Comprehensive Assessment Plan

California State University, Fresno
Department of Counselor Education and Rehabilitation

The Department of CER programs at the CSU, Fresno utilize both formative and summative assessments regularly to evaluate students and ensure the development of student knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions.

Students will be observed and evaluated at all times by faculty and instructors within individual courses and in other program-related activities. If any concerns regarding interpersonal and professional behavior are identified, instructors are encouraged to provide students with feedback and suggestions for improvement. Please see the Department Clinical Review Policy/Due Process. If necessary, instructors should contact the student’s academic advisor and/or Program Coordinator for more structured consultation. Within courses, students will be formally evaluated through grades and written feedback on assignments.

Students are also systematically assessed by the faculty at specific points in time throughout their program. The program utilizes six target (data) points of student progress during the course sequence.

Assessment of Program Outcomes:
In addition to student learning, we systematically assess our program outcomes. First, the department assesses outcomes in the eight core areas of the counseling curriculum, as well as the specialty area programs. We have developed Key Performance Indicators (KPI) related to standards, in order to assess areas in multiple ways over multiple points in time. Each core area has KPIs that are targeted toward one specific standard in that area. The first KPI for each standard relates to a grade on a specific assignment in a course. This data is collected from course instructors at the end of each semester. Other performance indicators (i.e., Counselor Trainee Evaluation, Counselor Disposition Assessments) are completed during the practicum and internship experience.

Lastly, KPIs for each area are scores on specific domains of the comprehensive examination. This examination is taken in the last semester of the course sequence. The domains of the comprehensive exam align directly with the core and specialization areas defined by CACREP. Each student is assessed on each KPI throughout their program, and student data are utilized both to determine the need for remediation of deficiencies and to inform the program’s broader curricular decisions.

KPIs are assessed by faculty and stakeholders (e.g., site supervisors) at multiple points during the student’s academic program, measuring both content knowledge and applied knowledge/skill. Data is collected using the Qualtrics software system and assessed in the following manner:

“Y” corresponds to the year in the program and “F/S/Su” indicates the semester the course is typically completed.
“K” indicates an assessment of Knowledge
“S” indicates an assessment of Skill
“D” indicates an assessment of Dispositions

Entry-level Counseling Core Areas

I. Professional Orientation and Ethical Practice

II. Social and Cultural Diversity

III. Human Growth and Development

IV. Career Development

V. Counseling and Helping Relationships

VI. Group Counseling and Group Work

VII. Assessment and Testing

VIII. Research and Program Evaluation

Master’s Program Entry-level Specialty Areas (KPIs)

IX. Clinical Rehabilitation Counseling

X. Marriage, Family and Child Counseling

KPI alignment to Student Learning Outcomes

Use of Evaluation Data to Inform Program Decisions:
In addition to the ongoing evaluation of students which is used to individually address student outcomes and address problems as they arrive, aggregate student data and other sources of assessment data, as described above, is systematically used for curriculum and program improvement. This information will inform decisions about program improvements to be implemented during the academic year. Department faculty gather to discuss data and trends that emerged. Annual reports are submitted to the university during the first semester of the subsequent year and faculty reconvene to make decisions regarding program modifications.

SLO 4.2 Apply conceptualization and implementation of treatment, planning, and intervention strategies in marriage, couple, and family counseling
MFCC KPI

SLO 5.1 Implement and maintain an active relationship to the broader rehabilitation community and related professional associations through consultation, education, advocacy and leadership activities.
CRC KPI

SLO 5.2 Produce research and other scholarly information that is related to promoting the rehabilitation and independence of people with disabilities using field experiences as a guide.
CRC KPI

SLO 5.3 Apply understanding of historical, cultural, ethical and legal considerations related specifically to the practice of rehabilitation and mental health counseling to promote high quality service provision to persons with disabilities
CRC KPI

APPENDIX A

CSU, Fresno
Department of CER programs
Clinical Review Policy for CER Department
Due Process

In order to facilitate student success, all students (except Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) scholars—see Note) in the Counselor Education and Rehabilitation (CER) Department undergo a Clinical Review on their academic performance, counseling skills, and personal/professional dispositions while enrolled in COUN 208 and REHAB 238. However, throughout their program, students are continuously assessed for their abilities and dispositions as counselors-in-training and can be referred to the Clinical Review Committee at any time. Any CER faculty member may refer any student to the Clinical Review Committee for the following reasons: (1) academic performance issues that significantly jeopardize the student’s progress, (2) personal/professional disposition, (3) unethical or unprofessional behavior either in or out of the classroom, and/or (4) mental health, family challenges, substance abuse, or other personal reasons that significantly impact the student’s ability to perform the duties of a counselor. The Clinical Review Committee consists of the Clinical Review Committee Chair, at least 2 other Full-time CER Faculty Members, and the referring faculty (if relevant). It is expected that the instructor of record or faculty member involved will first meet with the student individually to discuss concerns. The instructor/faculty member will create a remediation plan and discuss it with the student and have the student sign the plan. If the instructor/faculty member finds that the conditions of the remediation plan have not been sufficiently met by the student in a specified amount of time or if the concerns need immediate attention, the instructor/faculty member will report the concerns to Student Affairs or other relevant resources on campus (e.g. the CARE team or Campus Police). Concurrently, the instructor/faculty member will also refer the student to the Clinical Review Committee.

The due process involved for students in such cases involves the following:

1. Instructor of record/faculty involved will create a remediation plan and meet with student to discuss conditions of the remediation plan and have student sign the plan. Signing the plan means that the student has reviewed the plan. A copy of the plan will be put in the student’s file to be placed in the main office.
2. If conditions of the remediation plan have not been met or if concerns need immediate attention, the student will be referred to the Clinical Review Committee by instructor of record/faculty member. The faculty member involved will also refer the student to the office of Student Affairs or other resources on campus if relevant.
3. The Clinical Review Committee will meet to determine the student’s appropriateness for the program and/or counseling field. The Clinical Review Committee may request a meeting with the student in question and/or contact other faculty for feedback.
4. After the Clinical Review Committee deliberates and has consulted with the Department Chair, one of the following will take place:
   1. A written Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining specific areas of concern and specific remedies that are required and/or recommended will be developed and given to the student. Students may appeal to the Dean of Kremen School of Education and Human Development.
   2. Or: A recommendation for disqualification letter will be sent to the student and carbon copied to the Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, the Dean of Student Affairs, and the Dean of Kremen School of Education and Human Development. Students may appeal to the Dean of Kremen School of Education and Human Development.
5. If an MOU was provided to the student, the student is to complete all requirements on the MOU by the deadline as stated in the MOU. Once the student submits all required documents by the due date, the Clinical Review Committee will reconvene. If the requirements have been appropriately and sufficiently met in the view of the Clinical Review Committee, no further action is required. The process ceases (unless new incidences arise requiring further action).
6. If the requirements of the MOU have not been met, the Clinical Review Committee, after consultation with the Department Chair, may recommend one or more of the following:
   1. Recommend that the student be temporarily suspended for a given period of time to allow the student time to set his or her personal and/or professional issues in order.
   2. If the Clinical Review Committee concludes that disqualification is most likely to be in order, the Clinical Review Committee will send the student a letter recommending disqualification from the program and/or Department and carbon copy the following Deans: Research and Graduate Studies, Student Affairs, and Kremen School of Education and Human Development.
7. If the Clinical Review Committee recommends disqualification, the student may appeal to the Dean of the Kremen School of Education and Human Development. Before recommending disqualification from the program/Department, the Clinical Review Committee will consult with the Department Chair, program faculty, and other relevant resources on campus.

*Note: RSA scholars are required to undergo at least two clinical reviews prior to graduation, to evaluate academic progress and skill sets beyond maintenance of 3.0 GPA

APPENDIX B

DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
CLINICAL REVIEW OF PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE

Student Name Semester/Year
Instructor Date Pass / No Pass

Rubric for Rating the Professional Performance Standards

Engaged in dual relationships with clients
Was responsive to supervision for occasional personal-professional boundary confusion in verbal interactions with clients
Maintained clear personal-professional boundaries with clients

Acted with prejudice toward those of different race, culture, gender or sexual orientation or other diversity than self
Was responsive to supervision for occasional insensitivity to diversity in professional interactions
Demonstrated consistent sensitivity to diversity

Endangered the safety and the well-being of clients
Used judgment that could have put client safety and well-being at risk
Satisfactorily ensured client safety and well-being

Breached established rules for protecting client confidentiality including safeguards in technology used
Used judgment that could have put client confidentiality at risk including not used safeguards for any technology utilized
Appropriately safeguarded the confidentiality of clients including any technology used

Demonstrated insensitivity to role differences and power dynamics that may exist in relationship and settings, and does not manage them appropriately
Sometimes maintained sensitivity to role differences and power dynamics that may exist in relationships and settings, and manages them appropriately
Always maintained sensitivity to role differences and power dynamics that may exist in relationships and settings, and manages them appropriately

Interpersonal

2. Cooperativeness with Others
Rated from Uncooperative (1) to Cooperative (5)

Demonstrated little or no engagement in collaborative activities
Engaged in collaborative activities but with minimum input
Worked actively toward reaching consensus in collaborative activities

Demonstrated unwillingness to compromise in collaborative activities
Accepted but rarely initiated compromise in collaborative activities
Demonstrated willingness to initiate compromise in order to reach group consensus

Undermined goal achievement in collaborative activities
Was concerned mainly with own part in collaborative activities
Showed concern for group as well as Individual goals in collaborative activities

3. Awareness of Own Impact on Others
Rated from Unaware (1) to Aware (5)

Words and actions reflected little or no concern for how others were impacted by them
Effort to determine how own words and actions impacted others was evident but sometimes inaccurate
Effort toward recognition of how own words and actions impacted others was accurate

Ignored supervisory feedback about how words and actions were negatively impacting others
Responded as necessary to feedback regarding negative impact of words and actions but at times, with resentment
Initiated feedback from others regarding impact of own words and behaviors; regularly incorporated feedback to effect positive change

4. Ability to Deal with Conflict
Rated from Unable (1) to Able (5)

Was unable or unwilling to consider others’ points of view
Attempted but sometimes had difficulty grasping conflicting points of view
Demonstrated willingness and ability to consider others’ points of view

Did not demonstrate willingness to examine own role in a conflict
Examined own role in a conflict only when directed to do so
Displayed willingness to examine own role in conflict consistently

Ignored supervisory advisement if not in agreement with own position
Was responsive to supervision in a conflict if it was offered
Was consistently open to supervisory critique about own role in a conflict

Did not show any effort a problem solving
Participated in problem solving when directed
Initiated problem solving efforts in conflicts

Displayed hostility when conflicts were addressed
Actively participated in problem solving efforts

Personal Disposition

5. Openness to New Ideas
Rated from Closed (1) to Open (5)

Was dogmatic about own perspective and ideas
Was amenable to discussion of perspectives other than own
Solicited others’ opinions and perspectives about own work

Ignored or was defensive about constructive feedback
Accepted constructive feedback without defensiveness
Invited constructive feedback and demonstrated interest in others’ perspectives

Showed little or no evidence of incorporating constructive feedback received to change own behavior
Demonstrated some evidence of effort to incorporate relevant feedback received to change own behavior
Demonstrated strong evidence of incorporation of feedback received to change own behavior

6. Tolerates Ambiguity
Rated from Intolerant (1) to Tolerant (5)

Showed little or no effort to recognize changing demands in the professional expectations and interpersonal contexts of professional counseling
Made some effort to recognize changing demands in the professional expectations and interpersonal contexts of professional counseling but was sometimes inaccurate
Showed accurate effort to recognize changing demands in the professional expectations and interpersonal contexts of professional counseling

Showed little or no effort to flex own response to changing demands in the professional expectations and interpersonal contexts of professional counseling
Effort of flex own response to changing demands in the professional expectations and interpersonal contexts of professional counseling was evident but sometimes inaccurate
Demonstrated accurate effort to flex own response to changing demands in the professional expectations and interpersonal contexts of professional counseling as needed

Refused to flex own response to changing demands in the professional expectations and interpersonal contexts of professional counseling despite the knowledge of the need for change
Effort to flex own response to changing demands in the professional expectations and interpersonal contexts of professional counseling when directed to do so
Independently monitored the professional expectations and interpersonal contexts of professional counseling and flexed own response accordingly

Was intolerant of unforeseeable or necessary changes in established schedule or protocol
Accepted necessary changes in established schedule or protocol, but without effort to understand the reason for them
Accepted necessary changes in established schedule and attempted to understand needs for them

7. Willingness to Accept and Use Feedback

Discouraged feedback from others through defensiveness and anger
Was generally receptive to supervisory feedback
Invited feedback by direct request and positive acknowledgement when received

Showed little or no evidence of incorporating supervisory feedback received
Showed some evidence of incorporating supervisory feedback into own views and behaviors
Showed evidence of active incorporation of supervisory feedback received into own views and behaviors

Perceived feedback contrary to his/her own position as a personal affront
Showed some defensiveness to critique through “over-explanation” of actions but without anger
Openly accepted constructive feedback as an opportunity to grow and become a better service provider

Demonstrated greater willingness to give feedback than to receive it
Demonstrated greater willingness to receive feedback than to give it
Demonstrated a balanced willingness to give and receive supervisory feedback

8. Ability to Accept Personal Responsibility
Rated from Unable (1) to Able (5)

Refused to admit mistakes or examine own contribution to problems
Was willing to examine own role in problems when informed of the need to do so
Monitored own level of responsibility in professional performance

Lied, minimized or embellished the truth to extricate self from problems
Was accurate and honest in describing own and others’ roles in problems
Invited constructive critique from others and applied it toward professional growth

Consistently blamed others for problems without self-examination
Potential to blame others initially, but later was open to self-examination about own role in problems
Accepted own mistakes and responded to them as opportunity for self-improvement, avoided blame in favor of self-examination

9. Ability to Express Feelings Effectively and Appropriately
Rated from Unable (1) to Able (5)

Showed no evidence of willingness and ability to articulate own feelings
Showed some evidence of willingness and ability to articulate own feelings, but with limited range
Was consistently willing and able to articulate the full range of own feelings

Showed no evidence of willingness and ability to recognize and acknowledge the feelings of others
Showed some evidence of willingness and ability to acknowledge others’ feelings—sometimes inaccurate
Showed willingness and ability to acknowledge others’ feelings

Acted out negative feelings (through negative behaviors) rather than articulating them
Expressions of feelings were inappropriate to the setting
Expressions of feelings usually appropriate to the setting and was responsive to supervision when not
Expression of own feelings was consistently appropriate to the setting

Was resistant to discussion of own personal feelings in supervision
Willing to discuss own feelings in supervision when directed
Initiated discussion of own feelings in supervision

Lack of awareness of use of humor inappropriate to the setting
Expression of humor inappropriate to setting but willing to explore and increase awareness when prompted
Use of positive humor to promote resiliency and wellness

10. Initiative and Motivation
Rated from Poor (1) to Good (5)

Often missed deadlines and classes
Missed the maximum allowable classes and deadlines
Met all attendance requirements and deadlines

Rarely participated in class activities
Usually participated in class activities
Regularly participated in class activities

Often failed to meet minimal expectations in assignments
Met only the minimal expectations in assigned work
Met or exceeded expectations in assigned work

Displayed little or no initiative and creativity in assignments
Showed some initiative and creativity in assignments
Consistently displayed initiative and creativity in assigned work

Comments:

DATE
Signature of FACULTY SUPERVISOR
DATE
Signature of STUDENT

Evaluation Status/Explanation:
The purpose of the clinical review process is to provide the counseling students with feedback to become an effective counselor/human service provider.

In the event the student ratings on this form fall below “3.0”, this may indicate that additional growth and development is needed to successfully demonstrate effectiveness in carrying out the essential job functions in counseling/human services. Therefore, it is extremely important that the student take responsibility to meet with a faculty advisor to discuss the ratings in the respective categories and develop a plan for growth/improvement.

Arbitration/Appeal Statement: Please review Clinical Review Policy.

APPENDIX B

CSU, Fresno
Department of CER programs

Counselor Disposition Assessment

Name of Candidate: ______________________________

Name of Supervisor: ______________________________ Date: _____________

(Circle one) COUN 208 COUN 238 COUN 239 COUN 249 COUN 219
REHAB 237 REHAB 238 REHAB 239

Descriptors are listed as evaluation guidelines for each of the dispositions. Included with each disposition are examples of behavioral indicators. Each indicator is offered as a suggested behavior, and not as a conclusive determining factor. Please check the appropriate box for each of the dispositions.

Rating scales
0 = not observed 1 = inadequate 2 = meet expectations 3 =exceeds expectations

Evaluation Calendar: The dispositional assessment will be completed at multiple points in the program. The chart below provides the evaluation calendar, including who bears responsibility for the evaluation.

Standard: The dispositional assessment serves both to facilitate student development while also to ensure minimum qualifications to graduate and ultimately to work as a professional counselor.

Students must score a minimum of 2 (out of 3) on each component of the dispositional assessment in order to be in good standing in the program. Students who score below a 2 (meets expectations) will, at a minimum, be required to engage in remediation efforts and may be removed from the program in cases when remediation is not a viable option (Please see Clinical Review/Due Process policy).

Download the PDF

This PDF is provided as a print-only reference document and may not be fully accessible to users of assistive technology. For more information, please visit Title II Rule on Digital Accessibility page.