Rural/urban differences in counselor satisfaction and extrinsic job factors. (Rural/Urban Differences).

The construct of job satisfaction for rehabilitation counselors has been examined by a number of authors (Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, & Campbell, 1957; Szymanski & Parker, 1995; Wright & Terrian, 1987). Additionally, the issue of differential service provision between rural and urban rehabilitation counselors has received attention in recent years (Lam, Chan, Parker, & Carter 1987; Lowrey, 1980; Rural Facts, 1995). Researchers have reported that rural counselors face considerable difficulty in locating resources (Tonsing-Gonzales, 1989), arranging transportation, and finding job openings (Harley, Rice, & Dean, 1996) compared to their urban counterparts. However, some studies have identified particular advantages that rural counselors report such as a sense of community and a slower pace of life (e.g., Arnold & Seekins, 1998; Sullivan, Hasler, & Otis, 1993). This study examines job satisfaction differences between rural and urban rehabilitation counselors and their satisfaction with extrinsic job factors.

Problem, Purpose, and Rationale

Attracting and retaining skilled professionals to the field of rehabilitation is critical for the delivery of high quality services to people with disabilities. One important aspect in attracting and retaining skilled professionals is job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has been conceptualized as being a bi-directional construct consisting of intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Herzberg et al., 1957). Intrinsic factors are described as variables such as recognition, the work itself, and achievement; while extrinsic factors are described as variables, such as working conditions, compensation, and co-workers. Intrinsic factors are further conceptualized as being satisfiers or motivators and extrinsic factors are further conceptualized as being dissatisfiers or hygiene factors (Herzberg et al., 1957).

This study sought to identify extrinsic job factors that current rehabilitation counselors perceive as contributing to job satisfaction. The identification of these factors will assist administrators in designing work environments that attract and retain highly qualified rehabilitation professionals, thus making a major contribution to the provision of quality rehabilitation services to people with disabilities.

Literature Review

Significant work has been done toward examining the relationship of intrinsic and extrinsic factors to rehabilitation counselor satisfaction (e.g., Szymanski & Parker, 1995; Wright & Terrian, 1987). Emener and Stephens (1982) found an approximately equal number of intrinsic and extrinsic factors identified with aspects of the job that were considered good by rehabilitation workers. Extrinsic factors, on the other hand, accounted for most of the aspects of the job that were considered bad. Wright and Tertian associate Herzberg's extrinsic factors with Maslow's lower order needs. Until these lower order needs are met, higher order needs, as reflected in intrinsic factors, cannot be met.

Job satisfaction is an important area of study because, with the changing demographics of the United States, the labor supply will continue to tighten (Vallen, 1993). Vallen stated that 20 to 30% of absenteeism or turnover is related to job dissatisfaction. Accordingly, employers will likely remain interested in issues affecting employee turnover. A wide variety of disciplines has examined the issue of job satisfaction, with data typically being collected with self-report surveys. The most frequent approach is to ask employees to identify factors that they perceived as being positive, as well as factors that they perceived as being negative (Wright & Terrian, 1987).

Szymanski and Parker (1995) examined vocational rehabilitation employees' motivation and its effect on performance and satisfaction. They found that participants reported their primary and secondary reasons for joining the agency as being a mixture of one dissatisfier (extrinsic) factor (e.g., pay, security, or working conditions) and one motivator (intrinsic) factor (e.g., need for autonomy, responsibility, or accomplishment). However, 26% of the respondents reported that the reasons for staying on the job were one motivator factor and one dissatisfier and 32% reported that both primary and secondary reasons for staying on the job were dissatisfier factors.

Health disorders, intention to quit, and attempts to change jobs were negatively related to job satisfaction in rehabilitation practitioners (Wright & Tertian, 1987). Data from the Wright and Tertian study indicated that rehabilitation practitioners reported the greatest degree of job satisfaction with the intrinsic aspects of their jobs such as work roles, work activities, and autonomy. The areas with the lowest reported job satisfaction were policies, administrative practices, rules, and certain aspects of the work environment.

Rural areas present specific challenges to persons with disabilities and, correspondingly, to the rehabilitation counselor who assists those persons. An increased incidence of disability is found in rural populations, which is to be expected because demographically, rural residents are disproportionally over the age of 65 and have lower incomes compared to urban dwellers (Jackson & Seekins, 1992). Despite these substantial limitations for the persons with disabilities, most do not want to relocate to an urban area where services would more easily be obtained. Instead, most prefer to remain in a familiar environment close to family and friends (Mathews-Berenson, 1992).

The significant needs of individuals in rural areas have been noted for some years. Congress attempted to address rural health care needs through various plans to boost rural services (Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 1990), while others emphasized the need to find ways to increase early intervention services (Doctoroff, 1995). Despite these efforts, sparse services in most rural environments for people with disabilities led one author to describe the concept of choice of service providers as laughable for rural residents with disabilities (Tonsing-Gonzales, 1989). The issue is not of having a choice of service providers, but rather trying to find any service provider.

Factors related to rural versus urban vocational rehabilitation (VR) office location and job satisfaction have also been examined. One study found that rural counselors reported many positive aspects of being a VR counselor in a rural area (Rural Facts, 1995). However, certain issues were particularly problematic for rural VR counselors, such as a lack of public transportation, insufficient employment opportunities for clients, and an insufficient number of job coaches when utilizing supported employment. If the same item was a problem for both urban and rural counselors, typically, it was more of a problem for rural counselors. The reported strengths for both rural and urban counselors were matters over which the VR agency had direct control, such as counselors having sufficient authority to do their job and having training on technical aspects of their job. The problems reported by rural and urban counselors were typically matters over which the VR agency had little or no control, such as consumers' finances or the local economy.

Generally, people who reside in rural areas have fewer job opportunities, lower educational levels, and limited or no public transportation (Arnold, Seekins, & Nelson, 1997). Arnold et al. surveyed 215 rural and 107 urban counselors in 32 of the most rural states, examining differences in both available resources and job satisfaction. The survey results indicated that urban counselors were more satisfied with the job opportunities and education and training opportunities for their clients than were rural counselors. Rural counselors were more satisfied with networking opportunities than were urban counselors. Rural counselors were dissatisfied with transportation opportunities while urban counselors were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied with available transportation options. The authors theorized that although satisfaction measures are subjective, they are important because the measures represent the counselors' reality. Also, satisfaction ratings generally fell in the moderate range indicating that all counselors would like more resources, with rural counselors indicating they had the least access to needed resources.

Mental health providers also report particular difficulties that they observe in rural areas. For instance, with the family farm crisis that began in the 1980s, increased incidences of domestic violence, homelessness, and alcohol abuse have been noted (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1991). Rural residents described the large geographic distances, lack of mental health providers, and higher poverty rates as being significant barriers to accessing mental health services.

Additional problems associated with rural living are discussed by Bushy and Carty (1994). These authors describe the traditional values and behaviors that are frequently observed in rural communities. In particular, they describe the attitudes of self-reliance and self-care that inhibit some from seeking professional mental health services. Families typically rely on each other rather than seeking outside help. Problems such as alcohol abuse and sexual abuse are typically kept within the family unit, rather than being brought to the attention of mental health providers. Saving the reputation of and maintaining the integrity of the family are of paramount importance. Bushy and Carty also note that local politicians may inhibit the seeking of grants that would allow for greater access to services. Small, tightly knit groups of the town's elite may fight any efforts that would challenge the existing power structure.

While significant barriers exist to providing comprehensive services, a number of ideas have been put forth to ameliorate these barriers. For instance, the Center for Mental Health Services has established a Frontier Mental Health Services Resource Network to provide a centralized data collection and analysis center for extremely low-density areas. The hope is that a centralized information center will allow for better service provision (Mental Health Weekly, 1995). Also, linkage models have been developed which attempt to tie health care organizations together in rural areas (Van Hook & Ford, 1998). By having semi-formal agency linkages, professionals can improve communication and resource allocation for their clients. These linkages allow maximum services to be obtained with minimal agency duplication and waste of scarce resources. In addition to benefiting rural areas, models that are developed to maximize service delivery effectiveness may also be generalized to urban areas to improve services (Herzig & Murphy, 1997).

The medical field has experimented with various methods to both help contain medical costs as well as increase accessibility to services in rural areas. Telemedicine is one technique that offers a mechanism for radiology and other medical specialties to be able to reach out to rural areas. By providing diagnostic capabilities over telephone lines, rather than requiring patients from rural areas to travel to urban areas, increased accessibility and decreased costs result (Malagodi & Smith, 1999). The authors believe similar advantages could be obtained in vocational rehabilitation services.

In a similar fashion, Allen and Seekins (1994) believe that rehabilitation service delivery models should be designed that take advantage of the inherent strengths of rural environments. Although rural environments typically have pervasive barriers to employment for people with disabilities, such as decreased availability of services, decreased economic opportunities, and attitudes that may impede effective service delivery, rural areas also have relative strengths that can and should be exploited in the service delivery process. One particular strength is that rural areas typically have a strong sense of community that encourages people to help their neighbors. Allen and Seekins state that rural service delivery models should be individualized to each community's particular strengths.

Clearly, rural counselors face many difficult issues that their urban counterparts either do not face or face to a lesser extent. One could assume that these factors would result in differing levels of job satisfaction between rural and urban rehabilitation counselors. This study examined job satisfaction differences between rural and urban rehabilitation counselors and the relationship between the level of satisfaction and extrinsic job factors. The first set of research questions (1 and 2) attempted to determine if rural and urban rehabilitation counselors experienced different levels of job satisfaction and, if they did, whether or not the differences were related to extrinsic job factors. The second set of research questions (3 and 4) examined differences in demographic variables between rural and urban counselors. The final research question (5) looked for a relationship between counselor job satisfaction and issues related to travel, supervision, and office location. The investigation of job satisfaction differences for rural and urban rehabilitation counselors is appropriate because of the differential resources and challenges placed upon these two groups. By discovering aspects of rehabilitation counselors' jobs which are perceived as positive and negative, problematic issues can be addressed and hopefully, ameliorated, leading to decreased turnover, increased job tenure, and ultimately to improved services for rehabilitation consumers. The research questions are as follows:

1. Do counselors with rural caseloads and counselors with urban caseloads report different perceptions of

A. satisfaction with extrinsic job factors;

B. the importance of extrinsic job factors;

C. overall job satisfaction?

2. Do counselors in large offices and counselors in small offices report different perceptions of

A. satisfaction with extrinsic job factors;

B. the importance of extrinsic job factors;

C. overall job satisfaction?

3. Do counselors serving rural caseloads exhibit different demographic characteristics than counselors serving urban caseloads

A. on the dimensions of age, years of education, years of experience, years in office, or

B. on the factors of gender, major, licensure/certification, having a disability, or race?

4. Do counselors in large offices exhibit different demographic characteristics than counselors in small offices

A. on the dimensions of age, years of education, years of experience, years in office, or

B. on the factors of gender, major, licensure/certification, having a disability, or race?

5. Is counselor satisfaction related to number of counselors in office, agency building co-inhabitants, distance from supervisor, hours per week traveling, or miles traveled per week?

Method

This study of urban/rural differences in job satisfaction, sanctioned by the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR), was a part of a broader study addressing the issues of counselor job satisfaction and its relationship to extrinsic job factors. Readers are encouraged to see Andrew, Faubion, and Palmer (in press) for a comprehensive description of the study.

Sample

Sixteen state rehabilitation agencies (both general agencies and agencies serving people who are visually impaired) were randomly selected to be surveyed. States represented included Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia. Using state maps and agency directories, office locations were selected to represent both large and small offices. Small offices were operationally defined as having fewer than six counselors listed in the office directory. The sample of counselors was a stratified random sample selected so that there would be an equal number of counselors from both large and small offices.

Three hundred eighty surveys were mailed to state rehabilitation agency counselors. Four surveys were returned as undeliverable, 22 (5%) counselors returned the survey reply envelope as instructed to indicate that they would not participate, and 39 (10%) counselors did not respond to the original request, plus 2 additional follow-up mailings. The final sample contained 315 usable replies, which constituted an 84% response rate, with over 70% of the surveys being returned after the initial mailing.

Instrument

The survey instrument, as reported in Andrew, Faubion, and Palmer (in press) was described as:

   The Environment of Job Satisfaction Survey (EJSS) was developed
   specifically for this study. Implementing Schriner and Fawcett's (1988)
   "concerns report" methodology, participants were asked to rate both their
   satisfaction with, and the importance of, environmental and job
   satisfaction variables. Satisfaction survey items were adopted from the
   Rehabilitation Job Satisfaction Inventory (Wright & Terrian, 1987). An
   extensive review of the literature was conducted to identify environmental
   variables related to job satisfaction. This review produced an initial list
   containing 35 items identified as extrinsic factors related to job
   satisfaction.

      A panel, consisting of two rehabilitation counselors and three
   nationally recognized rehabilitation researchers, was formed to review the
   content of the survey. The panel was asked to individually rate, using a
   dichotomous scale (yes/no), the relevance of each item and to add any
   subject areas not previously identified in the initial draft. These
   responses were then incorporated into a subsequent draft that the panelists
   again rated. Items receiving less than a 75% relevance rating from the
   combined panel were dropped from the pool of items.

      The final instrument contained 50 items: 15 items concerned demographic
   information; 20 items asked for information regarding satisfaction with,
   and importance of, extrinsic factors on-the-job; 15 items focused
   specifically on job satisfaction and importance. Respondents rated
   environmental and job satisfaction items using two Likert-type scales.
   Agreement with the item was rated on a five-point scale with 0 = definitely
   disagree, 1 = disagree with reservations, 2 = impossible to give a definite
   answer, 3 = agree with reservations, and 4 = definitely agree. Importance
   was rated on a three-point scale with 0 = not important, 1 = somewhat
   important, and 2 = very important.

      The content validity of the instrument was addressed through the
   procedure with which the instrument was developed as described above, in
   conjunction with how respondents rated the importance of each item. The
   mean importance rating for all items was 1.67 out of a possible 2 (ranging
   from 1.0 to 1.9). Internal consistency, which is a method for estimating
   test score reliability, was assessed for this survey using Cronbach's
   coefficient alpha (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). High internal reliability for
   standardized variables was found within this survey (coefficient alpha =
   0.88).

Procedure

Counselors were mailed a packet containing the letter of introduction describing the purpose of the survey, a postage-paid return envelope, and the survey. Return envelopes contained a number that was used to maintain anonymity. The survey and the envelope were separated immediately upon receipt, with the survey going to the research team and the envelope going to the secretary who maintained the mailing list. No identifying marks were on the survey itself. Counselors were asked to return the postage-paid envelope if they did not want to participate and wanted to avoid follow-up contacts.

Results

The design of the research provided two methods of identifying rural and urban counselors. First, the stratified method of selecting the sample based on office size and location provided a category of large versus small offices. Second, the survey itself asked counselors to describe the makeup of their caseload as predominately urban, rural, or evenly mixed. Step one of the analysis was to ascertain the degree of relationship between the variables "size of office" (large or small) and "type of caseload" (rural or urban). Counselors with mixed caseloads were eliminated from this analysis, resulting in a reduction of the sample to 242 counselors. Using Spearman's rho, a correlation coefficient of 0.671 (p=.01) was obtained. Although the correlation was high, it accounted for less than 50% of the variance; therefore, subsequent analyses were done on both variables "size of office" and "type of caseload."

All statistical analyses were conducted using an alpha of .05 to determine significance, unless indicated otherwise. Research Question 1-A addressed the difference in perception between counselors with rural caseloads versus counselors with urban caseloads and their satisfaction with extrinsic job factors. The mean, median, and standard deviations of the 20 extrinsic job factors and the corresponding importance ratings are reported in Table 1.

Next, the 20 extrinsic job factors were clustered into seven groups labeled Convenience, Geographic Location, Safety, Healthy Environment, Facility Space, Comfort, and Professional Nature, which corresponded to the grouping of items on the survey instrument. Comfort and Professional Nature included items with the common stem "My agency facility." The groupings are shown in Table 2.

Results were analyzed using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), between groups design. This analysis revealed a significant multivariate effect for type of caseload Wilks' Lambda = .90, F (7,191) = 3.021; p = .005. Univariate results indicated that the factors Geographic Location [F (1,198) = 6.100; p = .014, Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .025] and Safety [F (1, 198) = 6.236; p = .013, Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .026] were statistically significant. On the factor Geographic Location, counselors serving rural caseloads reported greater satisfaction with extrinsic job factors (M = 3.53) than did counselors serving urban caseloads (M = 3.15). Similarly, on the Safety factor, counselors serving rural caseloads felt safer (M = 10.34) than did counselors serving urban caseloads (M = 9.39).

Research Question 1-B addressed differences in perception between counselors with rural versus urban caseloads and their perceptions of the importance of extrinsic job factors. Results were analyzed using a one-way MANOVA, between groups design. This analysis revealed no significant effect for caseload type, Wilks' Lambda = .932, F (7, 176) = 1.841; p = .082. Because the overall effect was not significant, univariate results were not examined.

Research Question 1-C examined differences between counselors with rural versus urban caseloads on overall job satisfaction. Based on a factor analysis, four of the five items that were included on the survey to measure job satisfaction were found to represent a single factor. Therefore, the total score for these four items (satisfaction with job; plan to stay on job; compared with past jobs, one of the best; and look forward to going to work) was used as the satisfaction measure. Using a two-tailed t test, no significant differences were found between counselors serving a rural caseload and counselors serving an urban caseload, on overall job satisfaction [t (230) = -1.048; p = .296].

Research Question 2-A examined differences between counselors working in large offices and counselors working in small offices with regard to their satisfaction with extrinsic job factors. Results were analyzed using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), between groups design. This analysis revealed a significant multivariate effect for large versus small office, Wilks' Lambda = .908, F (7,248) = 3.595; p = .001. Univariate results indicated that the four factors Geographic Location [F (1, 256) = 7.440; p = .007, Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .025], Safety [F (1, 256) = 9.165; p = .003, Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .031], Healthy Environment [F (1, 256) = 10.533; p = .001, Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .036], and Comfort [F (1, 256) = 5.977; p = .015, Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .019], were statistically significant.

Counselors in small offices reported that the Geographic Location of the agency was more convenient for them (M = 3.52) than did counselors in large offices (M = 3.16). On the Safety factor, small office counselors reported feeling safer (M = 10.32) than did large office counselors (M = 9.3). Counselors in small offices also reported a higher rating for the factor Healthy Environment (M = 3.15) than did large office counselors (M = 2.64). Finally, small office counselors reported higher ratings on the Comfort factor (M = 14.42) than did counselors in large offices (M = 13.2).

Research Question 2-B examined differences between counselors working in large offices and counselors working in small offices with regard to their perceptions of the importance of extrinsic job factors. Results were analyzed using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), between groups design. This analysis revealed a significant multivariate effect for large versus small offices, Wilks' Lambda = .931, F (7,232) = 2.450; p = .019. Univariate results indicated that the factor Safety, F (1, 240) = 4.503; p = .035, Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .014, was statistically significant. Counselors working in small offices reported higher ratings on the Safety factor (M = 5.34)than did counselors working in large offices (M = 4.97).

Research Question 2-C examined differences in job satisfaction between counselors from large offices versus counselors from small offices. Using a t test, no significant differences were found [t (300) = -1.219; p = .224].

Research Question 3-A examined whether counselors serving rural caseloads exhibited different demographic characteristics than counselors serving urban caseloads on the factors age, years of experience, years in the current office, and years of education. Because four t tests were conducted, the adjusted alpha was set at .0125, using the Bonferroni inequality (Pedhazur, 1982; Stevens, 1992). None of the four demographic factors was statistically significant for counselors serving rural caseloads versus counselors serving urban caseloads.

Research Question 3-B examined whether counselors serving rural caseloads exhibited different demographic characteristics than counselors serving urban caseloads on the factors gender, major, licensure/certification, having a disability, and race. None of the demographic factors was found to be statistically significant using alpha = .01, after adjusting the alpha level using the Bonferroni inequality.

Research Question 4-A examined whether counselors in large offices exhibit different demographic characteristics than counselors in small offices on the factors age, years of experience, years in the same office, and years of education. Using a Bonferroni inequality adjusted alpha of .0125, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups of counselors.

Research Question 4-B examined whether counselors in large offices exhibit different demographic characteristics than counselors in small offices on the factors gender, rehabilitation degree, licensure/certification, having a disability, or race. Using a Bonferroni inequality adjusted alpha of .01, no statistically significant differences were found on these five demographic characteristics.

Research Question 5 examined the relationship between counselor satisfaction and number of counselors in office, agency building co-inhabitants, distance from supervisor, hours per week spent traveling, and miles traveled per week. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, stepwise multiple regression was utilized. In this analysis, no variables were found to contribute a statistically significant and of variance to the regression equation.

Discussion and Conclusions

This study attempted to identify differences in job satisfaction and the relationship to extrinsic job factors, between rural and urban rehabilitation counselors. Rural and urban were identified in two ways. First, the sample was divided into two groups based on the type of client being served. Second, the sample was divided based on the counselor being located in a large, urban office versus a small, rural office. Although the resulting groups (large/urban versus small/rural) were highly correlated, the correlation accounted for less than 50% of the variance. Therefore, the analyses were conducted on both type of caseload and size of office. This decision proved to be wise because somewhat different results occurred depending on the definition used for rural and urban.

Although the literature review failed to find research on the topic of job satisfaction differences between rural and urban counselors, the researchers suspected that such differences would be found. These differences clearly were not found. Regardless of how rural and urban was defined (office size or clients served), no significant differences in job satisfaction were found. From the viewpoint of the state rehabilitation agency that is responsible for providing services to all eligible citizens of a state, and that has trouble recruiting counselors to serve in rural locations, this should be good news. While the literature review showed rural counselors more dissatisfied with the resources available to their clients, this dissatisfaction does not carry over to the counselors' satisfaction with their jobs.

There clearly is a difference between how rural and urban counselors view the extrinsic job factors associated with their job. When looking at differences in rural and urban agencies, based on either caseload type or office size, there were significant overall multivariate effects. Rural counselors, regardless of definition used, were more satisfied with their office location being in a geographic area suited to them, and were more satisfied with the factors relating to feeling safe in the office, parking and surrounding areas, and in job related travel, than were urban counselors. While there is no obvious reason for rural counselors to be more satisfied with the office location being in a geographical area suited to them, it is not surprising that rural counselors were more satisfied with the perceived safety features of their jobs. The large offices in the sample were some of the largest cities in the nation, with all the inherent problems associated with large urban cities.

When rural and urban were defined based on office size and location, two additional extrinsic factors were found upon which rural and urban counselors exhibited a significant difference in their level of satisfaction. Rural counselors were more satisfied that their work environment was healthy and were more satisfied with the comfort factors (facility clean, attractive, well maintained, not too hot or cold). A possible explanation for this finding is that rural counselors either have more control, or perceive themselves as having more control over the operation and appearance of their office due to the limited number of people working there. In urban locations, the sheer number of people involved may lead counselors to believe that their voice will not be heard. Urban offices may be located in large office buildings where issues such as air quality and decor impact many tenants with highly diverse standards and expectations. In these situations, the rehabilitation agency may be a small voice among many. On the other hand, in rural locations, there frequently is a close working relationship between the building owner and tenants. As a result, problems may be solved more quickly in the rural agency, with the building owner perhaps having greater interest in pleasing the rehabilitation agency tenant.

A logical question one might ask is, "Do rural and urban counselors place the same amount of importance on these extrinsic factors?" Perhaps the factors are just not as important to one group or the other. In fact, the results showed that rural and urban counselors, when defined based on office size, were significantly different in the level of importance they ascribed to extrinsic factors when all factors were considered together. On an individual factor basis, counselors working in small offices rated the safety factor significantly more important than did counselors in large offices. This finding is consistent with the previous finding that counselors in small offices were more satisfied with the safety factors associated with their office environment. These findings, taken together, might suggest that rehabilitation agencies use relative safety as a selling point when recruiting counselors to work in rural locations. While not all counselors view safety with equal importance, the counselors who do place special emphasis on safety may respond positively to this approach.

When rural and urban were defined in terms of caseload there was no significant difference in the importance counselors placed on the extrinsic job factors. This finding would seem to support a conclusion that safety is related to office location more than it is to where the counselor might travel to serve clients. This conclusion further reinforces the idea that recruiting counselors to serve in rural areas might be enhanced for some prospective counselors by emphasizing the relative safety of the rural office location.

An unexpected finding to the researchers was that there were no demographic differences between rural and urban counselors, using either definition of rural and urban. This finding held true for demographics such as gender, race, disability, and age, as well as for factors such as education, work experience, and licensure/certification. This finding would seem to be positive for the state/federal system, suggesting that all clients in the state are equally likely to be served by a qualified rehabilitation counselor.

When one thinks of the possible differences between rural and urban service delivery, travel immediately comes to mind. Rural counselors are required to do extensive amounts of travel. The study's failure to reveal any relationship between job satisfaction and amount of travel, whether measured in distance or time, was another unexpected finding. One explanation might be that self-selection has already take place, with counselors who do not enjoy travel seeking employment in urban rather than rural settings.

The researchers had speculated that rehabilitation counselors would prefer to be away from their supervisors. However, this study found no relationship between distance from supervisor and job satisfaction. If it is a valid assumption that the greater the physical distance from the supervisor, the less supervision a person will receive, then it would appear that counselors' job satisfaction is not impacted by the amount of supervision received. While other explanations are certainly possible, this finding could be interpreted as a positive reflection on the performance of supervisors in the state rehabilitation agencies.

Other findings of this study were that there was no difference in job satisfaction as a function of the number of counselors in the office and there was no relationship between job satisfaction and the agency building co-habitants. Being the sole occupant of a building, being a part of co-located human service agencies, or being located with non-human service agencies did not impact rehabilitation counselors' level of job satisfaction. With the move to "one-stop" human service centers, these findings may come as reassurance to state rehabilitation agencies that such arrangements will not impact job satisfaction in the long term.

Although no significant differences were found in overall job satisfaction between rural and urban VR counselors, differences were found on various hygiene (external) factors. Administrators may be able to utilize this knowledge to promote better job fit for VR counselors and to aid in the design of future work environments. Hopefully, the utilization of this information will aid in attracting and retaining highly qualified VR counselors who will provide optimal services to the people we serve.

Strengths and Limitations of the Study

A major strength of the study lies in that 16 states and 315 counselors were represented in the sample. In addition, the 84% response rate for the survey was high. This high response rate should have helped insure that the respondents truly represent persons practicing as rehabilitation counselors in state rehabilitation agencies.

The method used to generate the stratified random sample (urban versus rural) could conceivably have introduced a sampling bias because not all regions were equally represented.

However, in the judgment of the researchers, the method employed was the best available approach.

Table 1
Agreement With and Importance of Select Extrinsic Work
Related Statements

                                          Agreement

Scale Item                         Mean     Median      SD

EXTRINSIC JOB FACTORS

My agency is conveniently
located for our clients to
access us                          3.36      4.00      0.98

My agency is conveniently
located for our clients access
to rehabilitation resources        2.98      3.00      1.23

My agency is in a geographic
area suited to me                  3.33      4.00      1.08

I feel safe in my agency offices   3.28      4.00      1.15

I feel safe in my agency's
parking & surrounding area         3.17      4.00      1.20

I feel safe in my job related
travel area/territory served       3.25      3.00      1.04

My work environment is healthy     2.88      3.00      1.36

My agency facilities provide
sufficient space for client
contact                            3.29      4.00      1.21

My agency facilities provide
sufficient space for meetings      2.98      3.00      1.37

My agency facilities provide
sufficient space for general
office work                        3.23      4.00      1.22

My agency facilities provide
sufficient space for storage       2.55      3.00      1.46

My agency facility is attractive   2.95      3.00      1.33

My agency facility is clean        3.15      4.00      1.21

My agency facility is
well maintained                    2.94      3.00      1.34

My agency facility is
often too cold                     1.89      1.00      1.47

My agency facility is
often too hot                      1.71      1.00      1.40

My agency facility is accessible
to people who have impairments     3.23      4.00      1.18

My agency facility reflects the
professional nature of my work     3.07      3.00      1.26

My agency facility provides
adequate sound privacy             2.53      3.00      1.52

My agency facility provides
adequate visual privacy            2.95      3.00      1.40

                                          Importance

Scale Item                         Mean     Median      SD

EXTRINSIC JOB FACTORS

My agency is conveniently
located for our clients to
access us                          1.87      2.00      0.36

My agency is conveniently
located for our clients access
to rehabilitation resources        1.88      2.00      0.35

My agency is in a geographic
area suited to me                  1.64      2.00      0.52

I feel safe in my agency offices   1.76      2.00      0.48

I feel safe in my agency's
parking & surrounding area         1.73      2.00      0.49

I feel safe in my job related
travel area/territory served       1.68      2.00      0.53

My work environment is healthy     1.86      2.00      0.35

My agency facilities provide
sufficient space for client
contact                            1.89      2.00      0.32

My agency facilities provide
sufficient space for meetings      1.60      2.00      0.52

My agency facilities provide
sufficient space for general
office work                        1.70      2.00      0.47

My agency facilities provide
sufficient space for storage       1.28      1.00      0.64

My agency facility is attractive   1.44      1.00      0.58

My agency facility is clean        1.75      2.00      0.46

My agency facility is
well maintained                    1.71      2.00      0.48

My agency facility is
often too cold                     1.48      2.00      0.58

My agency facility is
often too hot                      1.50      2.00      0.59

My agency facility is accessible
to people who have impairments     1.94      2.00      0.25

My agency facility reflects the
professional nature of my work     1.70      2.00      0.49

My agency facility provides
adequate sound privacy             1.88      2.00      0.33

My agency facility provides
adequate visual privacy            1.82      2.00      0.40

Note. Scale for agreement is 0 (definitely disagree) through
4 (definitely agree).

Scale for importance is 0 (not important) through
3 (very important).

Note. From "Counselor Satisfaction and Extrinsic Job Factors,"
by J. D. Andrew, C. W. Faubion, and C. D. Palmer (in press).

Copyright 2001 by Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.
Reprinted with permission.
Table 2
Grouping of Extrinsic Work Related Statements

Group Title                        Extrinsic Statements

1. Convenience           My agency is conveniently located for
                         our clients to access us.

                         My agency is conveniently located for
                         our clients' access to rehabilitation
                         resources.

2. Geographic Location   My agency is in a geographic area
                         suited to me.

3. Safety                I feel safe in my office.

                         I feel safe in my agency's parking and
                         surrounding areas.

                         I feel safe in my job related travel
                         area/territory  served.

4. Healthy Environment   My work environment is healthy.

5. Space                 My agency facility provides sufficient
                         space for client contact.

                         My agency facility provides sufficient
                         space for meetings.

                         My agency facility provides sufficient
                         space for general office work.

                         My agency facility provides sufficient
                         space for storage.

6. Comfort               My agency facility is attractive.

                         My agency facility is clean.

                         My agency facility is well maintained.

                         My agency facility is often too hot.

                         My agency facility is often too cold.

7. Professional Nature   My agency facility is readily accessible
                         to people who have impairments.

                         My agency facility reflects the
                         professional nature of my work.

                         My agency facility provides adequate
                         sound privacy.

                         My agency facility provides adequate
                         visual privacy.

References

Allen, J., & Seekins, T. (1994). A resource management framework for designing rural service delivery systems. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Washington DC.

Andrew, J. D., Faubion, C. W., & Palmer, C. D. (in press). The relationship between counselor satisfaction and extrinsic job factors in state rehabilitation agencies. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.

Arnold, N. L., & Seekins, T. (1998). Rural and urban vocational rehabilitation: Counselors perceived strengths and problems. Journal of Rehabilitation, 64 (1), 5-13.

Arnold, N. L., Seekins, T., & Nelson, R. E. (1997). A comparison of vocational rehabilitation counselors: Rural and urban differences. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 41, 2-14.

Bushy, A., & Carty, L. (1994). Rural practice? Considerations for counselors with clients who live there. Guidance & Counseling, 9 (5), 19-24.

Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. (1990, August 4). House plan boosts rural services, 48 (31), 2523.

Doctoroff, S. (1995). Providing early intervention services in rural area: Meeting the challenge. Infant-Toddler Intervention, 5 (4), 339-352.

Emener, W. G., & Stephens, J. E. (1982). Improving the quality of working life in a changing (rehabilitation) environment. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 6, 114-124.

Harley, D. A., Rice, S., & Dean, G. (1996). Rural rehabilitation: A consortium for administration, coordination, and delivery of services. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 20 (2), 109-117.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O., & Campbell, D. R. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pittsburg: Psychological Services of Pittsburg.

Herzig, H., & Murphy, E. (1997). Rural lessons for urban services. Journal of Mental Health, 6 (1), 11-21.

Jackson, K. O., & Seekins, T W. (1992). Involving consumers and service providers in shaping a rural rehabilitation agenda. American Rehabilitation, 18 (1), 23-30.

Lam, C. S., Chan, F., Parker, H. J., & Carter, H. S. (1987). Employment patterns of vocational and psychosocial service needs of rural rehabilitation clients in the United States. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 10 (1), 69-71.

Lowrey, L. (1980). The road to rural rehabilitation. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 11 (1), 25-27.

Malagodi, M, & Smith, S. (1999). Prospective role for telemedicine as a communication tool for rural rehabilitation practice. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 12 (3), 245-259.

Mathews-Berenson, M. (1992). Innovations in rural independent living. American Rehabilitation, 18 (1), 11-13.

Mental Health Weekly. (1995, January 1). CMHS establishes resource center for care in remote areas. Copy Editor, 5 (3), 4.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace.

Rural Facts. (April, 1995). Rural vocational rehabilitation counselors report fewer strengths, greater problems. Missoula: Montana University Affiliated Rural Institute on Disabilities.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sullivan, W. P., Hasler, M. D., & Otis, A. G. (1994). Practitioners describe pros, cons of rural jobs. Psychotherapy Letter 6 (1), 6-7.

Szymanski, E. M., & Parker, R. M. (1995). Rehabilitation counselor work motivation, job performance, and job satisfaction: An exploratory study. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 19, 51-63.

Tonsing-Gonzales, L. (1989). Rural independent living: Conquering the final frontier. In G. Foss (Ed.), Meeting the rehabilitation needs of rural Americans. (pp. 3-6). Missoula, MT: RTC on Rural Rehabilitation Services.

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1991). Rural Communities suffer poor mental health care. (Public Health Reports, 106 [4], 471, Item No. 9109161355).

Vallen, G. K. (1993). Organizational climate and burnout. The Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly, 54-59.

Van Hook, M. P., & Ford, M. E. (1998). The linkage model for delivering mental health services in rural communities: Benefits and challenges. Health & Social Work, 23 (1), 53-60.

Wright, G. N., & Terrian, L. J. (1987). Rehabilitation job satisfaction inventory. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 31 (2), 159-176.

Clayton W. Faubion
University of Maryland Eastern Shore

Charles D. Palmer
Mississippi State University

Jason D. Andrew
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

Clayton W. Faubion, Ph.D., University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Department of Rehabilitation Services, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, MD 21853-1299.