entirely reasonable. Rather, the data presented is indicative of a larger issue for the rehabilitation counseling profession.

The question these results raise for the rehabilitation counseling profession is simply, "Based on this data, is job placement and development an essential role and function of the rehabilitation counselor?" The focus on employment outcomes has played a large role in the development of the rehabilitation counseling profession, and is one of the unique differences that set the rehabilitation counselor apart from other human service professionals. However, maintaining that job placement and development, as it is currently defined, taught, and practiced, is one of the essential roles and functions of a master's trained rehabilitation counselor needs to be examined. Is it appropriate that a service currently being provided by service providers trained at the undergraduate level (in some cases less than undergraduate) be considered an essential role and function of the master's level trained professional? Such a claim is a potential liability in the efforts toward parity in the counseling and human service professions. Either the role and function of the rehabilitation counselor pertaining to job placement and development needs to be redefined (Ford, 1999), or research efforts need to generate empirical evidence indicating that outcomes are improved when provided by master's trained individuals.

Future research in the area of job placement and development should address three primary areas. The first priority should be outcome studies utilizing training level as an independent variable. This should address whether there is a benefit to having a Master's trained professional providing the job placement and development services. The second focus should be on the impact of varying levels of contact that rehabilitation counselors have with employers on placement outcomes. If it is determined that there is not a difference in outcome between those trained at the graduate level and those trained at the undergraduate level, then empirical evidence will be needed to assist in redefining the role of the rehabilitation counselor in the job placement and development process. Finally, the data seems to indicate a discrepancy between what is endorsed by the agency administrations and what is being practiced in the field. The entire field of rehabilitation would benefit from investigation into the organizational culture of the rehabilitation organizations, and the communication of priorities from administrative levels to case service providers.

Summary

Job placement and development has played a major role in the rehabilitation counseling profession, in both educational programs and in practice. In the public sector, however, there remains confusion by rehabilitation counselors regarding the role they play in the placement process. It is essential that the confusion regarding the job placement process be addressed as there continues to be significant expenditures of funds and time to facilitate a process which is apparently neither valued, nor engaged in by the rehabilitation counselors in the public sector.

References

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683.

Allport, G. (1967). Attitudes. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 1-13). New York: John Wiley.

Bacchini, D., & Magliulo, F. (2003). Self-image and perceived self-efficacy during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 337-349.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Basi, R.K. (1999). World Wide Web response rates to socio-demographic items. Journal of the Market Research Society, 41, 397-441.

Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (2003). CRCC certification guide. Rolling Meadows, IL: Author.

Council on Rehabilitation Counselor Education, (2004). CORE accreditation manual. Retrieved December 2, 2004, from http://www.core-rehab.org//manual/index.html

Crosby, R.A., DiClemente, R.J., Wingood, G.M., Salazar, L.F., Harrington, K., Davies, S.L., et al. (2003). Identification of strategies for promoting condom use: A prospective analysis of high-risk African American female teens. Prevention Science, 4, 263-270.

De Saxe, I. (2002). The royal Australian and New Zealand college of psychiatrists? Australian Psychiatry, 10, 179-180.

Emener, W.G., & Rubin, S.E. (1980). Rehabilitation counselor roles and functions and sources of role strain. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 11, 57-69.

Erwin, P. (2001). Attitudes and persuasion. New York: Psychology Press.

Fabian, E.S. & Waugh, C. (2001). A job development efficacy scale for rehabilitation professionals. Journal of Rehabilitation, 67, 42-47.

Ford, L.H. (1999). Job placement and rehabilitation counselors in the state - federal system. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 42, 354-365.

Ford, L.H., & Swett, E.A. (1999). Job placement and rehabilitation counselors in the state-federal system. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 42, 354-365.

Fraser, R.T. & Clowers, M.R. (1978). Rehabilitation counselor functions: Perceptions of time spent and complexity. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 2, 30-35.

Fraser, R.T., Vandergoot, D., Thomas, D., & Wagner, C.C. (2004). Employment outcomes research in vocational rehabilitation: Implications for rehabilitation counselor (RC) training. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 20, 135-142.

General Accounting Office. (1993). Vocational rehabilitation: Evidence for Federal program's effectiveness is mixed (GAO/PEMD-93-19). Washington DC: Author.

Hansen, M.C. (1983). Use of the job placement plan in vocational rehabilitation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2361.

Hagner, D, Fesko, S., Cadigan, M, Kiernan, W., & Butterworth, J. (1996). Securing employment: Job search and employer negotiation strategies in rehabilitation. In E.M Szymanski & R.M. Parker (Eds.), Work and disability: Issues and strategies in career development and job placement, (pp. 309-340). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Kent, R. & Brandal, H. (2003). Improving email response in a permission marketing context. International Journal of Market Research, 45, 489-503.

Kent, R. & Lee, M. (1999). Using internet for market research: a study of private trading on the internet. Journal of the Market Research Society, 41, 277-285.

Kiesler, C.A., Collins, B.E., & Miller, N. (1969). Attitude change. A critical analysis of theoretical approaches. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Krueger, R.A. (1998). Analyzing and reporting focus group results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leahy, M.J., Chan, F., & Saunders, J.L. (2003). Job functions and knowledge requirements of certified rehabilitation counselors in the 21st century. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 46, 66-81.

McAuley, E., Jerome, G.J., Marquez, D.X., Elavsky, S., & Blissmer, B. (2003). Exercise self-efficacy in older adults: Social, affective, and behavioral influences. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 1-7.

Millington, M.J., Asner, K.K., Linkowski, D.C., & Der-Stepanian, J. (1996). Employers and job development: The business perspective. In E.M Szymanski & R.M. Parker (Eds.), Work and disability: Issues and strategies in career development and job placement, (pp. 277-308). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Morgan, D.L. (1998). Planning focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Nauta, M.M., & Epperson, D.L. (2003). A longitudinal examination of the social-cognitive model applied to high school girls' choices of nontraditional college majors and aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 448-457.

Research Triangle Institute. (2002). Longitudinal study of the Vocational Rehabilitation services program. Second final report: VR services and outcomes. Washington, D.C.: Rehabilitation Services Administration.

Roessler, R.T., & Rubin, S.E. (Eds.). (1992). Case management and rehabilitation Counseling: Procedures and techniques (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Szymanski, E.M. & Parker, R. M. (2003). Work and disability: Issues and strategies in career development and job placement (2nd Ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed Inc.

Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (200l). Using multivariate statistics (4th Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Turner, L.A., & Johnson, B. (2003). A model of mastery motivation for at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 495-505.

Tse, A.C.B. (1995). Comparing the response rate, response speed and response quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: email vs. mail. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40, 353-361.

Zadny, J.J. & James, L.F. (1977). Time spent on placement. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 21, 31-35.

Jared C. Schultz

Utah State University

Jared C. Schultz, Ph.D., CRC, Assistant Professor, Rehabilitation Counseling Program, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Utah State University Email:

Table 1
Job Development Efficacy Item Means and Standard Deviations

Self-Efficacy Items                                       Mean    SD

I am confident about explaining to employers how to
make their workplaces accessible to consumers with
disabilities.                                             2.39   .966

I am nervous when I have to approach unknown
prospective employers about jobs.                         3.36   1.26

I have a difficult time finding jobs because there
are so few jobs available.                                2.49   1.11

I can use a variety of job placement strategies to
develop and maintain placements.                          2.31   .955

I am confident that I can place my clients in
competitive jobs regardless of their disabilities.        2.99   1.02

I am comfortable addressing sensitive issues
regarding consumer disabilities without violating
confidentiality.                                          2.20   .986

I am comfortable describing my agency to prospective
employers.                                                1.65   .734

It is difficult to balance the competing demands of
consumers and employers.                                  2.45   .942

I am confident about explaining disclosure issues to
potential employers.                                      2.40   .983

It is difficult for me to meet the right "contact"
person in a prospective business.                         3.09   1.00

It is hard for me to find jobs because there are so
few jobs my consumers are qualified to do.                3.04   1.06

I am confident about discussing my consumer's needs
for job accommodations with employers.                    2.27   .939

I am confident that employers are satisfied with my
job placement services.                                   2.62   .729

I am comfortable meeting and talking with prospective
employers.                                                2.20   .953

I am confident about dealing with stereotypes
potential employers have about my consumers.              2.05   .851

It is difficult to secure jobs for my consumers in
the current job market.                                   2.08   .948

It is easy for me to market my agency services to
prospective employers.                                    2.68   1.02

I can usually find jobs that match the qualifications
and interests of the consumers I work with.               2.83   .906

I am confident about hearing and responding to
employer complaints.                                      2.05   .798

Chance or luck is a key factor in my ability to
find jobs for consumers.                                  3.21   .990

Table 2
Personal Attitudes and Perceived Organizational Attitudes Scales Item
Means and Standard Deviations.

               Personal Attitudes Items                   Mean    SD

Venders provide all of the necessary functions in
the job placement process.                                3.56   .982

I have an essential influence on the placement
process.                                                  2.01   .952

Doing placement causes me stress.                         3.14   1.12

Job placement is not an essential part of the
rehabilitation process.                                   4.44   .751

My relationship with employers is important for
successful employment outcomes.                           1.90   .892

There is no need for me to personally do job
placement and development.                                3.66   1.05

It is important for me to be involved in the
placement process as more than just a source of
funding.                                                  1.80   .773

Placement is simply not a high priority for me.           3.93   .996

I would like to do more job placement than I
currently do.                                             2.47   1.07

Job placement is conducted by other people, and is
not something a rehabilitation counselor does.            3.81   1.05

I regularly spend time developing my relationships
with employers.                                           3.42   .970

I am comfortable engaging in the job placement
process with persons that experience disabilities.        2.14   .884

It is essential for rehabilitation counselors to
meet and interact with employers.                         2.01   .845

       Perceived Organizational Attitudes Items

My state agency wants me to be directly involved in
placement activities.                                     2.23   1.02

There is not support from my agency for me to conduct
job placement                                             3.07   1.28

I get mixed messages from my agency about my
involvement in placement activities.                      2.84   1.23

The message I get from my immediate supervisor is
that my participation in job placement activities is
not a priority.                                           3.59   1.12

The message I have received from my agency is that
the counselors do not have to do job placement.           3.56   1.16

Table 3

Variables             Percentage    Personal   Organization
                      (DV)          Attitude   Attitude

Personal Attitude        .238

Organization             .441         .289
Attitude

Efficacy                 .197         .620         .206

Means                    65.45       21.07        13.20

Standard Deviations     31.366       5.783        4.583

Variables             Efficacy         B         [beta]       Sig.

Personal Attitude                     .446        .082        .235

Organization                         2.768        .404        .000
Attitude

Efficacy                              .192        .063        .352
                      Intercept =    9.246
Means                 53.51

Standard Deviations   10.298

R = .459

R2 = .21

Adjusted R2 = .20

Table 4

Variables                Hours         Personal   Organization
                         (DV)          Attitude   Attitude

Personal Attitude        -.272
Organization Attitude    -.198         .289
Efficacy                 -.247         .620       .206

Means                    .5257         21.07      13.20
Standard Deviations      .267          5.783      4.583

Variables                Efficacy      B          [beta]         Sig.

Personal Attitude                      -.007      -.160          .032
Organization Attitude                  -.007      -.126          .034
Efficacy                               -.003      -.122          .092
                         Intercept =   .948
Means                    53.51
Standard Deviations      10.298

R = .314

R2 = .098

Adjusted R2 = .089