If you are having any difficulty using this website, please contact the Help Desk at Help@nullHofstra.edu or 516-463-7777 or Student Access Services at SAS@nullhofstra.edu or 516-463-7075. Please identify the webpage address or URL and the specific problems you have encountered and we will address the issue.

Skip to Main Content

Program Evaluation 2018-2019

The 2018-2019 Rehabilitation Counseling/Rehabilitation Counseling in Mental Health Program Evaluation demonstrates predominantly above average performance by program students at each of the four evaluation points. The Annual Program Evaluation examines student performance at four separate points: (1) the conclusion of the first semester of fieldwork during REHB 236: Rehabilitation Counseling Practicum; (2) the conclusion of the first semester of internship, REHB 234: Rehabilitation Counseling Internship; (3) the conclusion of the second semester of internship, REHB 235: Rehabilitation Counseling Internship; and (4) the completion of the Comprehensive Case Study Project, which is administered during the students’ final semester in the program. For the first three data points, a 5-point Likert scale is used; items for which little basis for evaluation is available can be scored N/A:

  • 5—Excellent: consistently meets more than minimum requirements in excellent manner, performing at a level much above that normally expected of an intern;
  • 4—Good: consistently meets minimum requirements in a satisfactory manner, performing at a level more often above that expected of an intern;
  • 3—Average: meets the minimum requirements in an adequate manner, performing nearly always at a level expected of an intern;
  • 2—Needs Improvement: Sometimes fails to meet minimum requirements in a satisfactory manner, performing at a level somewhat below that expected of an intern, but responding to correction; and
  • 1—Unsatisfactory: consistently fails to meet minimum requirements in a satisfactory manner, performing at a level considerably below that expected of an intern, and often not responding to correction.

Data for three of four assessment points was excellent (i.e., data points one, three, and four). The results for the second data point, internship REHB 234, are lower; this is skewed by the low number of students enrolled at the time (n = 2). For the first assessment point, REHB 236, the mean for the “Overall Evaluation” rating was a 4.6, across eight (8) student evaluations. The highest mean item rating for this point was a 5.0 for Rapport with Clients (“Shows genuine desire to be helpful”) and Rapport with Clients (“Accepts individual differences without prejudice”). Five other items had a mean item rating of 4.9, and 80% (n = 33) of the items were rated with a mean item rating at 4.5 or above. The lowest mean item rating was 4.1 for Skills and Abilities: Casework (“Properly interprets information in diagnosing problems”).

For the second assessment point, REHB 234, the mean for the “Overall Evaluation” rating was 3.6 across two student evaluations. With the low number of evaluations, a single score could have a significant impact on overall and mean item ratings. The highest mean item rating was 4.5 for Skills and Abilities: Work Habits (“Make sound decisions, using good judgment”); 17 other items had a mean item rating of 4.0. The majority of higher ratings were concentrated in categories related to work relationships (i.e., “Work well as a member of the rehab/treatment team”) and documentation (i.e., “Prepare and maintain treatment records and reports”). The lowest mean item rating was 3.0, and this was received on 21% of items (n = 12). The majority of lower ratings were distributed across items pertaining to assessing suicide risk, diagnosis and treatment planning, and case conceptualization.
For the third assessment point, REHB 235, the mean rating for “Overall Evaluation” was 4.9 across six student evaluations. The highest mean item rating for this point was a 5.0, which was achieved on 33 individual items, with the majority of these concentrated in Personal Traits and Attitudes and Rapport with Clients. The mean item rating for all items was 4.5 or higher.

For the fourth assessment point, Comprehensive Case Study Project, a numerical rating scale was not utilized, thus there are no rating means to examine. Students completed a written case presentation of no more than 20 pages over nine weeks and conducted a live oral case consultation to rationalize decision-making. All students passed the comprehensive exam. Strong performance was demonstrated in the areas of understanding the medical, psychosocial, and diversity considerations; and the application of occupational information in goal and plan development. Students demonstrated some difficulty with the formatting of the individualized plan for employment (IPE) and individualized treatment plan (ITP), so a template was reformatted with guided instructions.

The majority of the scores and ratings indicated above average performance and knowledge; the low number of intern evaluations for the second data point, REHB 234, contributed to lower performance for this point. All mean item ratings at the first and third assessment points were 4.1 or higher, with no mean rating below 4.5 for the third assessment point. At the second assessment point, REHB 234, the majority of lower ratings (i.e., 3.0) were concentrated on items pertaining to assessing suicide risk, diagnosis and treatment planning, and case conceptualization; this has been found in previous years for students at this stage of development. The program has reviewed curriculum and has incorporated these topics more concertedly in earlier coursework to better prepare students for the fieldwork experience. A case conceptualization model is emphasized throughout the curriculum.

Student performance for 2018-2019 was at an above average level, in accordance with the plan for skill, knowledge, and disposition development for students, with the exception of the second data point; the mean overall average of 3.6 indicates performance above minimum requirements, nearing exceeding expectations on a consistent basis. Program faculty met with the two students from REHB 234 to develop personal goals to improve performance in their second internship. Overall, fewer evaluation items were omitted for lack of basis than in previous years, indicating well-rounded fieldwork experiences across students. Data will be analyzed across years to determine trends to share with faculty and the program’s professional advisory board for input into curriculum improvement.