As recently as ten years ago, the distinction between evaluation and research in career psychology was a simple one to make. Field studies assessing the impact of an intervention were considered to be evaluations, and developmental or differential studies testing a theory were considered to be research. At that time, evaluation studies were done in natural settings (Gelso, 1979b) and sacrificed rigor for relevance (Goldman, 1976), whereas research studies were done in contrived settings, such as laboratories or analogues, where maximum rigor was sought. In contrast, evaluation and research are now converging, and distinctions between them are less important. Field research, process studies, and case studies are increasingly popular, whereas correlational designs are yielding decreasing returns in some areas of study (Spokane, 1985). Research on career intervention closely resembles evaluation when it compares the efficacy of several treatments, or studies an aspect of the treatment in order to increase its potency. One remaining contemporary boundary between evaluation and research, however, lies in the analytic study of the gain process, and in the study of complex interactions between treatments and client characteristics (Fretz, 1981). Such studies contribute to our understanding of not only specific treatments and their outcomes, but also of the psychological processes involved in career selection. Thus, process studies can be considered to be either research or evaluation.
Rounds and Tinsley (1984) have stated that we are unlikely to understand career intervention until we restrict our definition of the process to dyadic or group interactions between a counselor and a client. The underlying question in the dispute over the definition of career counseling is whether parallel intervention and client gain processes are involved in traditional and alternative interventions. This book takes the position that the processes are essentially similar, but that the mix is weighted for different interventions. Thus we might have slightly varied outcome expectations for workshops than for individual counseling based on the blend of processes (client and counselor) in the intervention.
Why Evaluate Career Interventions?
Perloff and Perloff (1977) described two historical bases of the mental health evaluation movement. The first is the concern in a democratic society for the general welfare of individuals, and the shared desire to improve "economic and educational opportunities, decrease illness and environmental blight, and to make people happier, healthier, and more hopeful about their futures" (Perloff & Perloff, 1977, p. 379). Although Perloff and Perloff argued that there may be less of this humanitarian motive for evaluating mental health programs and services than might be desirable, most federal programs are designed with this belief in mind.
A second reason for evaluating mental health programs and services derives from the consumer movement, and has been called accountability. Various consumer groups (e.g., school boards, state legislatures, and third-party payers) have led the campaign for accountability in the counseling field, insisting on evidence of its effectiveness (Herr, 1976). Cost has been an important aspect of such accountability (Krumboltz, 1974). Because the vast sums of federal money that had been devoted to mental health programs during the 1950s and 1960s diminished sharply in 1970s and 1980s just as the service needs were expanding, the efficient use of available funds was a serious concern for mental health professionals (Coursey, 1977).
There are thus many reasons for evaluating mental health interventions in general and career interventions in particular. These efforts, however, are not nearly as thorough as similar evaluations in the medical community. The FDA approval process for a new drug, for example, requires sufficient evidence of the drug's effectiveness from controlled studies prior to its release. Where would career intervention stand in a controlled approval process? What is a reasonable outcome for a career intervention?
In the past several years, several comprehensive and penetrating reviews of career development theory and interventions have increased our general understanding of the overall effectiveness of career interventions (Baker & Popowicz, 1983; Fretz, 1981; Holland, Magoon, & Spokane, 1981; Krumboltz, Becker-Haven, & Burnett, 1979; Lunneborg, 1983; R. A. Myers, 1971, 1986; Spokane and Oliver, 1983; Osipow, 1982, 1987c; Pickering & Vacc, 1984; Rounds & Tinsiey, 1984; Savickas, in press; Spokane & Oliver, 1983; Super & Hall, 1978; Watts & Kidd, 1978). In addition, numerous annual reviews of the career development literature, many of which included studies of career intervention, have been published in the Journal of Vocational Behavior (Bartol, 1981; E. L. Betz, 1977; Borgen, Layton, Veehnhuizen & Johnson, 1985; Fitzgerald & Rounds, 1989; Garbin 8c Stover, 1980; Greenhaus & Para-suraman, 1986; Muchinsky, 1983; Osipow, 1976; Phillips, Cairo, Blustein, & Myers, 1988; Slaney & Russell, 1987; Tinsiey & Heesacker, 1984; Walsh, 1979; Zytowski, 1978). Each of these reviews has had a slightly different interpretation of the literature, although there is considerable overlap among their conclusions.
Summary
Evaluation is distinct from research. Career interventions are evaluated to promote the welfare of individuals and to insure the accountability of the counseling profession in times of decreasing resources. A variety of interventions have been repeatedly found to be moderately effective, but evaluative efforts suffer from problems of irrelevance. A preliminary set of multidimensional rating scales has been suggested in the hope that more evaluations will incorporate similar outcomes.
