Identity and counsellor preference

This study investigated the relationship of identity development, measured by the Self-Identity Inventory (SII), universal-diverse orientation (UDO), measured by the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale- Short (M-GUDS-S), to counsellor preference in a sample of 365 university students. After...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Counselling psychology quarterly 2007-12, Vol.20 (4), p.341-360
Main Authors: Munley, Patrick H., Thiagarajan, Monica, Carney, Sharon, Preacco, Lara, Lidderdale, Melissa
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biological and medical sciences
College students
Correlation analysis
counsellor
counsellor characteristics
Counsellors
Identity
Identity formation
Medical sciences
Miscellaneous
perference
Predictors
Preferences
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Regression analysis
School counseling
Social psychiatry. Ethnopsychiatry
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study investigated the relationship of identity development, measured by the Self-Identity Inventory (SII), universal-diverse orientation (UDO), measured by the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale- Short (M-GUDS-S), to counsellor preference in a sample of 365 university students. After controlling for personal identity demographic variables, multiple regression analysis indicated SII and UDO accounted for significant additional variance in counsellor preference with Immersion (SII Scale 3), Relativistic Appreciation (MGUDS-S Subscale 2) and Comfort with Differences (MGUDS-S Subscale 3), identified as significant unique predictors. A canonical correlation analysis performed with 11 individual counsellor preference variables as criterion variables and 9 identity salience variables as predictor variables to explore the relationships between identity salience and counsellor preference yielded three significant canonical functions. † Portions of this article were presented as a poster session at the Great Lakes Counselling Psychology Conference at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, April 2005.
ISSN:0951-5070
1469-3674
DOI:10.1080/09515070701690002