Have a Question?
Ask the Graduate
College at our new
Doctoral Dissertation Announcement
Candidate: Daniel M. Huber
Doctor of Philosophy
Department: Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology
Title: The Scholarly Activity Predictor Model among Counseling Psychology Doctoral Students: A Modification and Extension
Dr. Eric Sauer, Chair
Dr. Patrick Munley
Dr. Karyn Boatwright
Date: Monday, November 23, 2009 4:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
3306 Sangren Hall
The purpose of the current study is to help better understand scholarly activity among counseling psychology doctoral students. Two new variables are added to the previously created predictor model of scholarly activity: advisory working alliance and research competence. Three path analytic models are designed in the current study: (1) a primary hypothesized model, (2) an alternative model, and (3) a trimmed model. In the first model, grounded in social-cognitive career theory (SCCT) and the research training environment (RTE) theory, it is hypothesized that scholarly activity would be explained directly by research interests, research outcome expectations, research self-efficacy, research competence, and year in program. Through these mediator variables, it is expected that investigative interests, research training environment, and advisory working alliance would all indirectly explain scholarly activity. Data from 459 counseling psychology doctoral students is used to test the three path models. Model 1 is shown to be a “good fit” to the data and explains 17% of the variance in scholarly activity.
Model 2 is designed to better understand where research competence fits in the model. In Model 2, research competence is transitioned from an exogenous variable, as it was in Model 1, to an endogenous variable. Path analysis results reveal that Model 2 is a “poor fit” to the data. Because Model 1 is a better fit than Model 2, findings from Model 1 are used to create a trimmed model. The trimmed model is shown to be a better fit to the data than Model 1. Overall, the trimmed model explains 55% of the variance in research self-efficacy, 16% in research outcome expectations, 62% in research interests, and 18% in scholarly activity. Results provide strong support for SCCT and mixed support for RTE theory. Implications are discussed within the context of research training, and future research is suggested.