Counselling Self Estimate Inventory (COSE) 心理咨询自我评估量表

synopsis（简介）

The Counselling Self Estimate Inventory (COSE) is a 37-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure a clinician’s self-efficacy. It is appropriate for use with psychologists, psychiatrists, counsellors, trainees in these disciplines, and other mental health clinicians engaged in therapy with clients.
The COSE measures five areas of counselling self-efficacy:
performance of micro skills
developing an awareness of the process
working with challenging clients
developing cultural competence
awareness of self-values
The COSE can be used to help clinicians engage in reflective practice or in the context of supervision to start a discussion around professional confidence and areas to focus on for skills development. Although the COSE is not a direct measure of counselling skills, it does measure self-perception and confidence in the ability to provide counselling.
In the context of supervision and/or training it can be helpful to administer the scale longitudinally, for example 6 months apart, to assess any change in confidence over time.
Clinician self-efficacy is an avenue through which counselling skills are learned as it enhances the ability to persevere when challenged and allows greater incorporation of critical feedback (Barnes, 2004). Based on this orientation, clinicians with higher levels of self-efficacy may put greater effort into skill development, as they have confidence in their ability to be successful. Counselling self-efficacy is essential to actual skill development (Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1998). Research has shown that practice and feedback on practice have an impact on self-efficacy, such that positive experiences enhance counsellor self-efficacy, which leads to greater problem solving (Daniels & Larson, 2001). Without development of self-efficacy and confidence, clinicians can struggle with basic skill development.

心理咨询自我评估量表（COSE）是一份包含 37 个项目的自我报告问卷，旨在测量临床医生的自我效能感。它适用于心理学家、精神科医生、辅导员、这些学科的受训人员以及其他从事客户治疗的心理健康临床医生。
COSE 测评咨询自我效能感的五个方面：
掌握微观技能
培养过程意识
与具有挑战性的客户合作
培养文化能力
对自我价值观的认识
COSE 可用于帮助临床医生进行反思性实践，或在督导过程中围绕专业自信和技能发展的重点领域展开讨论。尽管COSE并不是对咨询技能的直接测量，但它确实可以测量自我认知和对提供咨询能力的信心。
在督导和/或培训的背景下，对该量表进行纵向施测（例如相隔 6 个月）可能会对评估信心随时间推移而发生的任何变化有所帮助。
临床医师的自我效能感是学习心理咨询技能的一个途径，因为它能增强在遇到挑战时坚持不懈的能力，并能更多地采纳批评性反馈意见（Barnes，2004 年）。基于这一导向，自我效能感较高的临床医生可能会在技能发展方面付出更多努力，因为他们对自己取得成功的能力充满信心。咨询自我效能对实际技能发展至关重要（Stoltenberg、McNeill 和 Delworth，1998 年）。研究表明，实践和对实践的反馈会对自我效能感产生影响，例如，积极的经验会增强辅导员的自我效能感，从而提高解决问题的能力（Daniels & Larson, 2001）。如果不发展自我效能感和自信心，临床医生在基本技能发展方面就会举步维艰。

Validity and Reliability（信效度）

The COSE has become one of the most widely used, psychometrically sound instruments measuring counsellor’s feelings of counselling skills (Larson & Daniels, 1998). It has been used in many empirical studies and a variety of countries, including Australia, Hong Kong, Ireland, Malaysia, Canada, Germany, Philippines, South Africa, Japan, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the USA.

Construct validity has been demonstrated through factor analyses, which resulted in the current five-factor model (Larson & Daniels, 1998). The COSE has sound psychometric properties, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .92 – .93 (Larson et al., 1992; Meyer, 2015) and test–retest reliability of .83 over a 3-week period (Larson et al., 1992).

Li et al. (2018) provided normative data from a sample of masters level counselling students, with the following means and standard deviations.

Total Score – Mean 4.46 SD 0.68

Micro-skills – Mean 4.69 SD 0.71

Counselling Process – Mean 4.25 SD 0.80

Dealing With Difficult Client Behaviours – Mean 4.15 SD 0.94

Cultural Competence – Mean 4.76 SD 0.83

Awareness of Values – Mean 4.53 SD 0.83

COSE 已成为应用最广泛、心理测量最准确的工具之一，用于测量辅导员对辅导技能的感受（Larson 和 Daniels，1998 年）。它已被用于许多实证研究和多个国家，包括澳大利亚、香港、爱尔兰、马来西亚、加拿大、德国、菲律宾、南非、日本、泰国、土耳其、阿拉伯联合酋长国和美国。
通过因素分析，得出了目前的五因素模型（Larson 和 Daniels，1998 年），从而证明了结构的有效性。COSE 具有良好的心理测量特性，其 Cronbach's alpha 值为 0.92 - 0.93（Larson 等人，1992 年；Meyer，2015 年），3 周内的测试-再测信度为 0.83（Larson 等人，1992 年）。
Li等人（2018）提供了一个硕士辅导学生样本的常模数据，其平均值和标准差如下。
总分 - 平均值 4.46 标准差 0.68
微技能 - 平均值 4.69，标准差 0.71
辅导过程 - 平均值 4.25 SD 0.80
处理客户的困难行为 - 平均值 4.15 SD 0.94
文化素养 - 平均值 4.76 SD 0.83
价值观意识 - 平均值 4.53 SD 0.83

Scoring and Interpretation（得分解释）

A total average score is calculated to reflect one’s general counselling self-efficacy with a higher score representing a higher degree of confidence in one’s counselling skills. Possible average scores range from 1 to 6 and are calculated by summing responses divided by the number of items in the scale.

Percentiles are also presented for the total score and each subscale, calculated in comparison to a sample of masters level counselling students (Li et al., 2018). Interpretation of scores using percentiles can be helpful to contextualise results in comparison to typical patterns of responding. A percentile of 50 represents an average response in comparison to counselling trainees. There is no normative data available for experienced professionals.

Subscale average scores are calculated to determine self-efficacy in the five counselling skills areas:

Micro-skills (Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 32, 34). The counsellor’s confidence that they can effectively perform counselling skills such as active listening, conceptualising client problems, and appropriately ending sessions.

Counselling Process (Items 6, 9, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 31, 33). The counsellor’s confidence in their perception of therapeutic alliance, their own communication, their interpretation of client responses, and their assessment of important client issues.

Dealing With Difficult Client Behaviours (Items 15, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28). The counsellor’s confidence in dealing with clients who lack motivation, in dealing with crisis situations, or in dealing with noncommittal or indecisive clients.

Cultural Competence (Items 29, 30, 36, 37). The counsellor’s confidence in their ability to help clients from various cultural backgrounds.

Awareness of Values (Items 2, 7, 13, 35). The counsellor’s awareness of their own values and biases and their confidence that they won’t let these interfere with the counselling process.

High total COSE scores have been shown to have a strong positive correlation with self-esteem, competence in problem solving effectiveness, more positive expectations of client outcome, and execution of counselling micro skills.

Particularly high scores (above 5) in the context of training or supervision may be indicative of overconfidence, defensiveness, nervousness about unfavourable supervisor evaluation or concern that the scale is being used as a measure of professional competence. It is therefore important to interpret results in light of the trust established between assessor and respondent and the context in which it was administered.

Moderate scores (between 3 and 5) are associated with therapists who are likely to be open to critical feedback (from clients or supervisor). These scores are indicative of a clinician who has healthy confidence and is likely to persevere when challenged.

Low scores may be indicative of someone who has struggled with their skill development or who has pervasive difficulties with confidence. People who score very low (2 or less) many experience constructive feedback (from supervisor or client) as demoralising. The COSE negatively correlates with state and trait anxiety (Larson et al., 1992).

Easton et al. (2008) examined the relationship between counsellor self-efficacy, emotional intelligence and judgment. Results demonstrated that all five COSE subscales were related to awareness and identification of emotions, use of emotion in problem solving, and use of emotion in adaptation.

When interpreting COSE results it may be helpful to also administer the Professional Self Doubt Scale, which measures a related construct.

Nineteen of the items (2, 6, 7, 9, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 31, 33, 35, 36, & 37) are reverse coded.

计算出的总平均分反映一个人的一般咨询自我效能感，分数越高，代表对自己的咨询技能越有信心。可能的平均分范围为 1 到 6 分，计算方法是将回答的总和除以量表中的项目数。
总分和每个分量表的百分位数也是通过与硕士辅导学生样本进行比较计算得出的（Li 等人，2018 年）。使用百分位数解释分数有助于将结果与典型的反应模式进行比较。百分位数为 50 代表与辅导学员相比的平均反应。目前还没有经验丰富的专业人员的标准数据。
计算子量表平均分是为了确定五个辅导技能领域的自我效能感：
微观技能（项目 1、3、4、5、8、10、11、12、14、17、32、34）。辅导员对自己能够有效掌握积极倾听、将客户问题概念化以及适当结束会谈等辅导技能的信心。
咨询过程（项目 6、9、16、18、19、21、22、23、31、33）。辅导员对治疗联盟的认识、自身的沟通、对求助者反应的解释以及对求助者重要问题的评估的信心。
处理客户的困难行为（项目 15、20、24、25、26、27、28）。辅导员在处理缺乏动力的客户、处理危机情况或处理不坚定或优柔寡断的客户时的信心。
文化胜任能力（项目 29、30、36、37）。辅导员对自己帮助来自不同文化背景的求助者的能力的信心。
价值观意识（项目 2、7、13、35）。辅导员对自身价值观和偏见的认识，以及他们不会让这些价值观和偏见干扰辅导过程的信心。
事实证明，COSE 总分高与自尊心、解决问题的能力、对客户结果更积极的预期以及辅导微观技能的执行有很强的正相关性。
在培训或督导中，总分特别高（超过 5 分）可能表明过于自信、防卫、对督导的不利评价感到紧张，或担心该量表被用作衡量专业能力的标准。因此，在解释结果时，必须考虑到评估者与受访者之间建立的信任以及实施评估的背景。
中度得分（3 到 5 分之间）与治疗师可能乐于接受（来自客户或主管的）批评性反馈有关。这些分数表明临床医生具有健康的自信心，并有可能在遇到挑战时坚持不懈。
得分低的人可能在技能发展方面遇到困难，或者在自信方面普遍存在困难。得分很低（2 分或更低）的人可能会认为（来自主管或客户的）建设性反馈打击了他们的士气。COSE 与状态焦虑和特质焦虑呈负相关（Larson 等人，1992 年）。
Easton 等人（2008 年）研究了辅导员自我效能感、情商和判断力之间的关系。结果表明，所有五个 COSE 子量表都与情绪的意识和识别、在解决问题中使用情绪以及在适应中使用情绪有关。
在解释 COSE 结果时，同时使用职业自我怀疑量表可能会有所帮助，该量表测量的是一个相关的结构。
其中 19 个项目（2、6、7、9、16、18、19、21、22、23、24、26、27、28、31、33、35、36 和 37）采用反向编码。