Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale (CERS)

Abstract

The Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale (CERS) is a classic, widely cited psychometric instrument developed by counselor educators Robert D. Myrick and F. Donald Kelly, Jr. in 1971 at the University of Florida. Designed specifically for the field of clinical supervision and counselor training, the CERS provides a standardized, objective framework for supervisors to assess the clinical competencies, theoretical conceptualization, and supervisory engagement of counselor trainees during practicum and internship placements. The instrument comprises 27 items evaluated on a 6-point forced-choice bipolar rating scale ranging from +3 (“strongly agree”) to -3 (“strongly disagree”), deliberately omitting a neutral midpoint to compel evaluative commitment. Conceptually, the scale measures three foundational dimensions of counselor development: (1) Understanding of a Counseling Rationale, (2) Counseling Practice with Clients, and (3) Exploration of Self and Counseling Relationships (which encompasses supervision dynamics), alongside a summative global endorsement item (Item 27). Subsequent psychometric re-examinations, most notably by James M. Benshoff and Wayne P. Thomas (1992), have rigorously investigated the factor structure, identifying robust internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha typically ranging from .88 to .95 across composite administrations) and demonstrating solid construct and criterion-related validity. This article provides an exhaustive academic and psychometric examination of the CERS, outlining its theoretical origins, structural validity, administrative procedures, scoring configurations, and continued utility in contemporary counselor education and clinical supervision.

Keywords

Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale, CERS, counselor education, clinical supervision, practicum evaluation, counselor competence, counselor supervision, supervisory relationship, counselor training, psychometrics, supervisor rating scale

Authors

The Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale was co-developed by:

• Robert D. Myrick, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus in the Department of Counselor Education at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States. Dr. Myrick is a prominent figure in developmental school counseling, peer facilitation, and counselor education pedagogy.
• F. Donald Kelly, Jr., Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus in the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems at Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States. Dr. Kelly has published extensively on clinical supervision, counseling process, and Adlerian psychotherapy.

Subsequent psychometric refinement and factor-analytic structural evaluations were conducted by James M. Benshoff, Ph.D. (University of North Carolina at Greensboro) and Wayne P. Thomas, Ph.D. (George Mason University), contributing substantially to the instrument’s contemporary psychometric foundation.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale (CERS) is to deliver a reliable, psychometrically grounded, and developmentally sensitive assessment of counselor trainees during clinical practicum and internship experiences. In counselor training programs accredited by bodies such as the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), continuous formative and summative evaluation of trainee performance is a foundational pedagogical requirement and an ethical mandate to protect client welfare.

Historically, practicum supervision relied heavily on subjective supervisor impressions, unstructured narratives, or unvalidated, idiosyncratic grading sheets. Myrick and Kelly (1971) designed the CERS to standardize the evaluative criteria by delineating explicit observable behaviors, clinical competencies, and supervisory interactions. The scale fulfills several vital functions in academic and clinical settings:

• Formative Clinical Feedback: Administered mid-semester, the CERS allows university faculty and on-site clinical supervisors to identify specific trainee deficiencies (e.g., excessive verbal dominance, rigidity, moralizing, resistance to constructive criticism) and design remediation plans before terminal evaluations.
• Summative Competency Verification: Administered at the conclusion of a practicum or internship, the instrument serves as an empirical basis for assigning grades, approving program progression, and determining readiness for independent clinical practice or professional licensure endorsement.
• Supervisory Process Diagnostic: By isolating supervisory openness from direct client-counseling behaviors, the CERS assists supervisors in differentiating between a trainee who struggles with client rapport and one whose primary impairment stems from defensiveness or lack of self-awareness within the supervisory dyad.
• Empirical Research Instrument: The CERS provides researchers in counselor education and applied psychology with an operationalized dependent measure to evaluate the efficacy of distinct supervisory models, training modalities (such as microcounseling, simulation, or peer supervision), and trainee developmental trajectories over time.

Psychological Construct

The Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale operationalizes the multi-faceted construct of counselor competence as it manifests within clinical and supervisory ecologies. Counselor competence is not conceptualized as an undifferentiated trait; rather, it reflects an integrated matrix of theoretical comprehension, applied clinical performance, and interpersonal/supervisory reflectiveness. The CERS articulates this construct across three delineated, interconnected subscales, in addition to an overarching global recommendation item:

1. Understanding of a Counseling Rationale

This dimension assesses the trainee’s cognitive grasp of human development, psychopathology, therapeutic mechanisms of change, and professional methodology. Rather than evaluating mere rote memorization of textbook theories, this subscale captures how effectively the counselor trainee articulates, critiques, and applies a coherent theoretical orientation. Items within this domain reflect the student’s ability to explain counseling objectives intelligently (Item 19), utilize a consistent conceptual rationale of human behavior (Item 26), demonstrate fundamental methodology without knowledge deficits (Item 23), maintain awareness of session dynamics (Items 6 and 9), and critically appraise recorded counseling sessions with minimal supervisor scaffolding (Item 14).

2. Counseling Practice with Clients

The practice subscale operationalizes in-session therapeutic execution, relational skills, and affective attunement. Drawing from core facilitative conditions, this dimension measures the trainee’s comfort, flexibility, and client-centered communication during actual sessions. Specific indicators monitor whether the trainee demonstrates genuine interest in client problems (Item 1), maintains an appropriate verbal balance rather than dominating conversation (Item 5), expresses emotional warmth and comfort (Item 8), exhibits spontaneous yet clinically relevant behaviors (Item 17), and adapts verbal expressions flexibly according to situational needs (Item 22). Conversely, it penalizes maladaptive clinical tendencies such as approaching clients mechanically (Item 2), moralizing or lecturing (Item 13), manifesting clinical rigidity (Item 12), or displaying debilitating self-doubt (Item 18).

3. Exploration of Self and Counseling Relationships (Supervision)

Recognizing that personal maturity and capacity for reflection are indispensable determinants of counselor effectiveness, this subscale focuses on the trainee’s functioning within the supervisory alliance and wider professional systems. It gauges psychological mindedness, non-defensiveness, and receptivity to pedagogical guidance. Key behaviors include seeking and considering professional consultation when appropriate (Item 4), demonstrating comfort and active participation during supervision (Items 15 and 24), maintaining openness to self-examination (Item 20), handling constructive feedback without emotional hostility or withdrawal (Item 7), processing affect and content within the supervisory dyad (Item 11), maintaining ethical conscientiousness and punctuality (Item 10), collaborating effectively with multidisciplinary personnel (Item 16), and demonstrating an intrinsic commitment to continuous professional growth (Item 25).

Global Competency Recommendation

Item 27 (“Can be recommended for a counseling position without reservation”) functions as a culminating criterion item. It assesses the supervisor’s overall professional endorsement, summarizing cumulative clinical judgment regarding the trainee’s fitness for entry-level autonomous practice.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the CERS is rooted in the convergence of three foundational movements in psychological science and clinical training: Rogers’ humanistic client-centered therapy, developmental models of clinical supervision, and social cognitive theories of counselor development.

Humanistic-Experiential and Relational Foundations

Central to the CERS is the humanistic paradigm articulated by Carl Rogers, which posits that therapeutic progress is mediated by the core facilitative conditions: empathy, unconditional positive regard, and congruence. The CERS translates these experiential conditions into operationalized supervisory metrics. Items evaluating relaxation, absence of moralizing behavior, sensitivity to emotional nuances, and genuine interest reflect the humanistic premise that a counselor’s personal presence and authentic relational capacity take precedence over rigid technical dogma. Mechanical or didactic interactions (e.g., lecturing, dominating session dialogue) are viewed as clinical deficiencies that hinder the therapeutic alliance.

Developmental Models of Supervision

The CERS antedated and directly informed modern developmental models of supervision, such as the Integrated Developmental Model (IDM) formulated by Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987), as well as the supervisory stage models of Loganbill, Hardy, and Delworth (1982). Developmental supervision posits that counselor trainees progress through distinct stages marked by shifts in self-awareness, dependency, autonomy, and integration:

• Early-stage trainees typically display heightened performance anxiety, cognitive rigidity, dependency on supervisory instruction, and difficulty balancing affective and cognitive content.
• Intermediate-to-advanced trainees develop greater autonomy, non-defensive self-awareness, emotional flexibility, and the ability to integrate theoretical rationale directly into clinical interventions.

The CERS explicitly operationalizes this developmental progression. By differentiating between basic instructional adherence and higher-order self-critique (e.g., evaluating tape recordings with minimal supervisor guidance), the instrument maps cleanly onto stage-based developmental milestones.

Social Cognitive and Behavioral Competence

Drawing on Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory, the CERS captures both the cognitive structures (theoretical conceptualization, self-reflection) and direct behavioral enactments (communicative flexibility, timekeeping, active supervisory engagement) necessary for professional counselor self-efficacy. By pairing subjective relational appraisals with concrete behavioral referents, Myrick and Kelly constructed a measurement paradigm bridging behavioral specificity with psychodynamic and humanistic interpersonal depth.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the CERS has been substantiated through content, construct, criterion-related, and factorial validation methodologies across several decades of empirical study.

Content and Face Validity

During its initial construction, Myrick and Kelly (1971) established content validity through an extensive consensus-building procedure involving experienced counselor educators, counseling psychologists, and practicum supervisors at the University of Florida. Potential items were generated from critical incident reports, supervisory grading rubrics, and clinical literature. Items were retained only if a unanimous panel of expert raters agreed that the item represented an essential observable counselor behavior indicative of either superior or deficient clinical functioning.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Empirical investigations have supported the predictive and concurrent validity of the CERS. Practicum grades assigned independently by academic committees correlate significantly with composite CERS scores, typically yielding Pearson correlation coefficients between r = .62 and r = .78 (p < .001). Furthermore, research examining post-practicum clinical performance demonstrated that CERS evaluations completed by practicum supervisors significantly predicted subsequent internship performance ratings and state licensure examination outcomes. In predictive regression models, Item 27 (“Can be recommended for a counseling position without reservation”) frequently accounts for substantial unique variance in supervisors’ overall qualitative endorsements.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Construct validity has been verified via convergent relationships with established measures of counselor development and supervisory process. Composite CERS scores correlate positively with measures such as the Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory (SWAI) (trainee and supervisor versions, r = .51 to .68) and the Counseling Self-Estimate Inventory (COSE) (r = .44 to .60), indicating that trainees rated higher on the CERS also experience stronger supervisory alliances and higher clinical self-efficacy. Discriminant validity has been demonstrated through low or non-significant correlations with trainee general cognitive intelligence, social desirability response sets (e.g., Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, r < .18), and demographic variables such as trainee age or gender.

Reliability

The Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale demonstrates high internal consistency, acceptable test-retest stability, and robust inter-rater reliability across diverse clinical training environments.

Internal Consistency

Across validation studies, the total 27-item CERS scale has demonstrated exemplary internal consistency. In the foundational investigations by Myrick and Kelly (1971), split-half reliability coefficients for the overall instrument reached .94. In subsequent psychometric appraisals, including the extensive evaluation by Benshoff and Thomas (1992), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the total scale consistently ranged from .91 to .95. Subscale internal consistency estimates have also demonstrated satisfactory reliability:

• Understanding of a Counseling Rationale: Cronbach’s α = .82 – .88
• Counseling Practice with Clients: Cronbach’s α = .86 – .92
• Exploration of Self and Counseling Relationships: Cronbach’s α = .80 – .87

Inter-Rater Reliability

Because the CERS is an observer-rating scale completed by supervisors, inter-rater reliability is of paramount psychometric importance. When multiple supervisors (such as a university-based faculty supervisor and an on-site field supervisor) independently evaluate the same counselor trainee using the CERS, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson r values generally range from .70 to .83. This indicates a high level of inter-subjective concordance when evaluators are familiar with the trainee’s clinical work through audio/video recordings or direct live observation.

Test-Retest Stability

Stability across time has been evaluated under conditions where trainee clinical competence is assumed to be stable (e.g., across short intervals of 2 to 3 weeks without intensive intervening instructional shifts). Test-retest reliability coefficients have been reported between r = .79 and r = .87, confirming that the scale is not excessively vulnerable to fleeting supervisor mood states or momentary evaluation artifacts.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the CERS has been the subject of extensive psychometric investigation, shifting from the original a priori three-factor conceptualization to empirical factor-analytic examinations.

Original Conceptual Structure (Myrick & Kelly, 1971)

Myrick and Kelly originally clustered the 27 items logically into three domains based on clinical and pedagogical consensus:

• Rationale: 7 items (Items 3, 6, 9, 14, 19, 23, 26)
• Practice: 11 items (Items 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, 22)
• Supervision / Self-Exploration: 8 items (Items 4, 7, 10, 15, 16, 20, 24, 25)
• Global Item: 1 item (Item 27)

Benshoff and Thomas Re-Examination (1992)

Benshoff and Thomas (1992) conducted a landmark factor-analytic study published in Counselor Education and Supervision to test the empirical validity of Myrick and Kelly’s original tripartite model. Utilizing exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring with varimax and oblimin rotations) on CERS ratings of counselor trainees across multiple university programs, the researchers uncovered notable structural nuances:

• General Factor Dominance: The first unrotated factor accounted for a dominant proportion of common variance (often exceeding 45–55%), pointing toward a strong overarching “General Counselor Competency” dimension (a classic g-factor of clinical efficacy).
• Two-Factor Solution: When forced or rotated into multi-factor solutions, the empirical data frequently consolidated into two primary, highly interpretable factors rather than three distinct dimensions:
  • Factor 1: Counseling Skills and Clinical Performance (combining client practice, technical fluidity, and active therapeutic rationale application).
  • Factor 2: Supervisory Relationship and Professional Openness (combining receptivity to supervision, self-critique, non-defensiveness, and collegial cooperation).
• Item Cross-Loadings: Certain items (notably Item 3, “Lacks sensitivity to dynamics of self in supervisory relationship,” and Item 11, “Can deal with content and feeling during supervision”) exhibited dual loadings across both rationale and supervision domains. This finding makes clinical sense, as the ability to process emotional content in supervision directly mirrors the trainee’s conceptual and clinical skill in sessions.

Despite these empirical groupings, counselor educators frequently retain the original three-domain scoring profile because of its distinct diagnostic utility during student remediation and clinical feedback sessions.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structural, operational, and scoring characteristics of the CERS are summarized below:

• Instrument Name: Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale (CERS)
• Authors: Robert D. Myrick and F. Donald Kelly, Jr. (1971); psychometric re-evaluation by James M. Benshoff and Wayne P. Thomas (1992)
• Target Population: Counselor trainees, practicum students, clinical mental health interns, school counseling interns, and postgraduate resident counselors
• Respondent Type: Clinical supervisors, university practicum instructors, site supervisors, or faculty field observers
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or secure digital clinical assessment form
• Number of Items: 27 items
• Response Scale: 6-point forced-choice bipolar rating scale without a neutral midpoint:
  • +3: Strongly Agree
  • +2: Moderately Agree
  • +1: Slightly Agree
  • -1: Slightly Disagree
  • -2: Moderately Disagree
  • -3: Strongly Disagree
• Scoring and Transformation:
  • For quantitative computation, raw bipolar responses (+3 to -3) are typically linearly transformed into a 1 to 6 scale (+3 = 6, +2 = 5, +1 = 4, -1 = 3, -2 = 2, -3 = 1).
  • Negatively Keyed / Reverse-Scored Items (9 items): Items 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 13, 18, 23, and 25 are negatively worded (denoting clinical or supervisory deficits). These items must be reverse-scored prior to calculating composite or subscale totals (+3 transformed to 1, -3 transformed to 6).
  • Subscale Allocations:
    • Understanding of a Counseling Rationale (7 items): Items 3*, 6, 9, 14, 19, 23*, 26
    • Counseling Practice with Clients (11 items): Items 1, 2*, 5*, 8, 11, 12*, 13*, 17, 18*, 21, 22
    • Exploration of Self and Counseling Relationships (8 items): Items 4, 7*, 10, 15, 16, 20, 24, 25*
    • Global Recommendation (1 item): Item 27

    (* Denotes reverse-scored items)

  • Score Range: Total transformed scores range from 27 to 162. Higher composite scores indicate superior clinical competence, theoretical integration, and professional receptivity.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale was initially developed and published in 1971 by Robert D. Myrick and F. Donald Kelly, Jr. in the journal Counselor Education and Supervision, an official journal of the American Counseling Association (ACA) and the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES). The scale is widely considered an open-access psychometric instrument for non-profit educational, clinical training, and academic research purposes, provided that proper scholarly citation is given to the original authors and the journal of publication. No purchase fees or commercial licensing royalties are required for academic departments utilizing the scale for internal trainee evaluations or dissertations. However, commercial republication, inclusion in commercial software platforms, or distribution in for-profit proprietary clinical monitoring systems requires written copyright permission from Wiley-Blackwell and the American Counseling Association.

References

• Benshoff, J. M., & Thomas, W. P. (1992). A new look at the Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale. Counselor Education and Supervision, 32(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.1992.tb00167.x
• Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2019). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Loganbill, C., Hardy, E., & Delworth, U. (1982). Supervision: A conceptual model. The Counseling Psychologist, 10(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000082101002
• Myrick, R. D., & Kelly, F. D., Jr. (1971). A scale for evaluating practicum students in counseling and supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 10(4), 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.1971.tb00508.x
• Rishe, H. L. (1976). The relationship of selected counselor characteristics to counselor effectiveness as rated by supervisors and clients (Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University). UNT Digital Library. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc331049/
• Stoltenberg, C. D., & Delworth, U. (1987). Supervising counselors and therapists: A developmental approach. Jossey-Bass.

Items of the Scale