Journal of Counseling & Development publication patterns: author and article characteristics from 1994 to 2009.
JCD primarily publishes practice and research articles on timely and important issues of general interest to professional counselors and counselors-in-training. As the counseling profession has evolved, so too has the focus of JCD. Because journals disseminate ideas, knowledge, and content essential to understanding the nature and values of a profession (Williams & Buboltz, 1999), a periodic review of journal content is necessary to provide an analysis of trends, timely issues, and challenges and to place these occurrences within an appropriate historical context (Charkow & Juhnke, 2001).
Erford, Miller, Duncan, and Erford (2010) reported at least three primary ways a journal's historical evolution can be discerned. First, special issues published in the journal can be reviewed to identify the primary issues occurring during the period that were considered of greatest importance to the counseling profession and, by extension, within society. Between 1994 and 2009, nine special sections or issues were published in JCD: Faculty Development (Vol. 72, No. 5), Professional Counseling: Spotlight on Specialties (Vol. 74, No. 2), Racism: Healing Its Effects (Vol. 77, No. 1), School Violence (Vol. 82, No. 3), Women and Counseling (Vol. 83, No. 3), 2005 ACA Code of Ethics (Vol. 84, No. 2), Multicultural Counseling (Vol. 86, No. 3), School Counseling in the 21st Century: Where Lies the Future? (Vol. 87, No. 1), and Advocacy Competence (Vol. 87, No. 3). A second approach involves a systematic, qualitative review of journal article characteristics by skilled and knowledgeable scholars to identify trends in the presented content, as well as characteristics of the authors who contributed to the journal. A final approach, and the one adapted for this study of JCD publication patterns, is a quantitative descriptive approach. Like qualitative reviews, quantitative descriptive approaches often reveal author characteristics and types of articles, but special attention is generally given to research articles, statistical methods used, and topics explored within the numerous articles. However, in a quantitative descriptive approach, these characteristics are represented statistically, combined into convenient time intervals, and subjected to statistical analyses to identify trends over time. Such a process informs the readership and editorial board members of important changes in professional, scholarly, and social justice initiatives within a scientific discipline.
This is not the first publication pattern review conducted of JCD content. Berry and Wolf (1958) conducted a review of the first 5 years of P & G. Stone and Shertzer (1964) conducted a retrospective on the first 10 years. Brown (1969) conducted a review on most of the 2nd decade of P & G. Pelsma and Cesari (1989) reviewed published articles from 1969 to 1988. Weinrach, Lustig, Chart, and Thomas (1998) reviewed JCD publication pattern data from 1978 to 1993 (Vols. 57-71). Finally, Williams and Buboltz (1999) conducted a content analysis of JCD articles published between 1988 and 1996 (Vols. 67-74). All of these review articles focused primarily on author and/or article content of the journal.
Rather than conduct a review of content and author characteristics, two research teams more recently focused only on the quantitative research articles published in JCD. Bangert and Baumberger (2005) and Nilsson, Love, Taylor, and Slusher (2007) analyzed the content, design, sample, and statistical characteristics of JCD's empirical articles only for the periods of 1990-2001 and 1991-2000, respectively. These retrospective reviews of only the JCD research articles help readers understand various facets of the scientific research that underlie the counseling discipline. Whether global or focused specifically on research articles, these reviews help counselors understand and analyze the evolving nature, trends, and characteristics of scholarship reflected in the field of counseling.
Although not necessarily widespread, other journals of ACA divisions have periodically conducted publication pattern reviews to inform readerships of important directions and trends in scholarship. For example, Erford et al. (2010) conducted a review of articles published in Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development (MECD) from 1990 to 2009, and Charkow and Juhnke (2001) and Juhnke, Bordeau, and Evanoff(2005) reviewed articles from the Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling for the periods 1979-1998 and 1999-2004, respectively. Streicher and Gerstein (1994) performed a publication pattern and topical analysis of the Journal of Mental Health Counseling for the period 1979-1992. Likewise, The Career Development Quarterly established an annual review tradition for which invited authors review all career counseling and development articles published by various journals in a given calendar year and summarize and report important findings and trends.
In this publication pattern review of JCD articles published between 1994 and 2009, we sought answers to two primary questions: (a) What are the characteristics of authors who publish in JCD (author characteristics)? and (b) What is published in JCD (article characteristics), with a particular emphasis on research articles? We were also interested in determining whether the answers to these questions changed over the past 16 years, and even the past 30 years, when results of this review's period are compared with those of the Weinrach et al. (1998), Williams and Buboltz (1999), Bangert and Baumberger (2005), and Nilsson et al. (2007) reviews, to the extent across-study comparisons are possible. To answer these questions, we first provide an explanation of the methods used to conduct the JCD publication pattern review, followed by results, identified trends, and implications for scholarship and practice in counseling and development.
All JCD articles published between 1994 and 2009 were reviewed for selection into this analysis, and data were coded for author and article characteristics. Author characteristics included the number and gender of all authors and the employment setting and national/international domicile of the lead author only. Unlike Weinrach et al. (1998), we avoided coding departmental affiliation because of the inherent difficulty of analyzing and parsing out the amalgamated affiliations that characterize university departmental configurations in the present era. A second motivation for not coding departmental affiliation was to circumvent the political controversies that continue between counseling and psychology (see Goodyear, 2000; Weinrach et al., 1998; Weinrach, Thomas, & Chan, 2001). Although the identity of professional counselors is a critical issue, the political milieu it is embedded within is outside the bounds of this scholarly review. Author names or specific university affiliations were also not chosen for coding. Nor did we code professional position titles; as discussed later, nearly 95% of first author affiliations were with a university, so virtually all lead authors were professors.
Article characteristics of interest included article type (i.e., research, practice, assessment and diagnosis, book/media/test review, narrative, and other) and content topic (e.g., career/ academic, counselor training/supervision, multicultural issues, professional issues, treatment/intervention). A topical content categorical display very similar to Nilsson et al.'s (2007) was chosen to allow for interstudy comparisons. Research articles appearing in JCD were of special interest and were analyzed separately to explore emerging trends in the article characteristics of intervention/nonintervention occurrence, types of research designs (e.g., comparative, correlational, descriptive, true experimental), participants sampled (e.g., adolescents, college undergraduates, counseling faculty/ directors, graduate students/counselor trainees, professional counselors), sample sizes, research method (i.e., qualitative and quantitative), statistical sophistication (i.e., basic, intermediate, and advanced), and statistical analyses used (e.g., analysis of variance [ANOVA], correlation, discriminant analysis, exploratory factor analysis, multivariate analysis of variance [MANOVA], regression analysis). Intervention means the independent variable of treatment was under experimental control and included true experimental, quasi-experimental, single group, and single subject research designs (SSRDs). Nonintervention was defined as any other type of design (e.g., comparative, correlational, qualitative). Unlike Nilsson et al., we did not code participant demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation).
Coded data were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, aggregated into four 4-year convenient class intervals (i.e., 1994-1997, 1998-2001, 2002-2005, and 2006-2009), and analyzed using descriptive and univariate statistical procedures (ANOVA) using weighted proportions to identify trends over time. This analytic method was chosen over a repeated measures ANOVA procedure because the latter assumes measurement of the same individuals/units over time, and the use of different articles, authors, and units over the 16-year period violated this assumption.
Between January/February 1994 and Fall 2009, 987 articles appeared in print in JCD. Of these articles, 50 were excluded from the present analysis because the articles involved very brief, non-research-related contributions such as editorials, introductions to a special issue, or archival features. This resulted in 937 articles coded for the present analyses. For convenience, the data for a number of the coded variables are presented in a table format by 4-year periods. Results are categorized according to author characteristics and article characteristics.
Residence of the lead author was compared to determine the prevalence of international and U.S. authors contributing to JCD.
Overall, 94.4% of articles published from 1994 to 2009 were submitted by first authors residing in the United States, leaving slightly less than 6% as international publications. Only 2.1% of articles published in 1998-2001 were international submissions, whereas for the period of 2006-2009, 7.7% were international submissions. This main effect and variations across periods trended toward significance but did not reach the a < .05 level of significance, F(3,933) = 2.19,p = .088. Thus, there is a slight trend toward more articles accepted in JCD with first authors from international domiciles in recent years. Also, female authors in JCD have increased from 42.6% to 52.4% over the past 16 years. This movement toward equality in female authorship over time was significant, F(3, 2069) = 10.74, p < .001, and means that women now represent a majority of authors contributing to JCD.
In 1994-1997, 9.8% of articles were submitted by a lead author who was not primarily affiliated with a university. The percentage of nonacademician submissions trended down to approximately 5% over the next 8 years, F(3,930) = 2.34, p = .072. At this point in the history of JCD, nearly all lead authors are based at a university. In addition, the average number of authors per article published in JCD over the past 16 years is up only slightly given that the 1994-1997 average was 2.12 authors, whereas the 2006-2009 average was 2.36 authors.
Over the past 16 years, JCD editors categorized articles according to a typology: (a) research (and theory), (b) practice (and theory), (c) assessment and diagnosis, (d) book/media/ test review, and (e) narrative. Some of these categories existed during the early 1990s but were phased out, including test reviews and narratives. For this analysis, an "other" category was added for those articles not easily classified (e.g., trends, profiles). Table 1 presents the results of this typology classification over time, and one can easily see a significant change in effect, F(3, 933) = 7.82, p <.001. The percentage of research articles appearing in JCD has generally increased, and now they compose almost 43% of published articles, up from approximately 34% in 1998-2001. Narrative articles were phased out during the 1998-2001 period when almost 9% of articles were classified as narratives. Concomitantly, the percentage of practice articles declined from almost 50% in 1994-1997 to approximately 39% in the 2006-2009 period, now providing a nearly even balance between research and practice. A summary of the content topics appearing in JCD is presented in Table 2. Cursory inspection indicates that most of the content categories were relatively stable throughout the four periods composing this review. Exceptions include slight increases in percentages of articles related to health/wellness and content analysis and concomitant slight decreases in career/academic development, identity development, and group work articles.
Consumers of a scholarly journal with a primary focus on research may be interested in the characteristics of the published research articles and how those characteristics change over time in response to methodological, professional, and societal changes. The remainder of this section focuses exclusively on various characteristics of the 365 research articles published in JCD between 1994 and 2009. From Table 3, note that the proportions of types of research designs appearing in these published research articles remained relatively stable over the 16-year review period, F(3, 391) = 1.32, p >. 10. Studies using intervention within the design have declined significantly from 16.4% of all research articles in 1994-1997 to only 4.4% in the 2006-2009 period, F(3, 361) = 3.13,p < .05. Not surprisingly, as reported in Table 3, the proportion of qualitative research studies appearing in JCD has steadily risen (15.3% to 35%), and quantitative studies have declined (84.7% to 65%) to a significant degree, F(3,378) = 4.46, p < .01.
Proportions of types of participants used in JCD studies (see Table 4) have remained relatively unchanged over the past 16 years, F(3, 365) = 0.44, p > .10, with more than a third of the research studies using college undergraduates, slightly more than one fourth using professional counselors or counselors-in-training (i.e., graduate students/counselor trainees), and only approximately 15% focused on school-age populations (i.e., children and adolescents). Likewise, sample sizes remained stable over time, F(3, 358) = 1.47, p >. 10. Although not a significant decline, the data indicate the median sample size dropped from 168 participants in 1994-1997 to 124 participants in 2006-2009. Proportions of large (N = 100-499) and very large (N > 499) samples remained virtually unchanged, whereas the proportions of small (N < 30) and medium-sized (N = 30-99) samples displayed inverse patterns; that is, studies with smaller sample sizes seemed to have increased slightly in frequency, probably because of the greater frequency of qualitative studies, whereas the proportion of medium-sized sample studies has declined slightly.
The frequency of usage of basic, intermediate, and advanced statistics in JCD research studies, termed statistical sophistication, has remained very stable over time, F(3,551) = 0.72,p > .10. Approximately 80% of JCD research studies used some type of basic statistical analysis, 30% used some type of intermediate statistical analysis, and 40% used a statistical procedure categorized as advanced in sophistication; these percentages were virtually unchanged across the four periods assessed. However, and not surprisingly, the data in Table 5 indicate that there have been significant shifts in usage of several specific types of statistical procedures over the past 16 years, F(3, 828) = 4.07,p < .01.
JCD continues to evolve as the counseling profession develops and matures and as the authors and editors of JCD respond to professional issues and societal challenges. The results of this publication pattern review of JCD articles from 1994 to 2009 provide evidence of a number of significant findings and trends. The number of articles appearing in print has declined over the years, from a high of 343 articles in 1994-1997 to a low of 225 in 2006-2009. This decline in published articles stemmed from a business decision made by ACA in 1997 to standardize production in a quarterly format with a set page length. From 1979 to 1997, the page count of each volume of the journal varied from a low of 492 pages for 10 issues in a volume to a high of 710 pages for six issues in a volume. However, since 1997, JCD has consistently published 512 pages per year in a quarterly format. As in the Results section, the following discussion of the findings addresses the two primary questions of JCD author and article characteristics.
Author Characteristics: Who Publishes in JCD?
JCD is the best known and most widely distributed counseling journal in the United States. However, given the global spread of counseling over the previous 2 decades, it is interesting to assess whether JCD is developing an international audience. Although assessing the state of subscriptions to international university libraries is one way to answer this question, another way of testing whether JCD is developing an international reputation is to analyze the number of international submissions the journal has published. International submissions increased substantially over the past 8 years, with internationally based lead authors accounting for only 2.1% of articles from 1998 to 2001 and 7.7% of articles for the period of 2006-2009. This indicates that JCD is making progress toward attracting an international audience of scholars and likely expanding the reach of the journal to international university libraries and professional counselors in the field. In particular, these international entries hold promise for contributing to the burgeoning field of cross-cultural study and multicultural counseling. This trend is likely to continue, given the increasing quality of international universities and scholarship and the global connectedness fostered through technological innovations in communication.
Given that the membership of ACA is predominantly female (C. Neiman, personal communication, September 28, 2009) and that greater percentages of female counseling faculty have emerged over the past decade, an interesting question involves whether women are being concomitantly welcomed as authors in JCD; the answer is a resounding yes, given that a significant shift in female authorship has been identified. Female authors composed 42.6% of all authors from 1994 to 1997, and over the past 8 years (2002-2009), women have composed 55.5% of all JCD authors. Thus, at the author level, the gender gap has been closed over the past 16 years. This trend mirrors the prominence of women in both the gender demographics of ACA and among faculty members in counseling programs across the United States.
A somewhat alarming trend in JCD publication patterns is the significant decline in articles from lead authors from nonacademic settings (e.g., private practice, K-12 schools), which dropped from approximately 10% in 1994-2001 to only just over 5% in 2002-2009. Weinrach et al. (1998) reported that 31% of all JCD authors from 1978 to 1993 were not from university settings. It is possible that the decline from 10% to 5% noted in the present study could be due to differences in author order (i.e., fewer nonacademicians are taking the lead author responsibilities but are coauthoring instead). However, a decline in the number of nonacademic authors is a troubling development because it could mean that field-based counseling practitioners are decreasing their contributions to the extant counseling literature. In past decades, these field-based professionals were on the cutting edge of counseling practice and training and shared their knowledge and expertise to inform the practice of counselors. This phenomenon is not unique to JCD, given that Erford et al. (2010) and Charkow and Juhnke (2001) reported a similar phenomenon in other journals. Indeed, Erford et al. reported that university professors now compose 98% of lead authors in MECD, up from 80% in the early 1990s. Today, nearly 95% of JCD lead authors are academicians. Are practicing counselors becoming more divorced from the research efforts that form the scientific foundations of their practice? Have field-based practitioners become so busy providing services that the search for new knowledge and methods of practice has been abandoned? Have academicians failed to reach out to field-based practitioners with collaborative research agendas? Have field-based practitioners who coordinate and collect data and develop/implement new counseling methods and techniques taken a back seat to academicians whose occupation it is to produce counseling scholarship (and whose promotions and salaries depend on significant contributions) by coauthoring rather than leading the investigation? Are counselor educators failing to produce a new generation of scientist-practitioners capable of conducting field-based research, as greater and greater numbers of new counselors are simultaneously introduced to the field? These are some of the many questions that beg answers as the apparent decline in practitioner authors in JCD is explored. Diversity of perspectives and approaches is essential in research and practice, and when the voices of field-based counselors are diminished, the counseling profession may be negatively affected.
The slight increase from approximately 2.15 authors per article from 1994 to 2001 to approximately 2.35 authors per JCD article from 2002 to 2009 does not seem to reflect the growing trend of multiple authorship evident in other disciplines within academia. For example, Erford et al. (2010) reported that the average number of authors in MECD increased more than one whole author during the 1990-2009 period, and one can easily see this trend toward more authors in medical journals where it is not unusual to see five to 20 authors from a research team listed. It is interesting that Weinrach et al. (1998) reported that the average number of authors per JCD article published between 1978 and 1993 was 1.65, but, unfortunately, they did not present averages across incremental periods. This seems to indicate that the average number of authors per JCD article has been increasing since the 1980s, but not to the degree that many other journals have experienced. Is this lack of multiple authorship due to JCD's history of publishing fewer research articles, given that research articles may require more of a research team approach? Are counseling faculty providing less research mentoring and coauthor opportunities to graduate students than are faculty of other professions, or, as questioned earlier, are counseling faculty failing to include practitioners in their scholarly efforts? Despite this current plateauing of the mean number of authors per article, it will be interesting to monitor whether the trend toward more authors per article increases in the future as mentoring becomes more firmly entrenched in the academic culture of counseling programs.
Article Characteristics: What Is Published in JCD?.
Over the past 16 years, JCD has published an increasingly greater proportion of research articles and decreasing proportions of practice-related and narrative articles, whereas the proportions of book/media/ test review and assessment and diagnosis articles have remained relatively static (see Table I). Although some will view the move toward fewer practice articles and more research articles as a positive sign for a scientifically based discipline, others may not. The majority of ACA members are practitioners and students, as opposed to researchers. Thus, it becomes incumbent on the JCD editorial board to continue its deft balancing act between bolstering the scientific foundation of the profession and simultaneously meeting the needs of practitioners for effective treatment methods and state-of-the-art perspectives on important professional and social justice issues.
Analysis of content topics published in JCD (see Table 2) shows a well-balanced attempt at providing important topic coverage and no significant shifts in content categories over time. Only Williams and Buboltz (1999) and Nilsson et al. (2007) reported on recent content of JCD articles. Unfortunately, Williams and Buboltz used much different categories than the ones used in the present analysis, so continuing trends were difficult to identify by visual inspection. The present study used categories quite similar to those used by Nilsson et al., but Nilsson et al. reported only on the quantitative research articles appearing from 1991 to 2000 rather than all articles published in JCD; therefore, their results do not allow an exact comparability. Still, the categorical averages for all 937 JCD articles appearing between 1994 and 2009 and used in the present study align well with Nilsson et al.'s analysis. JCD editors have provided a well-balanced approach to broad-based issues over the years. Slight increases were noted in articles addressing health/wellness and content analysis, and slight decreases were noted in articles addressing career/academic development, identity development, and group work. Although more specialized journals have chosen to address some of these areas, perhaps greater attention could be given to program evaluation and outcome research studies, which contribute to the scientific foundation of the profession. Regarding types of research designs appearing in JCD research articles, visual inspection of the data in Table 3 indicates that nonexperimental (comparative, correlational, descriptive, qualitative) designs predominate, accounting for approximately 84% of research studies published in JCD. These results tracked almost perfectly with those of Bangert and Baumberger (2005), who reported that 15% of the JCD research articles from 1990 to 2001 were intervention articles, a finding consistent with the present study's results for the overlapping years (i.e., 15% for 1994-2001). However, the percentage of intervention articles appearing in JCD has dropped significantly to only 4.4% of all research articles from 2006 to 2009.
It is interesting that the most robust types of experimental (intervention) designs (i.e., true experimental, quasi-experimental, single group, and SSRDs) accounted for only approximately 11% of the research study designs published between 1994 and 2009. An increase in publication of articles with these types of designs is crucial for the continual building of the body of knowledge related to effective counseling interventions because they allow greater generalization to the populations under study. It is also quite likely that more intervention-based articles would be of great interest to all readers of JCD, regardless of whether they are practitioners, students, or educators.
Surprisingly, only one research study using an SSRD was published during the 16-year review period. Similarly, Bangert and Baumberger (2005) reported only two SSRD studies in JCD during the 1990-2001 period. In clinical practice, professional counselors usually work with only one client at a time; therefore, expertise in SSRD is crucial for counselors to demonstrate the effectiveness of counseling interventions on a case-by-case basis, especially given the rise of managed care companies as the prominent overseer of third-party reimbursement for mental health services and their focus on accountability and demonstration of client/patient outcomes
Although the proportions of specific research designs reported in Table 3 did not change significantly over time, it was not surprising that the aggregate of these designs into qualitative and quantitative studies indicated a significant increase in JCD studies using qualitative designs, and a concomitant significant decrease in studies using quantitative designs. Qualitative research has become a powerful research methodology used to answer important "how" questions, build theory, and apply inductive models to scientific inquiry. It is likely that qualitative inquiry studies will continue to increase in frequency in JCD in the near future.
What types of participants compose the samples used in JCD research studies? Not surprisingly, Table 4 indicates that college undergraduates were the most common sample participants, used by nearly 37% of JCD research studies. Together, only approximately 15% of studies used children and adolescents, whereas approximately 17% of studies used adults not better classified elsewhere. Moreover, nearly 18% used professional counselors, and another 10% used counselors-in-training (i.e., graduate students/counselor trainees). It is interesting that the trend analysis indicated no significance over time, meaning that the types of samples used composing JCD research samples have been quite stable over time. The sample sizes used in JCD research articles have also remained relatively stable across time. Some slight, but not significant, movement was noted in the small and medium-sized sample categories; that is, proportions of small samples seemed to have increased slightly, whereas proportions of medium-sized samples seemed to have decreased slightly. This is probably due to the increase in the frequency of qualitative studies, which ordinarily have smaller sample sizes.
Less than 10% of the samples were randomized, thus limiting generalizability of findings. Indeed, the majority of research studies used samples of convenience. Because so many data-based studies used convenience samples, authors should stress the preliminary nature of these studies and counselors should exercise caution in applying the findings to clinical work. Researchers publishing in JCD may want to consider using randomized designs with large, representative samples and report effect sizes and power analyses to increase the generalizability of findings. Indeed, Bangert and Baumberger (2005) discussed the importance of effect size estimates in JCD at length and found that less than half of JCD research articles published between 1990 and 2001 reported an effect size statistic.
Although the proportions of basic, intermediate, and advanced level statistics remained unchanged between 1994 and 2009, there were a few specific types of statistics that are becoming more or less frequently used. Approximately 80% of JCD research studies published between 1994 and 2009 used some type of basic statistic, 30% used an intermediate level statistic, and 40% used an advanced statistic. These percentages were consistent with those reported by Bangert and Baumberger (2005). In particular, the use of correlation, regression analysis, nonparametric, and theme analysis/coding procedures all seemed to slightly increase, whereas the use of MANOVA/multivariate analysis of covariance and chi-square procedures seemed to decrease over time. Although it is not unusual for some statistical procedures to become more or less prominent over time as new technologies and methodologies are created, what remains essential is that JCD authors help readers, of whom the majority are master's-level practitioners and students, understand the statistical analyses and implications of the findings for counseling practice.
Limitations of the Study
This review is subject to a number of important limitations, given that it involved the coding of 14 distinct variables. Some classification errors were no doubt inadvertently made even though the data were independently coded by at least two of the five coauthors and cross-checked by the first author. Inevitably, some categories and typologies within those categories were more difficult to code (i.e., more subjective) than others, requiring greater degrees of expertise and sophistication. Thus, conclusions drawn from these more suspect categories must be made with caution. Also, although the data were systematically collected and analyzed, categories in this study may have been derived and coded differently than might occur in other research teams. In particular, broad-based categories were developed to reach general conclusions over time. Others may have chosen to code narrower, more specific categories, which may be more helpful for the analysis ofmicrotrends or more proscribed areas of interest.
Some articles were more difficult to classify than others because either data were missing or coding judgments were required. For example, 0.7% of authors could not be classified as male or female, even after follow-up Internet searches. There was no way of accurately determining race, ethnicity, or age of authors, characteristics that may be of interest for a more indepth analysis of author demographic characteristics. We also provided two elements of information only for the lead author (i.e., national/international domicile and employment setting) as quality of information reported for subsequent authors varied greatly. The American Psychological Association (2010) has suggested that standardized information be included in the author note, and adherence to these suggestions would consistently provide more standardized author demographic information. We also decided to present only the lead author's primary work setting as listed in the author note. This may have contributed to the noted decrease in practitioner-authored articles. It would be helpful if, in the future, authors would list primary and secondary affiliations because some authors who are not full-time academicians may actually list their (secondary) university affiliation, rather than a practice work setting, falsely thinking that a university affiliation (e.g., adjunct or affiliate status) will increase their chances of publication in JCD.
Finally, no cause-and-effect relationships can be inferred from these results because the data were descriptive. In fact, we took steps to avoid overgeneralizations or reaching beyond the data to make unfounded conclusions. Also, out of respect to dedicated, volunteer journal editors and editorial board members, and with the goal of not diminishing their accomplishments, we sought to avoid judgmental or biased statements.
As with previous JCD publication review articles, our goal was to provide an overview of important author and study characteristics, not to judge the quality of the journal or the articles submitted. Over the years, JCD has sought to address diverse readership and author needs, has maintained a focus on contemporary and innovative counseling practice issues, and at the same time has undergone a continual evolution of contemporary content and methodological processes. Publication review articles like this one offer periodic insight into the values of the counseling profession by identifying commonly addressed and neglected scholarly topics and activities. A next step in evaluation of the effectiveness of JCD might involve an ACA membership survey and recent author survey of how well JCD is responding to trends in the field and reader needs for dissemination of scholarly information. Of particular interest would be any insights members might offer on the trend toward more research articles and fewer practice articles. We hope that the information included in this review is helpful to readers, future editors and editorial board members, and potential authors by providing information on current trends and diverse scholarship issues in the discipline of counseling.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Bangert, A. W., & Baumberger, J. P. (2005). Research and statistical techniques used in the Journal of Counseling & Development: 1990-200 I. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 480-487.
Berry, R., & Wolf, B. (1958). Five years of The Personnel and Guidance Journal. The Personnel and Guidance Journal 36, 549-556.
Brown, E G. (1969). Seven years of the journal: A review. The Personnel and Guidance Journal 48, 263-272.
Charkow, W. B., & Juhnke, G.A. (2001). Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling submission patterns, topic areas, and authors: 1979-1998.
Journal of Addietions & Offender Counseling, 22, 12-20.
Erford, B. T., Miller, E. M., Duncan, K., & Erford, B. M. (2010). Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development (MECD) submission patterns: MECD author and article characteristics from 1990-2009. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 42, 1-12.
Goodyear, R. K. (2000). An unwarranted escalation of counselor-counseling psychologist professional conflict: Comments on Weinrach, Lustig, Chan, and Thomas (1998). Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 103-106.
Juhnke, G. A., Bordeau, W. C., & Evanoff, J. C. (2005). Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling submission patterns, topic areas, and authors: 1999-2004. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 26, 52-58.
Nilsson, J. E., Love, K. M., Taylor, K. J., & Slusher, A. L. (2007). A content analysis of quantitative articles published in the Journal of Counseling & Development between 1991 and 2000. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 357-363.
Pelsma, D. M., & Cesari, J. P. (1989). Content analysis of the Journal of Counseling and Development: Volumes 48--66. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 275-278.
Stone, S. C., & Shertzer, B. (1964). Ten years of ThePersonnelandGuidance Journal. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 42, 958-969.
Slreicher, P. J., & Gerstein, L. (1994). Publication patterns in the AMHCA Journal and the Journal of Mental Health Counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 16, 369-374.
Weinrach, S. G., Lustig, D., Chan, E, & Thomas, K. R. (1998). Publication patterns of The Personnel and Guidance Journal/ Journal of Counseling & Development: 1978 to 1993. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76, 427-435.
Weinrach, S. G., Thomas, K. R., & Chan, F. (2001). The professional identity of contributors to the Journal of Counseling & Development: Does it matter? Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 166-170.
Williams, M. E., & Buboltz, W. C. (1999). Content analysis of the Journal of Counseling & Development: Volumes 67 to 74. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 344-349.
Bradley T. Erford, Emily M. Miller, Hallie Schein, Allison McDonald, Lisa Ludwig, and Kathleen Leishear, Department of Education Specialties, Loyola University, Maryland. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bradley T. Erford, Department of Education Specialties, Loyola University, Maryland, Timonium Graduate Center, 2034 Greenspring Drive, Timonium, MD 21093 (e-mail: email@example.com).
TABLE 1 Types of Articles in the Journal of Counseling & Development From 1994 to 2009 1994-1997 1998-2001 2002-2005 Type of Article n % n % n % Research (and theory) 128 39.1 65 34.2 81 38.4 Practice (and theory) 163 49.8 71 37.4 94 44.5 Assessment and diagnosis 18 5.5 19 10.0 9 4.3 Book/media/test review 3 0.9 0 0.0 2 0.9 Narrative 6 1.8 17 8.9 0 0.0 Other (trend/profile) 9 2.8 18 9.5 25 11.8 2006-2009 Total Type of Article n % n % Research (and theory) 91 43.5 365 39.0 Practice (and theory) 82 39.2 410 43.8 Assessment and diagnosis 11 5.3 57 6.1 Book/media/test review 7 3.3 12 1.3 Narrative 0 0.0 23 2.5 Other (trend/profile) 18 8.6 70 7.5 Note. Percentages may not equal 100% because of rounding. TABLE 2 Summary of Content Topics in Journal of Counseling & Development Articles From 1994 to 2009 Content Topic 1994-1997 1998-2001 2002-2005 n % n % n % Career/academic development 59 12.4 16 4.6 17 4.5 Content analysis 9 1.9 16 4.6 29 7.7 Counseling process 22 4.6 20 5.8 15 4.0 Counselor training/supervision 18 3.8 22 6.4 20 5.3 Evaluation 6 1.3 2 0.6 8 2.1 Family/relationships 28 5.9 7 2.0 26 6.9 Gender 24 5.1 8 2.3 31 8.2 Group work 8 1.7 5 1.4 5 1.3 Health/wellness 7 1.5 11 3.2 30 8.0 Identity development 20 4.2 28 8.1 10 2.7 Measurement/assessment/ diagnosis 18 3.8 19 5.5 14 3.7 Miscellaneous 63 13.3 11 3.2 21 5.6 Multicultural issues 50 10.5 61 17.7 54 14.4 Professional issues 50 10.5 34 9.9 29 7.7 School counseling 16 3.4 12 3.5 14 3.7 Symptoms/disorders 32 6.8 24 7.0 16 4.3 Technology/media 2 0.4 2 0.6 3 0.8 Treatment/intervention 42 8.9 47 13.6 34 9.0 Content Topic 2006-2009 Total n % n % Career/academic development 9 2.5 101 6.5 Content analysis 24 6.8 78 5.0 Counseling process 15 4.2 72 4.6 Counselor training/supervision 19 5.4 79 5.1 Evaluation 5 1.4 21 1.4 Family/relationships 16 4.5 77 5.0 Gender 18 5.1 81 5.2 Group work 0 0.0 18 1.2 Health/wellness 27 7.6 75 4.8 Identity development 8 2.3 66 4.3 Measurement/assessment/ diagnosis 17 4.8 68 4.4 Miscellaneous 21 5.9 116 7.5 Multicultural issues 51 14.4 216 13.9 Professional issues 46 13.0 159 10.3 School counseling 16 4.5 58 3.7 Symptoms/disorders 25 7.1 97 6.3 Technology/media 2 0.6 9 0.6 Treatment/intervention 35 9.9 158 10.2 Note. Many articles contained more than one content topic and were multicoded. Therefore, the total values may exceed the actual number of articles accepted into the analysis. Percentages may not equal 100% because of rounding. TABLE 3 Types of Research Designs Used in Journal of Counseling & Development Research Articles From 1994 to 2009 1994-1997 1998-2001 2002-2005 Research Design n % n % n % Analogue 8 5.4 1 1.5 0 0.0 Comparative 38 25.7 8 12.1 7 8.2 Correlational 52 35.1 31 47.0 36 42.4 Descriptive 21 14.2 6 9.1 10 11.8 Qualitative 3 2.0 10 15.2 17 20.0 Quasi-experimental 5 3.4 6 9.1 7 8.2 Single group 7 4.7 1 1.5 1 1.2 Single subject research design 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 Test development 5 3.4 2 3.0 4 4.7 True experimental 8 5.4 1 1.5 3 3.5 2006-2009 Total Research Design n % n % Analogue 0 0.0 9 2.3 Comparative 10 10.4 63 15.9 Correlational 43 44.8 162 41.0 Descriptive 11 11.5 48 12.2 Qualitative 27 28.1 57 14.4 Quasi-experimental 1 1.0 19 4.8 Single group 0 0.0 9 2.3 Single subject research design 0 0.0 1 0.3 Test development 1 1.0 12 3.0 True experimental 3 3.1 15 3.8 Note. Some articles used more than one type of research design and were multicoded. Therefore, the total values may exceed the actual number of research articles accepted into the analysis. Percentages may not equal 100% because of rounding. TABLE 4 Types of Participants Used in Journal of Counseling & Development Research Articles From 1994 to 2009 1994-1997 1998-2001 2002-2005 Type of Participant n % n % n % Adolescents 21 15.6 8 13.1 9 11.0 Adults 16 11.9 9 14.8 21 25.6 Children 1 0.7 1 1.6 2 2.4 College undergraduates 61 45.2 23 37.7 25 30.5 Counseling faculty/directors 2 1.5 1 1.6 0 0.0 Families/couples 2 1.5 1 1.6 4 4.9 Graduate students/counselor trainees 9 6.7 8 13.1 8 9.8 Professional counselors 22 16.3 10 16.4 13 15.9 Other 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 2006-2009 Total Type of Participant n % n % Adolescents 11 12.1 49 13.3 Adults 17 18.7 63 17.1 Children 3 3.3 7 1.9 College undergraduates 27 29.7 136 36.9 Counseling faculty/directors 0 0.0 3 0.8 Families/couples 1 1.1 8 2.2 Graduate students/counselor trainees 12 13.2 37 10.0 Professional counselors 20 22.0 65 17.6 Other 0 0.0 1 0.3 Note. Some articles used more than one type of participant and were multicoded. Therefore, the total values may exceed the actual number of research articles accepted into the analysis. Percentages do not equal 100% because of rounding. TABLE 5 Types of Statistical Procedures Used in Journal of Counseling & Development Research Articles From 1994 to 2009 1994-1997 1998-2001 2002-2005 Statistical Procedure n % n % n % ANOVA/ANCOVA 51 14.7 17 13.4 21 12.4 Canonical correlation 8 2.3 2 1.6 4 2.4 Chi-square test 25 7.2 10 7.9 7 4.1 Cluster analysis 5 1.4 3 2.4 2 1.2 Correlation 30 8.6 12 9.4 22 13.0 Descriptive statistics 91 26.2 33 26.0 38 22.5 Discriminant analysis 4 1.2 1 0.8 1 0.6 Confirmatory factor analysis 1 0.3 0 0.0 1 0.6 Exploratory factor analysis 6 1.7 1 0.8 6 3.6 MANOVA/MANCOVA 46 13.3 14 11.0 18 10.7 Regression analysis 33 9.5 17 13.4 22 13.0 Other nonparametric 0 0.0 4 3.1 2 1.2 Theme analysis/coding 17 4.9 7 5.5 10 5.9 Structural equation modeling 5 1.4 3 2.4 4 2.4 t test 25 7.2 3 2.4 11 6.5 2006-2009 Total Statistical Procedure n % n % ANOVA/ANCOVA 12 6.3 101 12.1 Canonical correlation 3 1.6 17 2.0 Chi-square test 5 2.6 47 5.6 Cluster analysis 0 0.0 10 1.2 Correlation 25 13.2 89 10.7 Descriptive statistics 49 25.9 211 25.4 Discriminant analysis 3 1.6 9 1.1 Confirmatory factor analysis 0 0.0 2 0.2 Exploratory factor analysis 1 0.5 14 1.7 MANOVA/MANCOVA 15 7.9 93 11.2 Regression analysis 32 16.9 104 12.5 Other nonparametric 15 7.9 21 2.5 Theme analysis/coding 20 10.6 54 6.5 Structural equation modeling 1 0.5 13 1.6 t test 8 4.2 47 5.6 Note. Some articles used more than one type of statistical procedure and were multicoded. Therefore, the total values may exceed the actual number of research articles accepted into the analysis. Percentages do not equal 100% because of rounding. ANOVA = analysis of variance; ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; MANOVA = multivariate analysis of variance; MANCOVA = multivariate analysis of covariance.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Erford, Bradley T.; Miller, Emily M.; Schein, Hallie; McDonald, Allison; Ludwig, Lisa; Leishear, Kat|
|Publication:||Journal of Counseling and Development|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2011|
|Previous Article:||Analyzing anti-Asian prejudice from a racial identity and color-blind perspective.|
|Next Article:||Posttraumatic stress in U.S. marines: the role of unit cohesion and combat exposure.|