View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

An Omnibus Synthesis of Author and Article Publication Characteristics in 22 Counseling Journals from 2010 to 2019

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An Omnibus Synthesis of Author and Article Publication Characteristics in 22 Counseling Journals from 2010 to 2019
Language: English
Authors: Erford, Bradley T. (ORCID 0000-0001-5891-5770), Chang, Catherine Y., Crockett, Stephanie A., Byrd, Rebekah, Johnsen, Sarah T., MacInerney, Erin K., Menzies, Alyson, Milowsky, Andrew I., Saks, Jordana, Wills, LeAnn, Zhang, Xi, Alder, Candice, Anderson, Billie, Barstack, Samantha, Bradford, Emily, Choi, Jennifer, Cummings, Jenna A., Fuller, Alexandra, Gayowsky, Jennifer, Gonsalves, Gala, Haffner, Alyson M., Hinkle, Daniel G., Johnsen, K. Britt, Johnson, Arden, Katrak, Karishma K., Kepley, Leah, Kwag, Daun, Mehlhouse, Kaitlyn, Melanson, Marcella, Miller, Madison K., Muller, Lauren A., Olson, Emily S., Pesavento, Alyssa R., Rippeto, Margaret, Stewart, Elizabeth, Siegler, Emily, Stafford, Carly, Clair, Anne M. St, Sylvester, Anne-Marie, Villette, Lexa, Watson, Kristin, Wary, Samantha, West, Caroline, Williams, Dorrie, Yu, Candice
Source: Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2023 56(3):187-208.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Scholarship, Journal Articles, Periodicals, Authors, Counseling, Meta Analysis, Trend Analysis, Individual Characteristics, Productivity, Faculty Publishing, Content Analysis, Research Design, Intervention, Sample Size
DOI: 10.1080/07481756.2023.2224028
ISSN: 0748-1756
1947-6302
Abstract: Articles published in 22 counseling journals from 2010-2019 were compared on 26 author and article characteristics. Women now constitute majorities of authorship and counseling journals are publishing larger proportions of research articles, 63% of which used quantitative approaches and about 11% of which studied counseling interventions.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1395706
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEIlwbsoyEiJfIsE-3mbQkMAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDB9VvzwV7HQQlrrYQQIBEICBmwz98bJ3VIPC2dbkYQzHVvlsOnQGXSo_heTDCITcLREof3WJhinD_0Ia9A22BQRINFdWoE4efJZS5usyR40qnBH_e-UFdg5KTwOZYb4ZcBpz3QXLPjZ2eF9nOLFyX7Ia0JzzPrf091_HUoJHgv7P46eiJSfjxr2avFDeLn9ta2xYt-ISwanRFc5jxjleCXPZ5aA6P7ptDm8yv-UD
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0164958275;mev01jul.23;2023Jul19.05:03;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0164958275-1">An Omnibus Synthesis of Author and Article Publication Characteristics in 22 Counseling Journals from 2010 to 2019 </title> <p>Articles published in 22 counseling journals from 2010–2019 were compared on 26 author and article characteristics. Women now constitute majorities of authorship and counseling journals are publishing larger proportions of research articles, 63% of which used quantitative approaches and about 11% of which studied counseling interventions.</p> <p>Keywords: Meta-study; trends; article characteristics; author characteristics</p> <p>It is through the publication of scholarship that knowledge is disseminated within a specific scientific discipline and across professions. This shared knowledge helps promote future research and informs clinical practice in the counseling profession. Numerous researchers, both institution-affiliated and practitioners, have improved and advanced the counseling profession through scholarly contributions to journals. Over the past decade, for example, the counseling profession has experienced revisions of training standards (i.e., Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs standards), a renewed call for multicultural research (Chang & Rabess, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]; O'Hara et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref2">25</reflink>]), diversification of the profession with the establishment of new counseling organizations and new journals, and the development of new counseling interventions, evaluations, and treatment strategies (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref3">13</reflink>]). With these changes in the counseling profession, it is helpful to review who and what is being published in counseling journals to determine trends, patterns, and the trajectory of important and meaningful characteristics.</p> <p>Erford et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref4">9</reflink>]) identified three methods to analyze trends and patterns in publications. The first method involves a review of the special issues published by a journal to assess what societal and professional trends the journal is addressing. The second method involves content experts conducting a qualitative review of author and article characteristics. The third method is a metastudy or quantitative review that analyzes and synthesizes the occurrence and progressions of various author and article characteristics. Metastudies use descriptive and univariate statistics to identify patterns and trends over time. The current omnibus used results from this latter approach because quantitative metastudies of 22 counseling journals were recently conducted by Erford and colleagues listed as co-authors in the current article, and are therefore available for an omnibus aggregation.</p> <p>The first author and various colleagues conducted separate metastudies on 22 counseling journals, and this article is a synthesis, summary, and comparison of these 22 independent metastudies. As in these previous metastudies, the independent variables were the author and article characteristics, and the dependent variables were the proportion of occurrence of each category of the independent variable. In the 22 individual metastudies, we used more powerful inferential univariate parametric procedures (analysis of variance [ANOVA]) by converting the frequency and count data to weighted proportions to determine trends over time and provided descriptive proportions in 5-year windows for analysis. The current omnibus uses a static comparison of those descriptive results for two of those analysis windows (2010–2019) to compare author and article characteristics across those journals for this static time period.</p> <p>It is important for association members, association leaders, journal readers, journal editors, journal editorial board members, and potential authors to understand where a journal has been. This can be accomplished by studying various journal characteristics and analyzing these trends over time. The same can be said of an entire discipline, like professional counseling, by periodically synthesizing and analyzing the state of the counseling literature. Summarizing and comparing the results of these 22 metastudies of diverse counseling journals could provide editors, researchers, and counselors with useful information regarding publication patterns that will inform future studies and help journal editorial boards and scholars better serve the counseling profession.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-2">Methodological Synthesis Procedures, Caveats, and Limitations</hd> <p>The authors identified and included in these metastudies only articles that constituted scholarly contributions; less scholarly contributions were not included in the analyses (e.g., editorials, biographies, personal accounts, speeches, book reviews, columns, introductions to special issues, announcements, poems, errata, memoria, test reviews). Each article was coded by at least two researchers independently for up to 26 variables and cross-checked for consistency. To the extent possible, we aggregated the results into 5-year clusters (i.e., 2010–2014 and 2015–2019) for standardized analyses and comparisons across journals. There were some exceptions to this 5-year aggregation, and these exceptions are noted in the tables as appropriate. The first author coordinated, trained, and supervised more than 40 colleagues across these 22 journal metastudies. Standardized coding manuals and spreadsheets were used and interrater reliability was reported, as required, in those 22 published metastudies. Interrater reliability across all variables for all 22 studies ranged from.85 to 1.00 with a median interrater reliability of.95, with an overall agreement rate of 97.2% across all coding decisions. The first author also served as a third judge on any decisions on which consensus was difficult to attain.</p> <p>There are advantages and disadvantages to having so many contributors participating in the various individual journal metastudies. An advantage was that training was standardized and conducted by a single person (the first author) who could coordinate efforts, spot-check results, and serve as a judge or third coder when the two primary coders did not reach consensus on specific codes. This process also used standardized variable definitions and coding categories as practicable. An additional efficiency of about 40 coders was the ability to conduct so many metastudies over a short period of time, in this case, about 4 years.</p> <p>Challenges throughout the process were noted and written about in the limitation sections of the various metastudy articles. For example, different coders can have legitimate differences in how some article content should be coded, often due to a lack of specific information or even the absence of such information by article authors and editors. A third coder or judge was a helpful safety check. Still, it is likely that some coding errors were made given an average of 25 variables while coding more than 4,500 articles (more than 112,000 decisions for the coding teams) across the 22 journals, or an average of more than 5,000 decisions per journal. Some variables differed at the request of specific editors or reviewers. For example, some editors asked that the proportions of participants' race be coded to provide evidence of over- or underinclusion in research samples. Some journals had focal idiosyncrasies that required broadening or narrowing some variable categories. For example, all articles in the <emph>Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development</emph> (JMCD) relate to multicultural and diversity issues, which is a singular, specific topical content category in nearly every other journal. So rather than reporting that 100% of JMCD articles focused on multicultural issues, we adjusted the JMCD categories to reflect more specific areas of diversity (e.g., race, spirituality, gender identity, sexual identity). Furthermore, counseling journals with different foci will not have the exact same categories on some variables. For example, the leading topical content of articles from <emph>Counselor Education and Supervision</emph>, <emph>Career Development Quarterly</emph>, <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</emph>, and <emph>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</emph> vary markedly. In other words, although we did our best to standardize the coding process, journal variations created differentiations in the data categories across the 22 counseling journals studied.</p> <p>Finally, some time frames varied from the sought-after 10-year snapshot from 2010 to 2019. JMCD and <emph>Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling</emph> (JAOC) were not included in the 2010 metastudy series but were completed first in this series, so coding ended in 2017, so we shifted the time window slightly from 2008 to 2017. Some other journals like <emph>Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling</emph> (JAPC) and <emph>The Professional Counselor</emph> (TPC) just began in 2011, so they reflected 9-year rather than 10-year time periods.</p> <p>Some issues were rectified by having the first author standardize the training and oversight, tally all proportions, create all tables, and conduct all statistical analyses. In this article, the first author also standardized and aggregated the available data according to the period of 2010 to 2019, to the extent possible, and created the tables presented here to summarize and compare the 26 characteristics discussed. These 26 variables were: number of articles analyzed, lead author gender, all authors' genders, lead author university affiliation, all authors' university affiliations, author names, author institution, authors per article, international affiliation, topical content, research focus, number of research articles, research design used, true/quasi-experimental designs, quantitative or qualitative, intervention designation, participant type, sample size, median sample size, sample size category, randomization used, statistics used, statistical sophistication, effect size reported, score reliability reported, and score validity reported.</p> <p>Median and weighted mean values for each applicable variable were computed and the 22 journals were ranked on each variable. All this information is presented in the following tables, as designated in the column headings and table notes, along with the inevitable caveats and exceptions noted earlier.</p> <p>With this context into the methodological considerations of constructing an omnibus review of the characteristics present in the counseling literature, we now explore the comparative results across these 22 counseling journals. First, we look at which counseling journals constituted this analysis, then segue into author characteristics or who publishes in counseling journals, followed by article characteristics or what is published in counseling journals, with a special focus on the characteristics of counseling research studies variables.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-3">Journals Included in the Omnibus Synthesis of Counseling Publications</hd> <p>Included in this omnibus synthesis were 22 counseling journals published in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Korea. All journals were published in English, although some articles in the <emph>Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy</emph> were published in French and required French-speaking coders. The official names of the 22 counseling journals follow in Table 1, alphabetized by acronym, along with individual metastudy citations and acronyms (as appropriate) according to which each will be referred during the remainder of this article.</p> <p>Table 1. The 22 Counseling Journals Included in This Omnibus Synthesis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Journal</td><td>Acronym</td><td>Metastudy Citation</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><italic>Adultspan Journal</italic></td><td /><td>Rippeto et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr28">2021</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>British Journal of Guidance & Counselling</italic></td><td>BJGC</td><td>Kwag et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">in press</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Career Development Quarterly</italic></td><td>CDQ</td><td>Gonsalves et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2022</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Counselor Education and Supervision</italic></td><td>CES</td><td>Johnsen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2021</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy</italic></td><td>CJCP</td><td>Katrak et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">in press</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation</italic></td><td>CORE</td><td>Johnson et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2022</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Counseling & Values</italic></td><td>CVJ</td><td>Alder et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2021</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling</italic></td><td>IJAC</td><td>Miller et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2022</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</italic></td><td>JLGBTIC</td><td>Gayowsky et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2021</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Addiction and Offender Counseling</italic></td><td>JAOC</td><td>MacInerney et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2020</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling</italic></td><td>JAPC</td><td>Zhang, Cummings, et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr37">2022</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Career Development</italic></td><td>JCareerD</td><td>Mehlhouse et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2022</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of College Counseling</italic></td><td>JCC</td><td>Milowsky et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">in press</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Counseling & Development</italic></td><td>JCD</td><td>Anderson et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">2021</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Creativity in Mental Health</italic></td><td>JCMH</td><td>Zhang, Milowsky, et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">in press</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Employment Counseling</italic></td><td>JEC</td><td>Siegler et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2020</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Humanistic Counseling</italic></td><td>JHC</td><td>Sylvester et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2021</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development</italic></td><td>JMCD</td><td>Pesavento et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2022</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Mental Health Counseling</italic></td><td>JMHC</td><td>Menzies et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2020</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology</italic></td><td>JSACP</td><td>Wills et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2022</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</italic></td><td>MECD</td><td>Saks et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2020</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>The Professional Counselor</italic></td><td>TPC</td><td>Williams et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2021</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A <emph>Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin</emph> (RCB) metastudy was conducted in 2022 and did not complete the editorial decision-making process in time to be included in this omnibus analysis. Several counseling journals recently began publishing articles and have not reached the approximate 10-year life span to achieve sufficient statistical power: <emph>Journal of Military and Government Counseling</emph> (JMGC), published by the Military and Government Counseling Association and begun in 2013; the <emph>Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy</emph> published by Chi Sigma Iota, which commenced in 2014; and the <emph>Journal of Child and Adolescent Counseling</emph> (JCAC) published by the Association for Child and Adolescent Counseling and begun in 2015. We intend to include these journals in the next round of metastudies at the end of the current decade (2020–2029). We are also considering adding <emph>The Clinical Supervisor,</emph> published by Taylor & Francis.</p> <p>We contacted two additional counseling journals to gauge interest in a metastudy, but the editors of the following journals expressed no interest in this type of journal analysis: <emph>The Family Journal,</emph> published by the International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors, and <emph>Counselling and Psychotherapy Research</emph> published by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. Finally, we conducted metastudies of two journals whose editors rejected the manuscript submissions: <emph>Journal for Specialists in Group Work</emph> (JSGW), published by the Association for Specialists in Group Work, and <emph>Professional School Counseling</emph> (PSC), published by the American School Counselor Association. Because the analyses, results, and conclusions were not vetted through peer review, we eliminated those data from this omnibus analysis. Both journals had accepted previous metastudies by our research teams over earlier time periods (e.g., JSGW, 1981–2010 [Byrd et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]]; PSC, 1997–2012 [Erford et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref6">8</reflink>]]), but the current editors suggested that the manuscripts should not use overlapping time periods with the previous articles. Of course, providing data from just the most recent 7 to 10 years without the context of the previous 10 years would not allow an analysis of trends over more than two time windows. For example, analyzing the difference between two time periods between 2013 and 2015 and 2016 and 2019 is a less robust analysis when contrasted with comparisons among four time periods of 2000 to 2004, 2005 to 2009, 2010 to 2014, and 2015 to 2019, as smaller samples of aggregated data threaten the statistical power of the analyses. Trajectories and trends can be more readily identified over longer periods of time.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-4">Numbers of Articles Published</hd> <p>Great variation exists among the numbers of articles published across the 22 counseling journals analyzed (see Table 2), with an overall median of 190 articles and a weighted mean of 213.3 articles published over a 10-year period. The <emph>Journal of Counseling & Development</emph> (JCD; Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]), the flagship journal of the American Counseling Association, led all counseling journals by publishing 478 scholarly articles from 2010 to 2019, followed by the <emph>British Journal of Guidance and Counselling</emph> (BJGC, 418 articles; Kwag et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref8">16</reflink>]) and the <emph>Journal of Creativity in Mental Health</emph> (JCMH, 343 articles; Zhang, Milowsky, et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref9">38</reflink>]). At the other end of the spectrum, <emph>Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology</emph> (JSACP; Wills et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref10">36</reflink>]) published the lowest number of articles over the 10-year period (83 articles), followed by <emph>Adultspan</emph> (90 articles; Rippeto et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref11">28</reflink>]) and <emph>Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation</emph> (CORE, 92 articles; Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref12">13</reflink>]). The remainder of this article discusses trends and patterns in author and article characteristics across the 22 journals, followed by general conclusions and suggestions for the counseling discipline.</p> <p>Table 2. Counseling Journals Summary Information From 2010 to 2019, Including the Number of Scholarly Articles Published, and Proportions of Lead Author Men and Women, All Author Men and Women, University-Affiliated Lead Authors, University-Affiliated All Authors, and Top Scholars.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Journal</td><td>No. Accepted Articles (R)</td><td>Lead Author Gender Men%; Women% (R)</td><td>All Author Gender Men%; Women% (R)</td><td>% University Lead Authors (R)</td><td>% University All Authors (R)</td><td>Top 3 Scholars in Order From Each Journal</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><italic>Adultspan</italic></td><td>Women</td><td char=".">21.1; 78.9 (1)</td><td char=".">24.4; 75.6 (1)</td><td char=".">98.9 (1.5)</td><td char=".">97.7 (2)</td><td>Suzanne Degges-White, Jane E. Myers, Andrew P. Daire</td></tr><tr><td>BJGC</td><td char=".">418 (2)</td><td char=".">38.8; 61.2 (13)</td><td char=".">41.7; 58.3 (14.5)</td><td char=".">85.8 (21)</td><td>NC</td><td>Mick Cooper, A. G. Watts, Tristram Hooley</td></tr><tr><td>CDQ</td><td char=".">265 (6.5)</td><td char=".">41.9; 58.1 (15)</td><td char=".">41.7; 58.3 (14.5)</td><td char=".">93.6 (14)</td><td char=".">93.1 (9)</td><td>James P. Sampson, Jr., Debra S. Osborne, Arpita Ghosh</td></tr><tr><td>CES</td><td char=".">189 (12)</td><td char=".">32.8; 67.2 (4)</td><td char=".">35.2; 64.8 (5)</td><td char=".">98.9 (1.5)</td><td char=".">99.0 (1)</td><td>L. Dianne Borders, Melissa Luke, Casey Barrio-Minton</td></tr><tr><td>CJCP</td><td char=".">226 (9)</td><td char=".">34.1; 65.9 (5)</td><td char=".">34.6; 65.4 (4)</td><td char=".">92.0 (19)</td><td>NC</td><td>Nancy Arthur, Jose F. Domene</td></tr><tr><td>CORE</td><td char=".">92 (20)</td><td char=".">37.0; 63.0 (12)</td><td char=".">37.5; 62.5 (9)</td><td char=".">92.4 (17)</td><td char=".">87.3 (12)</td><td>A. Stephen Lenz. Amy L. Cook, Bradley T. Erford</td></tr><tr><td>CVJ</td><td char=".">147 (16)</td><td char=".">34.7; 65.3 (7)</td><td char=".">41.2; 58.8 (12)</td><td char=".">90.5 (20)</td><td char=".">90.3 (10)</td><td>Craig S. Cashwell, J. Scott Young, Michele Kielty Briggs</td></tr><tr><td>IJAC</td><td char=".">293 (5)</td><td char=".">46.6; 53.4 (18)</td><td char=".">44.6; 55.4 (18)</td><td char=".">97.6 (7)</td><td>NC</td><td>Kok-Mun Ng, Mary McMahon, Nicole R. Hill</td></tr><tr><td>JLGBTIC</td><td char=".">171 (14)</td><td char=".">42.9; 44.0 (19)</td><td char=".">40.6; 57.4 (16)</td><td char=".">94.7 (13)</td><td char=".">88.9 (11)</td><td>Anneliese Singh, Kristopher Goodrich, Jeffrey Moe</td></tr><tr><td>JAOC<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td char=".">96 (19)</td><td char=".">39.8; 60.2 (14)</td><td char=".">45.4; 54.6 (20)</td><td char=".">96.6 (10)</td><td char=".">93.7 (6.5)</td><td>John Laux, Gerald Juhnke, Todd Lewis</td></tr><tr><td>JAPC<sup>b</sup></td><td char=".">107 (18)</td><td char=".">43.9; 56.1 (17)</td><td char=".">44.7; 55.3 (19)</td><td char=".">97.2 (8)</td><td>NC</td><td>No author published more than two articles</td></tr><tr><td>JCareerD</td><td char=".">322 (4)</td><td char=".">34.5; 65.5 (8)</td><td char=".">38.0; 62.0 (11)</td><td char=".">95.0 (12)</td><td>NC</td><td>Peter A. Creed, Wendy Patton, Lisa Y. Flores, Sang Min Lee</td></tr><tr><td>JCC</td><td char=".">177 (13)</td><td char=".">35.0; 65.0 (9)</td><td char=".">37.2; 62.8 (8)</td><td char=".">98.6 (4)</td><td>NC</td><td>Diana M. Doumas, Jeffrey A. Hayes, Laura C. Hensley Choate</td></tr><tr><td>JCD</td><td char=".">478 (1)</td><td>NC</td><td char=".">39.8; 59.1 (13)</td><td>NC</td><td char=".">93.7 (6.5)</td><td>Bradley T. Erford, A. Stephen Lenz, Philip B. Gnilka</td></tr><tr><td>JCMH</td><td char=".">343 (3)</td><td char=".">25.4; 74.6 (2)</td><td char=".">26.1; 73.9 (2)</td><td char=".">93.1 (15.5)</td><td>NC</td><td>Thelma Duffey, Jane Warren, Victoria E. Kress</td></tr><tr><td>JEC</td><td char=".">144 (17)</td><td char=".">36.8; 63.2 (11)</td><td char=".">42.9; 57.1 (17)</td><td char=".">95.1 (11)</td><td>NC</td><td>Norman Amundson, Mark J. Miller, James J. Kirk</td></tr><tr><td>JHC</td><td char=".">161 (15)</td><td char=".">59.6; 40.4 (20)</td><td char=".">50.5; 49.5 (22)</td><td char=".">98.1 (5)</td><td char=".">96.2 (3)</td><td>James T. Hansen, Matthew Lemberger-Truelove, Richard S. Balkin, Brett D. Wilkinson</td></tr><tr><td>JMCD<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td char=".">190 (11)</td><td char=".">35.4; 64.6 (9)</td><td char=".">37.6; 62.4 (10)</td><td char=".">97.7 (6)</td><td char=".">95.6 (5)</td><td>Caroline S. Clauss-Ehlers, William D. Parham, Robert T. Carter, Krista M. Malott</td></tr><tr><td>JMHC</td><td char=".">232 (8)</td><td char=".">42.7; 57.3 (16)</td><td char=".">36.8; 63.2 (7)</td><td char=".">93.1 (15.5)</td><td char=".">93.2 (8)</td><td>Victoria E. Kress, Jane Myers, Thomas A. Field</td></tr><tr><td>JSACP</td><td char=".">83 (22)</td><td char=".">27.7; 72.3 (3)</td><td char=".">28.6; 71.4 (3)</td><td char=".">98.8 (3)</td><td char=".">95.7 (4)</td><td>No author published more than two articles</td></tr><tr><td>MECD</td><td char=".">203 (10)</td><td char=".">63.1; 36.9 (21)</td><td char=".">49.1; 50.9 (21)</td><td char=".">97.0 (9)</td><td>NC</td><td>Bradley T. Erford, Richard S. Balkin, Glenn W. Lambie</td></tr><tr><td>TPC<sup>c</sup></td><td char=".">265 (6.5)</td><td char=".">35.8; 64.2 (10)</td><td char=".">36.2; 63.8 (6)</td><td char=".">92.1 (18)</td><td>NC</td><td>Kathleen Brown-Rice, Jeffrey M. Warren, Robert C. Reardon</td></tr><tr><td><italic>J</italic></td><td char=".">225</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">12</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td char=".">190</td><td char=".">63.2</td><td char=".">60.4</td><td char=".">95.1</td><td char=".">93.7</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>M</italic><sub>weighted</sub> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td char=".">213.3 (107.1)</td><td char=".">61.2 (1.4)</td><td char=".">61.1 (1.4)</td><td char=".">92.2 (1.7)</td><td char=".">93.7 (2.2)</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note: J</emph> = number of studies included; R = rank; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = weighted mean; NC = not coded; BJGC = <emph>British Journal of Guidance & Counselling</emph>; CDQ = <emph>Career Development Quarterly</emph>; CES = <emph>Counselor Education and Supervision</emph>; CJCP = <emph>Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy</emph>; CORE = <emph>Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation</emph>; CVJ = <emph>Counseling & Values</emph>; IJAC = <emph>International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling</emph>; JLGBTIC = <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</emph>; JAOC = <emph>Journal of Addiction and Offender Counseling</emph>; JAPC = <emph>Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling</emph>; JCareerD = <emph>Journal of Career Development</emph>; JCC = <emph>Journal of College Counseling</emph>; JCD = <emph>Journal of Counseling & Development</emph>; JCMH = <emph>Journal of Creativity in Mental Health</emph>; JEC = <emph>Journal of Employment Counseling</emph>; JHC = <emph>Journal of Humanistic Counseling</emph>; JMCD = <emph>Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development</emph>; JMHC = <emph>Journal of Mental Health Counseling</emph>; JSACP = <emph>Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology</emph>; MECD = <emph>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</emph>; TPC = <emph>The Professional Counselor</emph>.</p> <p>2 <sups>a</sups>Only included 2008–2017. <sups>b</sups>Included 2011–2020. <sups>c</sups>Included 2011–2019.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-5">Author Characteristics</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0164958275-6">Gender of Lead and All Authors</hd> <p>Women dominated as lead authors across the 21 counseling journals that analyzed the gender of the lead author (see Table 2; median = 63.2%; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 61.2%). Women were lead authors in 18 of the 21 journals, with <emph>Adultspan</emph> (78.69%), JCMH (74.6%), and JSACP (72.3%) having the greatest percentages of women lead authors. Only the <emph>Journal of Humanistic Counseling</emph> (JHC; 59.6% men) and <emph>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</emph> (MECD; 63.1% men) had more men as lead authors compared to women. The <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</emph> had more women (44.0%) as lead authors compared to men (42.9%), but the percentage did not reach the point of majority due to gender-fluid coding. Although the current data do not allow it, in the future it would be interesting to discern additional reasons that might be contributing to these gender differences, beyond counselor education having a higher proportion of women than men, For example, perhaps different journal characteristics (e.g., focus, impact, policies of the journal) or characteristics of the journal authors (e.g., affiliation, degree held) might help explain why two journals (i.e., MECD, JHC) still have a majority of first authors self-identifying as men.</p> <p>The majority of women authorship among all authors is also consistent across the 22 journals (see Table 2; median = 60.4%; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 61.1%). Only the JHC had a majority of men authors, although the gender of the JHC authors was fairly balanced, with 50.5% men and 49.5% women. Interestingly, Sylvester et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref13">32</reflink>]) reported that there had been a steady decline in the number of women authors among all JHC authors, which contrasts with other journals that reported a steady increase in women authors (<emph>Adultspan,</emph> Rippeto et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref14">28</reflink>]; CORE, Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]; <emph>Counseling & Values</emph> [CVJ], Alder et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>]; JAOC, MacInerney et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref17">19</reflink>]; <emph>Journal of College Counseling</emph> [JCC], Milowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref18">23</reflink>]; JCD, Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]; <emph>Journal of Mental Health Counseling</emph> [JMHC], Menzies et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]; MECD, Saks et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref21">30</reflink>]). Mirroring the results of women as lead authors, the journals with the highest proportions of women as authors across all journals were <emph>Adultspan</emph> (75.6%), JCMH (73.9%; Zhang, Milowsky, et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref22">38</reflink>]), and JSACP (71.4%; Wills et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref23">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Women as majority lead authors and authors overall is not a surprising result because women now constitute more than 80% of the counseling profession and 74% of university counselors (LeViness et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref24">17</reflink>]; U.S. Census Bureau, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref25">33</reflink>]). Given the societal movement toward respecting personal self-identifications, it is important for counseling journals to allow authors space to offer self-identifications as appropriate and desired. Only one journal, CVJ, asked for an analysis of the racial demographics of authors. The metastudies only coded for gender, and to have a complete picture of who publishes in the journals, we recommend that editors request authors provide additional personal identifiers they are comfortable supplying (e.g., race, ethnicity, sexual or affective identity, country of origin, country of domicile). Providing such helpful demographic information could help explore contemporary questions about inclusion and oppression. For example, Roberts et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref26">29</reflink>]) asserted racial injustice in psychological publication practices. If authors are asked to provide self-identifications, a ready database is available to study and address such assertions. Provision of demographic information could either be done at submission or after a manuscript is accepted for publication.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-7">Work Setting of Lead Authors and All Authors</hd> <p>A consistent trend across 21 journals that were coded for the work setting of lead authors was that the vast majority of lead authors were affiliated with academic settings (see Table 2; median = 91.5%; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 92.2%), ranging from a high of 98.9% (tie between <emph>Adultspan,</emph> Rippeto et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref27">28</reflink>]; and <emph>Counselor Education and Supervision</emph> [CES], Johnsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref28">12</reflink>]) to a low of 85.8% (BJGC; Kwag et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>]). Whereas the JCD (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>]), BJGC (Kwag et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref31">16</reflink>]), <emph>Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy</emph> (CJCP; Katrak et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref32">15</reflink>]), and MECD (Saks et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref33">30</reflink>]) reported a significant decline in lead authors from nonacademic settings, other journals reported stability of lead authors from university settings (JAOC, MacInerney et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref34">19</reflink>]; <emph>Journal of Employment Counseling</emph> [JEC], Siegler et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref35">31</reflink>]; JHC, Sylvester et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref36">32</reflink>]; JMHC, Menzies et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref37">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>As expected, with lead authors being predominately from academic settings, all counseling journals that coded for work settings of all authors also displayed an absence of authors from non-university-affiliated settings (see Table 2; median = 93.7%; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 93.7%). CES (Johnsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref38">12</reflink>]) had the highest percentage of all authors employed in university settings, with 99.0%, followed by <emph>Adultspan</emph> (97.7%, Rippeto et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref39">28</reflink>]) and JHC (96.2%, Sylvester et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref40">32</reflink>]). Although almost all authors were affiliated with university settings, CORE (87.3%, Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref41">13</reflink>]), <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</emph> (88.9%, Gayowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref42">10</reflink>]), and CVJ (90.3%, Alder et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>]) had the greatest number of non-university-affiliated authors. The JCD (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref44">2</reflink>]), JCC (Milowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref45">23</reflink>]), CJCP (Katrak et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref46">15</reflink>]), BJGC (Kwag et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref47">16</reflink>]), JMHC (Menzies et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref48">21</reflink>]), and MECD (Saks et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref49">30</reflink>]) all experienced substantial decreases in non-university-affiliated authorship.</p> <p>This widespread decrease of practitioner voices in counseling publications is troublesome and raises critical questions. Other scholars have noticed this decline (e.g., Cade, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>]) and called for more submissions from practitioners. Ultimately, all counseling journals want to improve counseling practice; thus, it is essential that counseling journals increase the number of authors from the counseling community who can provide valuable insights regarding real-world applications of scholarship. Having more voices from the practitioner community can also enhance the collection of field-based data. Practitioners who want to engage in scholarship have identified several barriers: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>) lack of compensation for producing research, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>) no credit for research on performance evaluations, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>) time constraints (Williams et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref54">35</reflink>]). Despite these challenges, university-affiliated scholars should increase opportunities for partnerships that include the expertise and voices of practitioners. An important question for future research is this: Why aren't practitioners publishing more than they do, or what factors contribute to lower proportions of self-identification in nearly all counseling journals over the past several decades?</p> <p>On the other hand, this apparent lessening of the practitioner voice also might reflect self-identification trends in author notes. Journal editorial boards should certainly encourage practitioner voices through the general submission process but should also consider special sections and special issues to enhance practitioner perspectives and discussion of innovative practices. Just as important, though, journal editorial boards should encourage accurate disclosure of multiple professional affiliations. Many authors list only a university affiliation, as though doing so will enhance publication probability. This is not true because of the blind peer review process used by all journals included in this omnibus article. Many authors are practitioners who attend or teach at universities part time, so they should proudly list practitioner affiliations. There is no evidence to suggest that downplaying practice roles will enhance publication probability, although it does create the potential misperception that practitioners are contributing less to the counseling literature.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-8">Proportion of Authors per Article</hd> <p>One avenue for increasing practitioner voice is through collaborations. It is interesting that despite an increase in the number of authors per article, this increase did not translate into more practitioner authors. Almost all counseling journals saw an increase in the number of authors per article, with all 22 journals reporting an average of more than two authors per article from 2010 to 2019 (see Table 3; median = 2.83 authors per article; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 2.76). JSACP (3.37; Wills et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref55">36</reflink>]) had the highest number of authors per article, followed by MECD (3.18; Saks et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref56">30</reflink>]), whereas CES (Johnsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref57">12</reflink>]) and JCareer D (Mehlhouse et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref58">20</reflink>]) each tied at 3.15 authors per article. This increase in collaboration is likely due to the increase in research teams (Erford et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref59">9</reflink>]) and the mentorship of doctoral students and junior faculty (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>]) by counselor educators. As coauthorship increases, we recommend that researchers proactively seek practitioners and colleagues from historically underrepresented groups for collaboration in all phases of research to promote important, diverse voices (O'Hara et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref61">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 3. Average Number of Authors per Article, Proportions of International Lead Authors in Counseling Journals, and Top Universities Publishing in Each Counseling Journal.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Journal/Years</td><td>Authors/Articles (R)</td><td>% International Lead Author (R)</td><td>Top 3 Universities in Order From Each Journal</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td char="."><italic>Adultspan</italic> (1999–2019)</td><td char=".">2.46 (18)</td><td char=".">1.1 (19.5)</td><td>Montclair State University, University of Central Florida, (tie) Rider University and University of Tennessee–Knoxville</td></tr><tr><td char=".">BJGC (2000–2019)</td><td char=".">2.24 (22)</td><td char=".">57.1 (1)</td><td>University of Leeds, University of Derby, University of Roehampton</td></tr><tr><td char=".">CDQ (2012–2019)</td><td char=".">3.02 (6)</td><td char=".">27.9 (7)</td><td>Florida State University, Pennsylvania State University, (tie) Old Dominion University, Purdue University, and University of Missouri–Columbia</td></tr><tr><td char=".">CES (2010–2019)</td><td char=".">3.15 (3.5)</td><td char=".">0.5 (21)</td><td>University of North Carolina–Greensboro, Syracuse University, University of North Texas</td></tr><tr><td char=".">CJCP (2000–2019)</td><td char=".">2.44 (19.5)</td><td char=".">10.7 (8)</td><td>University of Calgary, University of Alberta, Athabasca University</td></tr><tr><td char=".">CORE (2010–2019)</td><td char=".">2.82 (12)</td><td char=".">1.1 (19.5)</td><td>Texas A&M–Corpus Christi, University of Florida, University of Massachusetts–Boston</td></tr><tr><td char=".">CVJ (2000–2019)</td><td char=".">2.67 (14.5)</td><td char=".">6.1 (12)</td><td>University of Central Florida, University of North Texas, University of Wisconsin–Madison</td></tr><tr><td char=".">IJAC (2000–2019)</td><td char=".">2.67 (14.5)</td><td char=".">45.6 (3)</td><td>University of British Columbia, University of North Carolina–Charlotte, University of Alberta</td></tr><tr><td char=".">JLGBTIC (2006–2019)</td><td char=".">2.89 (9.5)</td><td char=".">3.5 (15)</td><td>Georgia State University, (tie) University of Florida, University of New Mexico, and University of Tennessee–Knoxville</td></tr><tr><td char=".">JAOC (1998–2017)</td><td char=".">3.04 (5)</td><td char=".">0.0 (22)</td><td>University of North Carolina–Charlotte, University of North Carolina–Greensboro, University of Toledo</td></tr><tr><td char=".">JCC (2000–2019)</td><td char=".">2.71 (13)</td><td char=".">42.1 (5)</td><td>Pennsylvania State University, University of North Carolina–Greensboro, University of North Texas</td></tr><tr><td char=".">JAPC (2011–2020)</td><td char=".">2.98 (7)</td><td char=".">42.9 (4)</td><td>Seoul National University, University of Iowa</td></tr><tr><td char=".">JCareerD (2000–2019)</td><td char=".">3.15 (3.5)</td><td char=".">1.7 (18)</td><td>University of Missouri–Columbia, Griffith University (Australia), University of Maryland</td></tr><tr><td char=".">JCD (2010–2019)</td><td char=".">2.92 (8)</td><td char=".">9.6 (9)</td><td>NC</td></tr><tr><td char=".">JCMH (2000–2019)</td><td char=".">2.44 (19.5)</td><td char=".">5.5 (13)</td><td>University of Texas–San Antonio, University of Central Florida, Wake Forest University</td></tr><tr><td char=".">JEC (2000–2019)</td><td char=".">2.59 (17)</td><td char=".">52.8 (2)</td><td>University of British Columbia, Louisiana Technical University, Western Carolina University</td></tr><tr><td char=".">JHC (2000–2019)</td><td char=".">2.26 (21)</td><td char=".">3.7 (14)</td><td>Oakland University, University of Central Florida, North Carolina State University</td></tr><tr><td char=".">JMCD (1998–2017)</td><td char=".">2.89 (5)</td><td char=".">6.9 (11)</td><td>NC</td></tr><tr><td char=".">JMHC (2000–2019)</td><td char=".">2.83 (11)</td><td char=".">3.0 (17)</td><td>University of Iowa, University of North Texas, University of Central Florida</td></tr><tr><td char=".">JSACP (2010–2019)</td><td char=".">3.37 (1)</td><td char=".">8.4 (10)</td><td>University of North Carolina–Greensboro, University of Miami</td></tr><tr><td char=".">MECD (2000–2019)</td><td char=".">3.18 (2)</td><td char=".">28.6 (6)</td><td>Vanderbilt University, University of Minnesota, Michigan State University</td></tr><tr><td char=".">TPC (2011–2019)</td><td char=".">2.66 (16)</td><td char=".">3.4 (16)</td><td>University of Central Florida, University of South Dakota, Virginia Tech</td></tr><tr><td><italic>J</italic></td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">22</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td char=".">2.83</td><td char=".">6.5</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>M</italic><sub>weighted</sub><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td char=".">2.76 (0.6)</td><td char=".">19.5 (1.3)</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note: J</emph> = number of studies included; R = rank; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = weighted mean; NC = not coded; BJGC = <emph>British Journal of Guidance & Counselling</emph>; CDQ = <emph>Career Development Quarterly</emph>; CES = <emph>Counselor Education and Supervision</emph>; CJCP = <emph>Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy</emph>; CORE = <emph>Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation</emph>; CVJ = <emph>Counseling & Values</emph>; IJAC = <emph>International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling</emph>; JLGBTIC = <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</emph>; JAOC = <emph>Journal of Addiction and Offender Counseling</emph>; JAPC = <emph>Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling</emph>; JCareerD = <emph>Journal of Career Development</emph>; JCC = <emph>Journal of College Counseling</emph>; JCD = <emph>Journal of Counseling & Development</emph>; JCMH = <emph>Journal of Creativity in Mental Health</emph>; JEC = <emph>Journal of Employment Counseling</emph>; JHC = <emph>Journal of Humanistic Counseling</emph>; JMCD = <emph>Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development</emph>; JMHC = <emph>Journal of Mental Health Counseling</emph>; JSACP = <emph>Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology</emph>; MECD = <emph>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</emph>; TPC = <emph>The Professional Counselor</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-9">Domicile of Lead Authors</hd> <p>The vast majority of the lead authors resided in the United States across almost all the journals, with three notable exceptions: BJGC, CJCP, and JEC. Table 3 reports that the median of international authors across all journals was 6.5%, and the weighted mean proportion was 19.5%, indicating that some counseling journals had truly international contributing author bases, although most drew domestic contributors. The majority of the lead authors of the BJGC (57.1%; Kwag et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref62">16</reflink>]) resided outside of the United Kingdom, where BJGC is published. What is surprising is that the proportions of BJGC lead authors who resided in the United Kingdom decreased significantly from 75.0% from 2000 to 2004 to 52.0% in the 2005 to 2009 window and then stabilized at about 43.0% during the 2010 to 2019 window. The JEC has a long history of publishing articles by diverse international authors (Siegler et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref63">31</reflink>]), and this trend continued between 2010 and 2019. Most of the lead authors who published in JEC had domiciles outside of the United States from 2010 to 2019 (52.8%), making the JEC one of the most internationally focused counseling journals. Another surprise is that the majority (54.4%) of the lead authors for the <emph>International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling</emph> (IJAC; Miller et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref64">22</reflink>]), the journal for the International Association for Counseling with the focus of providing an international perspective on counseling knowledge and research, were based in the United States. The counseling journals with the lowest proportions of lead authors from outside the United States from 2010 to 2019 were CES (0.5%; Johnsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref65">12</reflink>]), <emph>Adultspan</emph> (1.1%; Rippeto et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref66">28</reflink>]), and CORE (1.1%; Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref67">13</reflink>]). Given the increased attention to the globalization of counseling (Lorelle et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref68">18</reflink>]), counseling journal editorial boards will want to increase submissions from non-U.S. authors so that the counseling profession is better equipped to train non-U.S. counselors and provide evidence-informed and evidence-based practices that are culturally relevant. Relatedly, it is important to understand the variations in counseling practice and professional orientations, as "counselor" refers to paraprofessionals in some non-Western cultures.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-10">Scholars Producing the Most Counseling Journal Articles</hd> <p>Author names were coded for all journals for the period from 2010 to 2019. Table 3 provides listings of authors who achieved top three scholar productivity in each journal. Only four scholars achieved a top three ranking in more than one counseling journal reviewed. Bradley T. Erford did so in three different counseling journals, and four additional scholars achieved a top three ranking in two journals: Richard S. Balkin, Victoria E. Kress, A. Stephen Lenz, and Jane E. Myers.</p> <p>To better understand individual contributions to the counseling literature, the first author of this article aggregated all author contributions from 2010 to 2019, which included more than 12,200 authors. Each author's publication was weighted equivalently, regardless of the order of author contribution to the manuscript. Table 4 presents the top 30 scholars contributing to the 20 counseling journals assessed, a natural break for those who contributed 15 or more articles. Overall, the top three contributors were Bradley T. Erford, A. Stephen Lenz, and Sang Min Lee, with a very narrow band of individual contributions from 38 to 41 articles. Interestingly, only Sang Min Lee hails from a country outside the United States on the list in Table 4.</p> <p>Table 4. Top Individual Scholars and Supporting Institutions Across 22 Counseling Journals From 2010 to 2019.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Top 30 Supporting Institutions of Lead Authors Across All Counseling Journals</td><td>Top 30 Scholars Across All Counseling Journals</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1. University of Central Florida (56 articles)</td><td>1. Bradley T. Erford (41 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>2. Georgia State University (47 articles)</td><td>2. A. Stephen Lenz (40 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>3. University of North Carolina–Greensboro (44 articles)</td><td>3. Sang Min Lee (38 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>4. Old Dominion University (43 articles)</td><td>4. Danica G. Hays (28 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>5. University of Texas–San Antonio (42 articles)</td><td>5. L. Dianne Borders (27 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>6. University of Florida (41 articles)</td><td>6. Craig S. Cashwell (27 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>7. Pennsylvania State University (40 articles)</td><td>7. Glenn W. Lambie (27 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>8. University of North Texas (37 articles)</td><td>8. Richard S. Balkin (26 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>9. Loyola University Maryland (33 articles)</td><td>9. Victoria E. Kress (25 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>10. University of Tennessee–Knoxville (33 articles)</td><td>10. John M. Laux (23 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>11. Oakland University (32 articles)</td><td>11. Kristopher M. Goodrich (22 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>12. University of Calgary (32 articles)</td><td>12. Anneliese A. Singh (22 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>13. Athabasca University (30 articles)</td><td>13. Jacqueline M. Swank (22 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>14. University of Iowa (30 articles)</td><td>14. Jane E. Myers (21 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>15. University of Memphis (28 articles)</td><td>15. Diana M. Doumas (20 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>16. Syracuse University (27 articles)</td><td>16. Gerta Bardhoshi (19 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>17. University of North Carolina–Charlotte (26 articles)</td><td>17. Amanda L. Giordano (19 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>18. Texas A&M–Corpus Christi (25 articles)</td><td>18. Melissa Luke (19 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>19. Virginia Tech (24 articles)</td><td>19. Sejal M. Barden (17 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>20. University of British Columbia (23 articles)</td><td>20. Casey Barrio-Minton (17 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>21. Walden University (23 articles)</td><td>21. Catherine Y. Chang (17 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>22. Florida State University (22 articles)</td><td>22. Kelly L. Wester (17 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>23. Korea University (21 articles)</td><td>23. Andrew P. Daire (16 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>24. McGill University (21 articles)</td><td>24. Melinda M. Gibbons (16 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>25. University of Missouri–Columbia (21 articles)</td><td>25. Philip B. Gnilka (16 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>26. University of Northern Colorado (21 articles)</td><td>26. Patrick R. Mullen (16 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>27. Idaho State University (20 articles)</td><td>27. Elizabeth A. Prosek (16 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>28. University of Alberta (20 articles)</td><td>28. Corrine R. Sackett (16 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>29. University of Toledo (20 articles)</td><td>29. Hongryum Woo (16 articles)</td></tr><tr><td>30. Wake Forest University (20 articles)</td><td>30. Melissa Zeligman (16 articles)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Tallies of scholarly contributions demonstrate the importance of focused, dedicated contributions to the counseling literature over a period of time and hopefully throughout one's career. Scholars who are also university professors and subjected to procedures for tenure, promotion, and even salary increases, tend to get caught up with journal rankings and journal prestige. This focus is often dictated through the perceptions of deans and chairs who are influential and instrumental in those processes. We argue that such perceptions help perpetuate a system in which highly ranked journals stay highly ranked, and less prestigious and developing journals stay less prestigious and developing. The first author's keynote address to the Association for Assessment and Research in Counseling (AARC) in 2013 stated, "If I send my best stuff to journals outside of the counseling discipline, how are counseling journals ever supposed to rise in prestige and rankings?" If counselor-scholars publish highly citable articles in counseling journals, the prestige of those counseling journals will rise. As for administrators attempting to influence the journals to which probationary faculty submit, "beware the double-edged sword." When asked to do external evaluations of scholarship for tenure and promotion, external reviewers, ourselves included, frequently comment on the appropriateness of the publication venues. If counselor educators under review publish fewer than half of their refereed journal articles in counseling journals, this merits special mention related to alignment appropriateness. The best external reviews should go to the most productive and best aligned scholarly agendas. This is particularly critical when tenure and promotion guidelines ask for judgment on "scholarly impact" and "national or international reputation in the discipline." Although there is some value in counseling scholars contributing to related and sometimes even distant disciplines, it is often easier to conclude that scholars have an excellent reputation in the field if they publish in the counseling discipline, and then subdisciplines adjacent and related to the counseling discipline. Thus, counselors and counselor educators should publish scholarship in discipline-aligned journals.</p> <p>On the issue of impact factors (IFs), given that the highest citation rates tend to occur within the profession, coupled with the paucity of counseling journals and the somewhat specialized nature of our academic discipline, the scholarship of counselors tends to be marginally cited outside of the counseling discipline. Counselor scholars also have fewer journals in which to cite scholarly work, so the metrics used to compute IFs in the counseling discipline create a systemic deficit. In addition, given the infrequency of scholarly counseling publications (i.e., usually quarterly or semiannually) and the 2-year computing factor for IF, the scholarly work of counselors is less likely to be cited, given it can sit in online or prepublication status for much of the window to be included in IF computations. Editorial boards can help some with this later issue by reducing reviewer deadlines to 1 month and adding other efficiencies to bring scholarly works to print expeditiously. As one example, the 22 metastudies in Table 1 had submission-to-print intervals that varied from 8 to 44 months. Such wide variability in publication efficiency could be problematic. Other indexes of article quality might include readership distribution (as wider distribution could enhance impact), number of downloads, number of citations tracked by Google Scholar, and the newer Altmetric data.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-11">Programs and Universities Publishing the Most Counseling Articles</hd> <p>Table 3 reports the universities of lead authors achieving top three productivity status. We used the lead authors only to control for inflated numbers that could occur with large research teams from the same university. Some universities held a top three spot in more than one of the counseling journals reviewed. The University of Central Florida placed in the top three positions in six journals, and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and the University of North Texas each placed in four journals. Six other universities are placed in the top three in two counseling journals: Pennsylvania State University, University of British Columbia, University of Iowa, University of Missouri at Columbia, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and University of Tennessee–Knoxville.</p> <p>As with the individual scholars' metrics, to better understand the contributions of universities to the counseling literature, we aggregated the lead author's university affiliation for all articles from 2010 to 2019, with the exceptions noted in Table 3. Each university publication was weighted equivalently as one point for the lead author's institutional affiliation. Table 4 reports the top 30 most productive universities publishing in counseling journals, each publishing at least 20 articles over 10 years (2010–2019) to make the list. Tallies of scholarly contributions across universities demonstrate the importance of focused, dedicated contributions to the counseling literature over a period of time and present evidence of a university counseling program's commitment to promoting and advancing the counseling profession. The University of Central Florida led all universities with 56 lead author publications from 2010 to 2019, followed by Georgia State University (47 articles) and the University of North Carolina–Greensboro (44 articles).</p> <p>Importantly, six universities not from the United States made this top 30 list: the University of Calgary, Athabasca University, University of British Columbia, Korea University, McGill University, and the University of Alberta. Five of these six universities are in Canada. This is encouraging; as the counseling profession continues to progress globally, the profession should welcome the contributions of diverse international scholars to help expand and conceptualize how counseling can help clients and societies worldwide. We encourage faculty and graduate students at universities around the world to continue to focus their scholarly writings for consumption by counselors in diverse, international counseling journals.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-12">Topical Content</hd> <p>Characteristics of article topic area (e.g., theory, treatment, intervention, multicultural, ethics, education and supervision) and article focus (i.e., research or nonresearch) were coded across all 22 counseling journals. As noted earlier, slight modifications were made to article topic areas to adjust for the foci of specific journals. The top two article content areas across all 22 counseling journals (see Table 5) included multicultural issues (10 journals), theory and intervention (9 journals), counselor education and training (5 journals), and clinical issues and symptoms (5 journals). The frequency of articles addressing multicultural issues might reflect the counseling profession's emphasis on the importance of addressing multicultural competencies (see Ratts et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref69">27</reflink>]). Only two journals published articles coded as wellness (CVJ, Alder et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>]; <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling,</emph> Gayowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref71">10</reflink>]) as their second highest topic area. This is concerning given that wellness is the cornerstone of the counseling profession and is founded on the values of prevention and optimal development (Myers & Sweeney, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref72">24</reflink>]). No journal published articles related to supervision as their top two content areas. Supervision has been identified as the signature pedagogy of the mental health profession (Bernard & Goodyear, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref73">3</reflink>]); it was therefore surprising that no counseling journal had supervision as a top content area.</p> <p>Table 5. Counseling Journals Summary Information From 2010 to 2019, Including the Most Frequently Occurring Topical Content Issues and Research Designs.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Top Content Issue</td><td>Second Top Content Issue</td><td>Top research design</td><td>Second Top Research Design</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Journal</td><td>Issue</td><td>%</td><td>Issue</td><td>%</td><td>Design</td><td>%</td><td>Design</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Adultspan</italic></td><td>Mental health issues</td><td char=".">16.7</td><td>Interpersonal relationships</td><td char=".">11.4</td><td>Descriptive/survey</td><td char=".">45.8</td><td>Qualitative/interview</td><td char=".">42.4</td></tr><tr><td>BJGC</td><td>Career counseling/guidance</td><td char=".">23.9</td><td>Treatment/intervention</td><td char=".">23.0</td><td>Qualitative</td><td char=".">52.5</td><td>Survey</td><td char=".">27.2</td></tr><tr><td>CDQ</td><td>Multicultural issues</td><td char=".">21.4</td><td>Theory/technique</td><td char=".">21.2</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">29.6</td><td>Qualitative</td><td char=".">22.7</td></tr><tr><td>CES</td><td>Program improvement</td><td char=".">24.4</td><td>Counselor characteristics</td><td char=".">22.3</td><td>Descriptive/survey</td><td char=".">70.6</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">16.5</td></tr><tr><td>CJCP</td><td>Theory/treatment</td><td char=".">68.9</td><td>Multicultural issues</td><td char=".">25.4</td><td>Ethnographic</td><td char=".">64.4</td><td>Survey</td><td char=".">30.2</td></tr><tr><td>CORE</td><td>Counselor education</td><td char=".">15.3</td><td>Design</td><td char=".">14.5</td><td>True/quasi-experimental</td><td char=".">20.3</td><td>Qualitative & meta-analysis (tie)</td><td char=".">16.9</td></tr><tr><td>CVJ</td><td>Spirituality</td><td char=".">15.2</td><td>Wellness/stress</td><td char=".">12.2</td><td>Descriptive/survey</td><td char=".">50.6</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">22.9</td></tr><tr><td>IJAC</td><td>Theory/intervention</td><td char=".">61.7</td><td>Counselor education/ supervision</td><td char=".">19.3</td><td>Ethnographic</td><td char=".">34.7</td><td>Survey</td><td char=".">32.9</td></tr><tr><td>JLGBTIC</td><td>Advocacy/discrimination</td><td char=".">22.9</td><td>Wellness/mental health</td><td char=".">14.8</td><td>Ethnography</td><td char=".">48.9</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">32.2</td></tr><tr><td>JAOC<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">a</xref></td><td>Treatment/intervention</td><td char=".">26.1</td><td>Technique/theory</td><td char=".">22.5</td><td>Survey</td><td char=".">32.8</td><td>Qualitative/ethnography</td><td char=".">20.3</td></tr><tr><td>JAPC<sup>b</sup></td><td>Multicultural issues</td><td char=".">25.9</td><td>Child/adolescent</td><td char=".">22.3</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">38.2</td><td>Qualitative</td><td char=".">26.5</td></tr><tr><td>JCareerD</td><td>Theory</td><td char=".">30.7</td><td>Career development</td><td char=".">20.2</td><td>NC</td><td /><td>NC</td><td /></tr><tr><td>JCC</td><td>Multicultural issues</td><td char=".">19.7</td><td>Symptoms/disorders</td><td char=".">18.8</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">40.0</td><td>Descriptive/survey</td><td char=".">27.3</td></tr><tr><td>JCD</td><td>Multicultural issues</td><td char=".">19.2</td><td>Professional issues</td><td char=".">14.9</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">31.3</td><td>Qualitative</td><td char=".">20.6</td></tr><tr><td>JCMH</td><td>Training/supervision</td><td char=".">20.3</td><td>Art/storytelling</td><td char=".">16.2</td><td>Qualitative/ethnographic</td><td char=".">49.0</td><td>Descriptive/survey</td><td char=".">23.5</td></tr><tr><td>JEC</td><td>Career decision making</td><td char=".">15.1</td><td>Multicultural issues</td><td char=".">11.4</td><td>Comparative</td><td char=".">53.7</td><td>Qualitative</td><td char=".">13.0</td></tr><tr><td>JHC</td><td>Theory/technique</td><td char=".">21.5</td><td>Academic/career</td><td char=".">15.4</td><td>Ethnographic</td><td char=".">43.7</td><td>Descriptive/survey</td><td char=".">19.7</td></tr><tr><td>JMCD<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">a</xref></td><td>Race/ethnicity</td><td char=".">42.7</td><td>Professional issues</td><td char=".">17.7</td><td>Correlational</td><td char=".">33.1</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">26.2</td></tr><tr><td>JMHC</td><td>Theory/technique</td><td char=".">26.0</td><td>Symptoms/disorders</td><td char=".">19.6</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">27.0</td><td>Descriptive/survey & qualitative (tie)</td><td char=".">23.4</td></tr><tr><td>JSACP</td><td>Multicultural issues</td><td char=".">18.8</td><td>Counselor education/training</td><td char=".">18.3</td><td>Ethnographic</td><td char=".">42.9</td><td>Survey</td><td char=".">26.5</td></tr><tr><td>MECD</td><td>Clinical/personality</td><td char=".">57.3</td><td>Multicultural</td><td char=".">20.3</td><td>Previous test development</td><td char=".">37.9</td><td>New test development</td><td char=".">24.9</td></tr><tr><td>TPC</td><td>Counselor education/training</td><td char=".">16.4</td><td>Multicultural & school counseling (tie)</td><td char=".">10.3</td><td>Descriptive/survey</td><td char=".">42.4</td><td>Qualitative & correlation (tie)</td><td char=".">18.4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note:</emph> NC = not coded; BJGC = <emph>British Journal of Guidance & Counselling</emph>; CDQ = <emph>Career Development Quarterly</emph>; CES = <emph>Counselor Education and Supervision</emph>; CJCP = <emph>Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy</emph>; CORE = <emph>Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation</emph>; CVJ = <emph>Counseling & Values</emph>; IJAC = <emph>International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling</emph>; JLGBTIC = <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</emph>; JAOC = <emph>Journal of Addiction and Offender Counseling</emph>; JAPC = <emph>Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling</emph>; JCareerD = <emph>Journal of Career Development</emph>; JCC = <emph>Journal of College Counseling</emph>; JCD = <emph>Journal of Counseling & Development</emph>; JCMH = <emph>Journal of Creativity in Mental Health</emph>; JEC = <emph>Journal of Employment Counseling</emph>; JHC = <emph>Journal of Humanistic Counseling</emph>; JMCD = <emph>Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development</emph>; JMHC = <emph>Journal of Mental Health Counseling</emph>; JSACP = <emph>Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology</emph>; MECD = <emph>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</emph>; TPC = <emph>The Professional Counselor</emph>.</item> <item>5 <sups>a</sups>2008–2017. <sups>b</sups>2011–2020.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0164958275-13">Research Design Characteristics</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0164958275-14">Proportion of Research Articles Published</hd> <p>Over the 10-year window of 2010 to 2019, counseling journals have substantially increased the proportion of research articles published to current average rates approaching two-thirds of all counseling articles published (see Table 6; median = 64.9%; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 64%), consistent with calls to increase the research base of counseling practice (Kaplan & Gladding, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref74">14</reflink>]). Most articles published in all the counseling journals from 2010 to 2019 are now research articles, except for four journals: 28.3% for JCMH (Zhang, Milowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref75">38</reflink>]), 42.4% for JSACP (Wills et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref76">36</reflink>]), 42.9% for JHC (Sylvester et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref77">32</reflink>]), and 48.7% for JMHC (Menzies et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref78">21</reflink>]). In contrast, four counseling journals have surpassed the 80% mark in research articles: 87.9% for the <emph>Journal of Career Development</emph> (Mehlhouse et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref79">20</reflink>]), 85.7% for JCC (Milowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref80">23</reflink>]), 85.4% for MECD (Saks et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref81">30</reflink>]), and 80.4% for CES (Johnsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref82">12</reflink>]). This trend in publishing more research articles was noted in numerous metastudies, including <emph>Adultspan</emph> (Rippeto et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref83">28</reflink>]), BJGC (Kwag et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref84">16</reflink>]), CES (Johnsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref85">12</reflink>]), CJCP (Katrak et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref86">15</reflink>]), CORE (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref87">13</reflink>]), CVJ (Alder et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>]), JAOC (MacInerney et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref89">19</reflink>]), JCC (Milowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref90">23</reflink>]), and MECD (Saks et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref91">30</reflink>]). Although this increase in research articles supports evidence-based practice and adds to our scientific knowledge, this might also unintentionally account for the decrease in non-university-affiliated authors and the potential loss of practice-based articles. Journal editorial boards and professional societies will want to be mindful that practitioners and students constitute a majority of the memberships of most counseling associations, are primary consumers of counseling journals, and so overemphasizing publication of research articles might not meet the needs of all their readership.</p> <p>Table 6. Counseling Journals Summary Information From 2010 to 2019, Including Number of Research Articles Published, and Proportions of True and Quasi-Experimental Designs, Quantitative Approach, Intervention Articles, and Most Commonly Used Participant Types in Research Articles</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>#1 Participant Type</td><td>#2 Participant Type%</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Journal</td><td>No. Research Articles; % (R)</td><td>True/quasi designs% (R)</td><td>Quantitative% (R)</td><td>Intervention% (R)</td><td>Type</td><td>%</td><td>Type</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Adultspan</italic></td><td char=".">48; 53.3 (17)</td><td char=".">0 (20)</td><td char=".">47.9 (17)</td><td char=".">2.1 (18)</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">32.0</td><td>Undergraduates</td><td char=".">22.0</td></tr><tr><td>BJGC</td><td char=".">283; 68.0 (10)</td><td char=".">6.0 (10)</td><td char=".">41.9 (19)</td><td char=".">12.0 (6)</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">35.8</td><td>Counselors/professionals</td><td char=".">18.2</td></tr><tr><td>CDQ</td><td char=".">205; 77.4 (6)</td><td char=".">15.8 (2)</td><td char=".">69.3 (10)</td><td char=".">18.5 (3)</td><td>Undergraduates</td><td char=".">40.6</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">27.4</td></tr><tr><td>CES</td><td char=".">152; 80.4 (4)</td><td char=".">10.7 (6)</td><td char=".">45.7 (18)</td><td char=".">11.8 (7)</td><td>Counseling students</td><td char=".">50.0</td><td>Counselor educators</td><td char=".">27.9</td></tr><tr><td>CJCP</td><td char=".">148; 65.4 (11)</td><td char=".">3.4 (18)</td><td char=".">33.1 (21)</td><td char=".">7.4 (13)</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">48.2</td><td>Counselors/professionals</td><td char=".">17.9</td></tr><tr><td>CORE</td><td char=".">59; 64.1 (13)</td><td char=".">20.3 (1)</td><td char=".">64.4 (11)</td><td char=".">44.1 (1)</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">38.1</td><td>Children/adolescents</td><td char=".">23.8</td></tr><tr><td>CVJ</td><td char=".">83; 56.5 (16)</td><td char=".">5.8 (12)</td><td char=".">61.7 (12)</td><td char=".">7.2 (14)</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">38.1</td><td>Undergraduates</td><td char=".">20.2</td></tr><tr><td>IJAC</td><td char=".">200; 68.3 (9)</td><td char=".">4.2 (15)</td><td char=".">50.6 (16)</td><td char=".">5.0 (15)</td><td>Counselors/providers</td><td char=".">33.3</td><td>Undergraduates</td><td char=".">25.2</td></tr><tr><td>JLGBTIC</td><td char=".">87; 50.9 (18)</td><td char=".">1.1 (19)</td><td char=".">54.0 (14)</td><td char=".">2.3 (17)</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">53.9</td><td>Counselors</td><td char=".">20.2</td></tr><tr><td>JAOC<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">a</xref></td><td char=".">64; 71.9 (7)</td><td char=".">4.7 (13)</td><td char=".">82.9 (2)</td><td>NC</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">37.5</td><td>Adolescents</td><td char=".">15.6</td></tr><tr><td>JAPC</td><td char=".">69; 64.5 (12)</td><td char=".">5.9 (11)</td><td char=".">72.9 (7)</td><td char=".">11.6 (8)</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">31.1</td><td>Undergraduates</td><td char=".">31.1</td></tr><tr><td>JCareerD</td><td char=".">283; 87.9 (1)</td><td>NC</td><td char=".">80.0 (3)</td><td char=".">0.7 (19)</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">51.0</td><td>Undergraduates</td><td char=".">24.0</td></tr><tr><td>JCC</td><td char=".">150; 85.7 (2)</td><td char=".">4.0 (17)</td><td char=".">77.5 (5)</td><td char=".">11.3 (10)</td><td>Undergraduates</td><td char=".">89.2</td><td>Graduate students/trainees</td><td char=".">7.0</td></tr><tr><td>JCD</td><td char=".">289; 60.6 (14)</td><td char=".">11.3 (5)</td><td char=".">74.5 (6)</td><td char=".">17.6 (4)</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">21.7</td><td>Undergraduates</td><td char=".">21.1</td></tr><tr><td>JCMH</td><td char=".">97; 28.3 (22)</td><td char=".">6.1 (9)</td><td char=".">41.3 (20)</td><td>NC</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">33.7</td><td>Children/adolescent & graduates (tie)</td><td char=".">26.5</td></tr><tr><td>JEC</td><td char=".">113; 78.5 (5)</td><td char=".">12.1 (4)</td><td char=".">78.5 (4)</td><td char=".">11.5 (9)</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">48.7</td><td>Undergraduates</td><td char=".">27.4</td></tr><tr><td>JHC</td><td char=".">68; 42.9 (20)</td><td char=".">12.7 (3)</td><td char=".">51.9 (15)</td><td char=".">31.9 (2)</td><td>Graduate students</td><td char=".">32.7</td><td>Counselors/professionals</td><td char=".">20.8</td></tr><tr><td>JMCD<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">a</xref></td><td char=".">122; 69.7 (8)</td><td char=".">7.7 (7)</td><td char=".">71.1 (8)</td><td char=".">7.4 (12)</td><td>Undergraduates</td><td char=".">26.4</td><td>Graduate students</td><td char=".">24.3</td></tr><tr><td>JMHC</td><td char=".">113; 48.7 (19)</td><td char=".">7.2 (8)</td><td char=".">69.5 (9)</td><td char=".">8.8 (11)</td><td>Undergraduates</td><td char=".">34.1</td><td>Counselors/professionals</td><td char=".">30.9</td></tr><tr><td>JSACP</td><td char=".">35; 42.2 (21)</td><td char=".">4.1 (16)</td><td char=".">15.0 (22)</td><td char=".">2.9 (16)</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">37.5</td><td>Counselors/professionals</td><td char=".">25.0</td></tr><tr><td>MECD</td><td char=".">175; 85.4 (3)</td><td>NC</td><td char=".">100.0 (1)</td><td>NC</td><td>Undergraduates</td><td char=".">34.4</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">27.2</td></tr><tr><td>TPC</td><td char=".">154; 58.1 (15)</td><td char=".">4.4 (14)</td><td char=".">61.2 (13)</td><td char=".">12.3 (5)</td><td>Adults</td><td char=".">37.2</td><td>Counselors/providers</td><td char=".">23.5</td></tr><tr><td><italic>J</italic></td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">19</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td char=".">118; 64.9</td><td char=".">6.0</td><td char=".">63.0</td><td char=".">11.5</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>M</italic><sub>weighted</sub> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td char=".">136 (76.9); 64.0 (2.1)</td><td char=".">7.7 (0.3)</td><td char=".">63.5 (2.0)</td><td char=".">11.2 (0.5)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 <emph>Note: J</emph> = number of studies included; R = rank; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = weighted mean; NC = not coded; BJGC = <emph>British Journal of Guidance & Counselling</emph>; CDQ = <emph>Career Development Quarterly</emph>; CES = <emph>Counselor Education and Supervision</emph>; CJCP = <emph>Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy</emph>; CORE = <emph>Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation</emph>; CVJ = <emph>Counseling & Values</emph>; IJAC = <emph>International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling</emph>; JLGBTIC = <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</emph>; JAOC = <emph>Journal of Addiction and Offender Counseling</emph>; JAPC = <emph>Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling</emph>; JCareerD = <emph>Journal of Career Development</emph>; JCC = <emph>Journal of College Counseling</emph>; JCD = <emph>Journal of Counseling & Development</emph>; JCMH = <emph>Journal of Creativity in Mental Health</emph>; JEC = <emph>Journal of Employment Counseling</emph>; JHC = <emph>Journal of Humanistic Counseling</emph>; JMCD = <emph>Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development</emph>; JMHC = <emph>Journal of Mental Health Counseling</emph>; JSACP = <emph>Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology</emph>; MECD = <emph>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</emph>; TPC = <emph>The Professional Counselor</emph>.</item> <item>7 <sups>a</sups>2008–2017.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0164958275-15">Research Designs</hd> <p>Top research designs (e.g., qualitative, descriptive, comparative, correlational, survey, test development, quasi- and true-experimental) first and second choices across 21 counseling journals included ethnography or qualitative in 15 journals and a tie in descriptive or survey and correlational designs in nine journals (see Table 5). Several journals saw an increase in qualitative designs (i.e., CES, Johnsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref92">12</reflink>]; JMHC, Menzies et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref93">21</reflink>]; <emph>Adultspan</emph>, Rippeto et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref94">28</reflink>]), but qualitative designs remained relatively stable in other journals (i.e., BJGC, Kwag et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref95">16</reflink>]; <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</emph>, Gayowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref96">10</reflink>]; JCD, Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>]; JCMH, Zhang, Milowsky, et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref98">38</reflink>]; JEC, Siegler et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref99">31</reflink>]). True/quasi-experimental design studies as a top two occurrence only appeared once on this list for CORE (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref100">13</reflink>]). CORE authors used the most robust research designs in the family of counseling journals. Survey research and descriptive analyses have an important place in the counseling literature. Editorial boards are encouraged to increase publication of articles with more sophisticated experimental research designs to help promote causal inference and generalizability of counseling results.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-16">Proportions of Studies with Quantitative and Qualitative Research Designs</hd> <p>Despite the increase in qualitative methodologies, quantitative designs still make up most research articles across counseling journals (see Table 6; median = 63.0%; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 63.5%). Of the 22 journals, 16 had higher proportions of quantitative than qualitative research articles. Not surprisingly, 100% of the research articles published in MECD from 2010 to 2019 were quantitative. JAOC (MacInerney et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref101">19</reflink>]) and <emph>Journal of Career Development</emph> (Mehlhouse et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref102">20</reflink>]) followed with 80% or more of their research articles being quantitative. The journals with the lowest proportions of quantitative articles were JSACP (15.0%; Wills et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref103">36</reflink>]), CJCP (33.1%; Katrak et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref104">15</reflink>]), and JCMH (41.3%; Zhang, Milowsky, et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref105">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-17">Proportion of Research Articles Using True/Quasi-Experimental Designs</hd> <p>We looked deeper into the occurrence of the most robust experimental designs in the counseling literature. Table 6 provides proportions for the occurrence of studies using quasi- and true-experimental designs, concluding that the median proportion was 6.0% and the <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> was 7.7%. The top three counseling journals publishing true/quasi-experimental design studies from 2010 to 2019 are CORE (20.3%; Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref106">13</reflink>]), <emph>Career Development Quarterly</emph> (CDQ, 15.8%; Gonsalves et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref107">11</reflink>]), and JHC (12.7%; Sylvester et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref108">32</reflink>]). Journals with the lowest proportions of true/quasi-experimental design studies were <emph>Adultspan</emph> (0.0%; Rippeto et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref109">28</reflink>]), <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</emph> (1.1%; Gayowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref110">10</reflink>]), and CJCP (3.4%; Katrak et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref111">15</reflink>]). These results are quite similar to the proportions of intervention studies in the next section, which often rely on experimental research designs. Further research is needed to understand the challenges, in addition to grant funding limitations, counseling researchers face in conducting high quality quasi- and true experimental design research studies.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-18">Proportions of Intervention Studies</hd> <p>Table 6 provides comparisons of proportions for occurrence of intervention studies in 19 of the 22 counseling journals reviewed. The median journal intervention study rate among research articles from 2010 to 2019 was 11.5% and the <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> was 11.2%. CORE published intervention studies at a 44.1% rate among research articles (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref112">13</reflink>]), JHC at 31.9% (Sylvester et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref113">32</reflink>]), and CDQ at 18.5% (Gonsalves et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref114">11</reflink>]). The lowest producers of intervention studies over the past decade were <emph>Adultspan</emph> (2.1%; Rippeto et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref115">28</reflink>]), <emph>Journal of LBGT Issues in Counseling</emph> (2.3%; Gayowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref116">10</reflink>]), and <emph>Journal of Career Development</emph> (0.7%; Mehlhouse et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref117">20</reflink>]). The percentage of intervention studies across counseling journals was relatively low, with some journals experiencing significant declines in intervention studies including JMHC (Menzies et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref118">21</reflink>]), <emph>Adultspan</emph> (Rippeto et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref119">28</reflink>]) and CES (Johnsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref120">12</reflink>]). Intervention studies provide valuable information regarding the efficacy and relevancy of treatments for a specific population to enhance client care, support accountability, and contribute to advocacy efforts (Watson et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref121">34</reflink>]). It will be interesting to see if this downward trend for intervention studies continues in some journals despite the call for increased evidence-based counseling approaches.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-19">Participant and Sample Characteristics</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0164958275-20">Types of Participants Used in Research Studies</hd> <p>Identification characteristics of participants (i.e., undergraduate students, graduate students, counselors, supervisors, adults, adolescents, and data) engaged in the research studies were also coded (see Table 6). The most common participant types among first and second choices across 22 counseling journals included adults (16 journals), undergraduates (12 journals), counselors or professionals (9 journals), trainees or graduate students (5 journals), and children or adolescents (3 journals). Given the increase in mental health concerns for children and adolescents (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref122">6</reflink>]), more research studies that target this population are warranted.</p> <p>Furthermore, it is important to study how research on various subpopulations can affect counselors' work with these client subgroups in the future, as our foci often represent the scope and importance of those client populations to our futures as counseling practitioners. The better counseling practitioners understand these subpopulations, the more effective the service delivery can become. Moreover, as research can inform better praxis with these clients, that improved praxis will inform more and better quality research with these populations of (potential) clients. Often the participant type was consistent with the aim of the journal. For example, over 89% of the participant samples engaged in research published in JCC were undergraduates (Milowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref123">23</reflink>]). This is appropriate given that JCC aims to promote scholarship in college counseling. Further research is needed to help understand the challenges of participant selection and recruitment in counseling research. It is easy to suggest that more research is needed on clients and effective treatment regimens or counselors-in-training and effective training protocols, but it is equally important to understand the challenges in diversifying demographic characteristics of the participant pools. Editorial review boards should insist on better descriptions of participant characteristics not only to enhance applicability and generalization of results, but also so metastudies can analyze the proportions of participant characteristics to better understand who is included or excluded from counseling research.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-21">Sample Sizes in Counseling Journal Research Studies</hd> <p>Sample sizes (see Table 7) were coded as small (< 30 participants; median = 32.7%; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 30.6%), medium (30–99 participants; median = 18.0%; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 15.4%), large (100–499 participants; median = 37.4%; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 40.9%), and very large (500+ participants; median = 10.4%; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 15.0%). As a second way of representing sample size, the median sample size across all research samples of 21 counseling journals from 2010 to 2019 was 85 participants and the overall weighted sample average was 149 participants. Many of the journals reported stabilization of sample sizes from 2010 to 2019 (e.g., IJAC, Miller et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref124">22</reflink>]; <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</emph>, Gayowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref125">10</reflink>]; JCD, Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref126">2</reflink>]), although CES (Johnsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref127">12</reflink>]) reported a decline commensurate with an increase in qualitative studies published. In contrast, TPC (Williams et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref128">35</reflink>]) and JEC (Siegler et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref129">31</reflink>]) saw increases in sample size consistent with an increase in the proportion of quantitative studies published. The journal with the largest median sample size was MECD (580 participants; Saks et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref130">30</reflink>]), followed by CDQ (248 participants; Gonsalves et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref131">11</reflink>]) and the <emph>Journal of Career Development</emph> (243 participants; Mehlhouse et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref132">20</reflink>]). It is not surprising that MECD had the largest sample size, being a measurement journal and publishing articles with advanced analytical statistics that must be sufficiently powered by larger participant samples. JSACP (median of 28 participants; Wills et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref133">36</reflink>]), JCMH (median of 27 participants; Zhang, Milowsky, et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref134">23</reflink>]), and CJCP (median of 18 participants; Katrak et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref135">15</reflink>]) had the lowest median sample sizes, which mirrors the journals' high publication rates of qualitative studies.</p> <p>Table 7. Counseling Journals Summary Information From 2010 to 2019, Including Median Sample Size, Proportions of Various Sample Sizes, and Various Statistical Sophistication Levels.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Journal</td><td>% Small (R)</td><td>% Medium (R)</td><td>% Large (R)</td><td>% Very Large (R)</td><td>Median (R)</td><td>% Basic (R)</td><td>% Intermediate (R)</td><td>% Advanced (R)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><italic>Adultspan</italic></td><td char=".">41.7 (8)</td><td char=".">12.5 (17)</td><td>35.4 (13)</td><td char=".">10.4 (11)</td><td char=".">56 (13)</td><td char=".">71.7 (5)</td><td char=".">25.0 (14)</td><td char=".">3.3 (21)</td></tr><tr><td>BJGC</td><td char=".">48.9 (4)</td><td char=".">21.3 (5)</td><td>21.6 (19)</td><td char=".">8.2 (15)</td><td char=".">33 (17)</td><td char=".">73.0 (4)</td><td char=".">19.6 (18)</td><td char=".">7.4 (15)</td></tr><tr><td>CDQ</td><td char=".">21.9 (17)</td><td char=".">12.1 (19)</td><td>46.1 (6)</td><td char=".">19.9 (5)</td><td char=".">248 (2)</td><td char=".">54.8 (16)</td><td char=".">31.4 (8)</td><td char=".">13.8 (9)</td></tr><tr><td>CES</td><td char=".">47.4 (5)</td><td char=".">24.3 (4)</td><td>25.0 (17)</td><td char=".">3.3 (20)</td><td char=".">37 (16)</td><td char=".">68.2 (6)</td><td char=".">24.6 (15)</td><td char=".">7.3 (16)</td></tr><tr><td>CJCP</td><td char=".">56.7 (2)</td><td char=".">19.3 (9)</td><td>15.3 (21)</td><td char=".">7.3 (17)</td><td char=".">18 (20)</td><td char=".">79.9 (3)</td><td char=".">16.1 (19)</td><td char=".">4.0 (20)</td></tr><tr><td>CORE</td><td char=".">44.1 (6.5)</td><td char=".">28.8 (1)</td><td>23.7 (18)</td><td char=".">3.4 (19)</td><td char=".">50 (15)</td><td char=".">65.1 (7)</td><td char=".">28.9 (10.5)</td><td char=".">6.0 (17)</td></tr><tr><td>CVJ</td><td char=".">32.1 (12)</td><td char=".">16.0 (14)</td><td>42.0 (9.5)</td><td char=".">9.9 (13)</td><td char=".">103 (8.5)</td><td char=".">56.3 (15)</td><td char=".">38.7 (3)</td><td char=".">5.0 (18)</td></tr><tr><td>IJAC</td><td char=".">35.7 (9)</td><td char=".">17.1 (12)</td><td>38.7 (11)</td><td char=".">8.5 (14)</td><td char=".">77 (12)</td><td char=".">59.1 (10.5)</td><td char=".">27.2 (12)</td><td char=".">13.7 (10)</td></tr><tr><td>JLGBTIC</td><td char=".">33.3 (11)</td><td char=".">20.7 (6)</td><td>34.5 (16)</td><td char=".">11.5 (10)</td><td char=".">83 (11)</td><td char=".">28.6 (21)</td><td char=".">34.7 (4)</td><td char=".">36.7 (3)</td></tr><tr><td>JAOC<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">a</xref></td><td char=".">26.6 (14)</td><td char=".">18.8 (11)</td><td>46.9 (4)</td><td char=".">7.8 (16)</td><td>NC</td><td char=".">47.7 (17)</td><td char=".">30.8 (9)</td><td char=".">21.5 (5)</td></tr><tr><td>JAPC</td><td char=".">24.6 (16)</td><td char=".">13.0 (16)</td><td>42.0 (9.5)</td><td char=".">20.3 (4)</td><td char=".">190 (6)</td><td char=".">36.2 (19)</td><td char=".">26.1 (12)</td><td char=".">37.7 (2)</td></tr><tr><td>JCareerD</td><td char=".">13.3 (20)</td><td char=".">6.5 (20)</td><td>56.3 (1)</td><td char=".">24.0 (2)</td><td char=".">243 (3)</td><td char=".">59.1 (10)</td><td char=".">22.7 (17)</td><td char=".">18.2 (7)</td></tr><tr><td>JCC</td><td char=".">12.7 (21)</td><td char=".">5.3 (21)</td><td>50.0 (3)</td><td char=".">22.7 (3)</td><td char=".">215 (5)</td><td char=".">22.2 (22)</td><td char=".">52.1 (1)</td><td char=".">25.7 (4)</td></tr><tr><td>JCD</td><td char=".">25.7 (15)</td><td char=".">12.2 (18)</td><td>48.3 (4)</td><td char=".">13.9 (7.5)</td><td char=".">136 (7)</td><td char=".">57.6 (13)</td><td char=".">28.9 (10.5)</td><td char=".">13.4 (11)</td></tr><tr><td>JCMH</td><td char=".">61.2 (1)</td><td char=".">25.5 (3)</td><td>13.3 (22)</td><td char=".">0.0 (21.5)</td><td char=".">27 (19)</td><td char=".">81.6 (2)</td><td char=".">15.3 (21)</td><td char=".">3.1 (22)</td></tr><tr><td>JEC</td><td char=".">15.9 (19)</td><td char=".">15.9 (15)</td><td>54.9 (2)</td><td char=".">13.3 (9)</td><td char=".">229 (4)</td><td char=".">58.0 (12)</td><td char=".">32.6 (6)</td><td char=".">9.4 (12)</td></tr><tr><td>JHC</td><td char=".">44.1 (6.5)</td><td char=".">16.2 (13)</td><td>35.3 (14)</td><td char=".">4.4 (18)</td><td char=".">52 (14)</td><td char=".">57.1 (14)</td><td char=".">24.3 (16)</td><td char=".">18.6 (6)</td></tr><tr><td>JMCD<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">a</xref></td><td char=".">21.3 (18)</td><td char=".">19.7 (8)</td><td>45.1 (7)</td><td char=".">13.9 (7.5)</td><td>NC</td><td char=".">35.2 (20)</td><td char=".">48.4 (2)</td><td char=".">16.4 (8)</td></tr><tr><td>JMHC</td><td char=".">28.8 (13)</td><td char=".">18.9 (10)</td><td>35.1 (15)</td><td char=".">17.1 (6)</td><td char=".">103 (8.5)</td><td char=".">59.2 (8)</td><td char=".">33.3 (5)</td><td char=".">7.5 (14)</td></tr><tr><td>JSACP</td><td char=".">52.9 (3)</td><td char=".">26.5 (2)</td><td>20.6 (20)</td><td char=".">0.0 (21.5)</td><td char=".">28 (18)</td><td char=".">83.3 (1)</td><td char=".">11.9 (22)</td><td char=".">4.8 (19)</td></tr><tr><td>MECD</td><td char=".">1.7 (22)</td><td char=".">0.6 (22)</td><td>42.5 (8)</td><td char=".">55.2 (1)</td><td char=".">580 (1)</td><td char=".">41.8 (18)</td><td char=".">15.4 (20)</td><td char=".">42.8 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>TPC<sup>b</sup></td><td char=".">33.5 (10)</td><td char=".">20.0 (7)</td><td>36.1 (12)</td><td char=".">10.3 (12)</td><td char=".">86 (10)</td><td char=".">59.1 (10.5)</td><td char=".">31.8 (7)</td><td char=".">9.1 (13)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>J</italic></td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">22</td></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td char=".">32.7</td><td char=".">18.0</td><td char=".">37.4</td><td char=".">10.4</td><td char=".">85</td><td char=".">58.6</td><td char=".">28.9</td><td char=".">11.4</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Mdn</italic><sub>weighted</sub> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td char=".">30.6 (1.0)</td><td char=".">15.4 (0.4)</td><td char=".">40.9 (1.3)</td><td char=".">15.0 (0.8)</td><td char=".">149 (9.8)</td><td char=".">57.1 (1.7)</td><td char=".">30.1 (0.8)</td><td char=".">15.0 (0.6)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 <emph>Note: J</emph> = number of studies included; R = rank; NC = not coded; small sample size < 30; medium sample size = 30–99; large sample size = 100–499; very large sample size = 500+; BJGC = <emph>British Journal of Guidance & Counselling</emph>; CDQ = <emph>Career Development Quarterly</emph>; CES = <emph>Counselor Education and Supervision</emph>; CJCP = <emph>Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy</emph>; CORE = <emph>Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation</emph>; CVJ = <emph>Counseling & Values</emph>; IJAC = <emph>International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling</emph>; JLGBTIC = <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</emph>; JAOC = <emph>Journal of Addiction and Offender Counseling</emph>; JAPC = <emph>Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling</emph>; JCareerD = <emph>Journal of Career Development</emph>; JCC = <emph>Journal of College Counseling</emph>; JCD = <emph>Journal of Counseling & Development</emph>; JCMH = <emph>Journal of Creativity in Mental Health</emph>; JEC = <emph>Journal of Employment Counseling</emph>; JHC = <emph>Journal of Humanistic Counseling</emph>; JMCD = <emph>Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development</emph>; JMHC = <emph>Journal of Mental Health Counseling</emph>; JSACP = <emph>Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology</emph>; MECD = <emph>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</emph>; TPC = <emph>The Professional Counselor</emph>.</item> <item>9 <sups>a</sups>2010–2017. <sups>b</sups>2011–2019.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0164958275-22">Proportion of Research Articles That Use Random Selection or Assignment Procedures</hd> <p>Finally, participant samples were additionally coded for selection or assignment characteristics (i.e., random selection, nonrandom selection, random assignment, nonrandom assignment; see Table 7). The median use of randomization across all counseling journals was 7.4% and the <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> was 9.7%. The journals with the highest proportions of use of randomization were CORE (18.6%; Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref136">13</reflink>]), JMHC (18.1%; MacInerney et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref137">19</reflink>]), and MECD (17.1%; Saks et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref138">30</reflink>]), whereas the journals with the lowest rates of randomization were CJCP (0.9%; Katrak et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref139">15</reflink>]), <emph>Adultspan</emph> (2.1%; Rippeto et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref140">28</reflink>]), and BJGC (2.1%; Kwag et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref141">16</reflink>]). As stated earlier, the proportions of randomized selection and assignment will increase as the proportions of true experimental design research studies increase and survey participant selection methods are enhanced. Further research is needed on challenges to accomplishing these goals in counseling research.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-23">Statistical Characteristics</hd> <p>In addition to participant and sample characteristics, counseling research articles were coded for statistical analysis characteristics (see Table 7). Statistical sophistication was coded for basic level of sophistication (e.g., theme analysis/coding, frequency analysis, descriptive statistics, chi-square, correlation) at a median of 58.6% (<emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 57.1%). Intermediate sophistication (e.g., nonparametric, regression analysis, <emph>t</emph>/ANOVA) occurred at a median of 28.9% (<emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 30.1%). Advanced statistical sophistication (e.g., multivariate analysis of variance [MANOVA], multivariate analysis of covariance [MANCOVA], analysis of covariance [ANCOVA], confirmatory factor analysis [CFA], exploratory factor analysis [EFA]) occurred at a median of 11.4% (<emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 15.0%) across all 22 counseling journals. It is important to note that this variable was multicoded to account for research studies that used multiple statistical analyses. As expected, MECD (42.8%; Saks et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref142">30</reflink>]) had the highest percentage of advanced statistics, although this variable was recoded for MECD because within that journal, EFA and CFA are considered intermediate statistics. MECD was followed by JAPC (37.7%; Zhang, Cummings, et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref143">37</reflink>]) and the <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</emph> (36.7%; Gayowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref144">10</reflink>]) with the highest displays of advanced statistics use. At the same time, the following journals used the highest percentage of basic statistical analyses within research articles: JSACP (83.3%; Wills et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref145">36</reflink>]), JCMH (81.6%; Zhang, Milowsky, et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref146">23</reflink>]), and CJCP (79.7%; Katrak et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref147">15</reflink>]). As indicated earlier, these three journals rely heavily on the qualitative research tradition.</p> <p>Top statistical techniques categories emerging as the most used and second most used choices across the 22 counseling journals (see Table 8) included descriptive statistics in 17 journals, correlation and regression in 13 journals, thematic coding in 11 journals, <emph>t</emph>/ANOVA in two journals (CORE, Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref148">13</reflink>]; MECD, Saks et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref149">30</reflink>]), and factor analysis in one journal (MECD, Saks et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref150">30</reflink>]). The small percentage of research articles that use advanced statistical procedures, overall, is concerning. As the counseling profession matures and the call for evidence-based practices increases, researchers and journal editorial boards should encourage research that asks more complex questions to add to our knowledge base regarding the efficacy of treatment and training strategies. Further research is needed to understand the challenges counseling researchers face in using more advanced and sophisticated statistical procedures, and counselor educators overseeing doctoral advisees should encourage them to take numerous advanced statistics courses and learn to used advanced statistical programs to increase knowledge and understanding of more sophisticated procedures used to answer more complex questions.</p> <p>Table 8. Counseling Journals Summary Information From 2010–2019, Including Proportions of Specific Types of Statistics, Sample Randomization, Effect Sizes, Study Reliability, and Study Validity Information Provided in Counseling Research Studies.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Journal</td><td>%Randomization (R)</td><td>%Effect size (R)</td><td>%Reliability (R)</td><td>%Validity (R)</td><td>#1 Type of Statistic</td><td>#2 Type of Statistic</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Type</td><td>%</td><td>Type</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Adultspan</italic></td><td char=".">2.1 (19.5)</td><td>NC</td><td char=".">56.2 (9)</td><td char=".">37.5 (8)</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">32.4</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">22.5</td></tr><tr><td>BJGC</td><td char=".">2.1 (19.5)</td><td char=".">7.0 (19)</td><td char=".">19.6 (17)</td><td char=".">5.4 (20)</td><td>Thematic coding</td><td char=".">41.9</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">24.3</td></tr><tr><td>CDQ</td><td char=".">11.7 (9.5)</td><td char=".">54.3 (6)</td><td char=".">81.0 (3)</td><td char=".">56.5 (4)</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">30.2</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">24.8</td></tr><tr><td>CES</td><td char=".">5.3 (13.5)</td><td char=".">24.3 (12)</td><td char=".">25.7 (16)</td><td char=".">11.8 (15)</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">46.1</td><td><italic>t/</italic>ANOVA</td><td char=".">18.3</td></tr><tr><td>CJCP</td><td char=".">0.9 (21)</td><td char=".">9.4 (18)</td><td char=".">51.7 (10)</td><td char=".">52.3 (5)</td><td>Thematic coding</td><td char=".">44.2</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">30.4</td></tr><tr><td>CORE</td><td char=".">18.6 (1)</td><td char=".">76.3 (1)</td><td char=".">84.7 (2)</td><td char=".">83.1 (1)</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">31.6</td><td>Thematic coding</td><td char=".">20.2</td></tr><tr><td>CVJ</td><td char=".">6.0 (12)</td><td char=".">35.8 (7)</td><td char=".">64.2 (6)</td><td char=".">21.0 (12)</td><td>Thematic coding</td><td char=".">21.2</td><td>Descriptive, correlation (tie)</td><td char=".">18.2</td></tr><tr><td>IJAC</td><td char=".">12.4 (8)</td><td char=".">56.5 (5)</td><td char=".">43.0 (12)</td><td char=".">71.0 (3)</td><td>Thematic coding</td><td char=".">25.7</td><td>Correlation/regression</td><td char=".">20.9</td></tr><tr><td>JLGBTIC</td><td char=".">2.3 (18)</td><td char=".">20.7 (15)</td><td char=".">86.2 (1)</td><td char=".">43.7 (6)</td><td>Thematic coding</td><td char=".">25.3</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">19.8</td></tr><tr><td>JAOC<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">a</xref></td><td char=".">12.5 (7)</td><td char=".">29.7 (9)</td><td char=".">31.2 (15)</td><td char=".">20.3 (13)</td><td>Regression</td><td char=".">21.8</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">17.2</td></tr><tr><td>JAPC</td><td char=".">4.3 (15.5)</td><td char=".">17.4 (14)</td><td char=".">66.7 (5)</td><td char=".">37.7 (7)</td><td>Thematic coding</td><td char=".">18.3</td><td>Descriptive, regression (tie)</td><td char=".">16.3</td></tr><tr><td>JCareerD</td><td>NC</td><td char=".">17.0 (16)</td><td char=".">15.6 (19)</td><td char=".">8.7 (17)</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">28.5</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">24.8</td></tr><tr><td>JCC</td><td char=".">14.7 (6)</td><td char=".">33.3 (8)</td><td>NC</td><td>NC</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">34.0</td><td>Regression</td><td char=".">16.0</td></tr><tr><td>JCD</td><td char=".">15.9 (4)</td><td char=".">61.2 (3)</td><td char=".">60.9 (8)</td><td char=".">11.1 (16)</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">27.3</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">18.3</td></tr><tr><td>JCMH</td><td char=".">15.3 (5)</td><td char=".">13.1 (17)</td><td char=".">18.2 (18)</td><td char=".">13.1 (14)</td><td>Thematic coding</td><td char=".">36.6</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">26.1</td></tr><tr><td>JEC</td><td char=".">5.3 (13.5)</td><td>NC</td><td>NC</td><td>NC</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">35.7</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">24.7</td></tr><tr><td>JHC</td><td char=".">4.3 (15.5)</td><td char=".">24.6 (11)</td><td char=".">39.1 (14)</td><td char=".">7.2 (18)</td><td>Thematic coding</td><td char=".">28.0</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">25.6</td></tr><tr><td>JMCD<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">a</xref></td><td char=".">7.4 (11)</td><td char=".">56.6 (4)</td><td char=".">61.5 (7)</td><td char=".">5.7 (19)</td><td>Correlation</td><td char=".">25.0</td><td>Regression</td><td char=".">23.3</td></tr><tr><td>JMHC</td><td char=".">18.1 (2)</td><td char=".">64.5 (2)</td><td char=".">51.4 (11)</td><td char=".">30.6 (10)</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">35.9</td><td>Regression</td><td char=".">19.4</td></tr><tr><td>JSACP</td><td char=".">2.9 (17)</td><td char=".">5.7 (20)</td><td char=".">11.4 (20)</td><td char=".">22.9 (11)</td><td>Thematic coding</td><td char=".">33.3</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">31.6</td></tr><tr><td>MECD</td><td char=".">17.1 (3)</td><td char=".">24.9 (10)</td><td char=".">79.2 (4)</td><td char=".">79.8 (2)</td><td>Factor analysis</td><td char=".">59.2</td><td><italic>t</italic>/ANOVA</td><td char=".">12.1</td></tr><tr><td>TPC<sup>b</sup></td><td char=".">11.7 (9.5)</td><td char=".">23.5 (13)</td><td char=".">39.2 (13)</td><td char=".">36.6 (9)</td><td>Descriptive</td><td char=".">29.8</td><td>Thematic coding</td><td char=".">21.2</td></tr><tr><td><italic>J</italic></td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">20</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td char=".">7.4</td><td char=".">24.8</td><td char=".">51.6</td><td char=".">26.7</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>M</italic><sub>weighted</sub> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td char=".">9.7 (0.4)</td><td char=".">33.4 (1.4)</td><td char=".">45.9 (1.6)</td><td char=".">31.6 (1.4)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>10 <emph>Note: J</emph> = number of studies included; R = rank; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = weighted mean; NC = not coded; ANOVA = analysis of variance; BJGC = <emph>British Journal of Guidance & Counselling</emph>; CDQ = <emph>Career Development Quarterly</emph>; CES = <emph>Counselor Education and Supervision</emph>; CJCP = <emph>Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy</emph>; CORE = <emph>Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation</emph>; CVJ = <emph>Counseling & Values</emph>; IJAC = <emph>International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling</emph>; JLGBTIC = <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</emph>; JAOC = <emph>Journal of Addiction and Offender Counseling</emph>; JAPC = <emph>Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling</emph>; JCareerD = <emph>Journal of Career Development</emph>; JCC = <emph>Journal of College Counseling</emph>; JCD = <emph>Journal of Counseling & Development</emph>; JCMH = <emph>Journal of Creativity in Mental Health</emph>; JEC = <emph>Journal of Employment Counseling</emph>; JHC = <emph>Journal of Humanistic Counseling</emph>; JMCD = <emph>Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development</emph>; JMHC = <emph>Journal of Mental Health Counseling</emph>; JSACP = <emph>Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology</emph>; MECD = <emph>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</emph>; TPC = <emph>The Professional Counselor</emph>.</item> <item>11 <sups>a</sups>2008–2017. <sups>b</sups>2011–2019.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0164958275-24">Reporting Standard Characteristics</hd> <p>The final set of research article characteristics examined were standard quality identifiers. More editorial boards are requiring researchers to report effect size and sample-related indexes of reliability and validity in quantitative studies, or dependability and generalizability or transferability statements in qualitative research studies (Saks et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref151">30</reflink>]). Although several journals saw an increase in reporting effect size (median = 24.8%; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 33.4%), reliability indicators (median = 51.6%; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 45.9%), and validity indicators (median = 26.7%; <emph>M</emph><subs>weighted</subs> = 31.6%), these reporting standards remain low overall (see Table 8). CORE (76.3%; Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref152">13</reflink>]), JMHC (64.5%; Menzies et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref153">21</reflink>]), and JCD (61.2%; Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref154">2</reflink>]) had the highest proportion of research articles reporting effect sizes. In contrast, JSACP reported effect sizes in only 5.7% of research studies (Wills et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref155">36</reflink>]), followed by BJGC (7.0%; Kwag et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref156">16</reflink>]) and CJCP (9.4%; Katrak et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref157">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Coefficients alpha in quantitative studies and dependability standards in qualitative studies were coded for reliability (see Table 8). The <emph>Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling</emph> reported reliability estimates in 86.2% of research articles published (Gayowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref158">10</reflink>]). CORE was close behind at 84.2% (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref159">13</reflink>]), as was CDQ at 81.0% (Gonsalves et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref160">11</reflink>]). These three journals impressively reported reliability standards in over 80% of research articles published. Journals with the lowest reporting of reliability indexes were JSACP (11.4%; Wills et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref161">36</reflink>]), <emph>Journal of Career Development</emph> (15.6%; Mehlhouse et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref162">20</reflink>]), and JCMH (18.2%; Zhang, Milowsky, et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref163">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Validity coefficients in quantitative studies and generalizability in qualitative studies were coded as evidence of validity indexes (see Table 8). CORE provided evidence of validity in 83.1% of research articles (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref164">13</reflink>]), MECD in 79.8% (Saks et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref165">30</reflink>]), and IJAC in 71.0% (Miller et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref166">22</reflink>]), as all were among the highest percentage of reporting validity standards. In contrast, BJGC (5.4%; Kwag et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref167">16</reflink>]), JMCD (5.7%; Pesavento et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref168">26</reflink>]), and JHC (7.2%; Sylvester et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref169">32</reflink>]) had the lowest percentage of reporting validity standards from 2010 to 2019. The editorial board of CORE is commended for consistently reporting effect sizes, reliability indexes, and validity information at a higher rate than other counseling journals. Their use of a standardized reviewer guide contributes to these high rates.</p> <p>Editorial boards and researchers have a responsibility to ensure that research articles are interpretable, generalizable (quantitative studies), and trustworthy (qualitative studies), and an essential way to do this is through reporting effect size, sample reliability, and sample validity indexes. We encourage researchers and editors to make reporting of these standard characteristics more pronounced and consistent so that readers can better evaluate the efficacy and meaningfulness of research study results.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-25">Conclusions and Suggestions for the Future of the Counseling Discipline</hd> <p>This omnibus synthesis aimed to examine proportions and trends in who and what is being published in 22 counseling journals from 2010 to 2019. An omnibus synthesis like this has never been attempted before within the counseling literature. We hope that this examination and comparison among metastudies conducted across journals provides editors, editorial boards, researchers, practitioners, counselors in training, and other consumers helpful information as they determine the usefulness of published scholarship as well as guidance for future research in their respective journals.</p> <p>This omnibus synthesis highlighted author and article characteristics that remained stable and others that saw significant changes. Overall, journals published articles that align with their stated aim, topical categories additive to the counseling profession, and that promote counselor training and counseling practice. As a caveat, we did not seek to evaluate the quality of the published articles, the quality of the journals, or the degree to which the journals were addressing issues most salient to the counseling profession. Metastudies provide data that are descriptive and comparative; therefore causal inferences are not warranted, permissible, or justified.</p> <p>Based on this omnibus synthesis, and looking toward making important progress in the current decade (2020–2029) of counseling scholarship, we recommend that editorial boards encourage researchers to (a) engage in increased collaboration to augment practitioner and international voices; (b) expand author identifiers for a better understanding of the diverse identities of authors and to ensure representation of underrepresented groups; (c) increase publications that address foundational issues in the counseling profession such as wellness and supervision; (d) diversify the types of participants asked to engage in research, especially children and adolescents and individuals of diverse self-identifications; (e) conduct more intervention studies using randomization procedures and experimental designs that add to the evidence-informed and evidence-based practices; (f) ask more complex research questions that require more advanced and sophisticated statistical analyses; (g) consistently report effect sizes, and sample reliability and sample validity indexes to make the results of research articles more meaningful; (h) respond to special topical calls, special sections, and special issues on counseling practice; and (i) use standardized reviewer protocols such as the one used by CORE reviewers. The standardized reviewer protocol used by CORE indicates required aspects of the Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion sections to ensure author feedback on comprehensive inclusion of required elements (e.g., participant demographics, effect size, and sample reliability and validity information).</p> <p>Primary limitations of this current omnibus metastudy included a lack of causal inference of results and possible variations in preferred variable coding categories and time window lengths by diverse scholars pursuing more specific variable descriptions. We hope this omnibus metastudy is helpful to editors, editorial board members, and publishers as they evaluate reviewer and publishing practices to improve the quality of content published in counseling journals. We also hope this article is helpful to researchers and authors interested in evaluating the scope and quality of journal content as they direct manuscripts to various counseling audiences and to counselors who use counseling research and scholarship from these journals to inform and improve their counseling practice.</p> <hd id="AN0164958275-26">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0164958275-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref16" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alder, C., Yu, C., Bardhoshi, G., & Erford, B. T. (2021). Counseling and Values metastudy: An analysis of publication characteristics from 2000 to 2019. Counseling and Values, 66 (2), 218 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1002/cvj.12158</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref7" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, B., Barstack, S., & Erford, B. T. (2021). A metastudy of Journal of Counseling & Development : An analysis of publication characteristics from 2000 to 2019. Journal of Counseling & Development, 99 (3), 263 – 272. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref53" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2019). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (6th ed.). Pearson Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Byrd, R., Crockett, S. A., & Erford, B. T. (2012). Journal for Specialists in Group Work (JSGW) publication pattern review: A meta-study of author and article characteristics from 1981–2010. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 37 (1), 56 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2011.632812</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref50" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cade, R. (2022). Editorial perspective: Past, present, and future contributions to the journal. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 49 (1), 2 – 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/15566382.2022.2091381</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref122" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Data and statistics on children's mental health. https://<ulink href="http://www.cdc.gov/childrensmentalhealth/data.html">www.cdc.gov/childrensmentalhealth/data.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chang, C. Y., & Rabess, A. (2020). Response to signature pedagogies: A framework for pedagogical foundations in counselor education: Through a multicultural and social justice competencies lens. Teaching and Supervision in Counseling, 2 (2), 3. https://doi.org/10.7290/tsc020203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref6" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Erford, B., Giguere, M., Glenn, K., & Ciarlone, H. (2015). Professional School Counseling (PSC) publication pattern review: A meta-study of author and article characteristics from the first 15 years. Professional School Counseling, 18 (1), 61 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0001800107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref4" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Erford, B. T., Miller, E. M., Duncan, K., & Erford, B. M. (2010). Submission patterns: Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development author and article characteristics from 1990–2009. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 42 (4), 296 – 307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175609354619</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gayowsky, J., Choi, J., & Erford, B. T. (2021). Meta-study of Journal of LGBTQ Issues in Counseling publication patterns from 2006–2019. Journal of LGBTQ Issues in Counseling, 15 (1), 2 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2021.1868379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonsalves, G., Menzies, A., Erford, B. T., Zhou, Y., Crockett, S. A., & Byrd, R. (2022). Career Development Quarterly: author and article characteristics from 2000 to 2019. Career Development Quarterly, 70 (3), 155 – 161. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnsen, J., Watson, K., Erford, B. T., Crockett, S. A., & Byrd, R. (2021). A metastudy of Counselor Education and Supervision: An analysis of publication characteristics from 2000 to 2019. Counselor Education and Supervision, 60 (1), 22 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12194</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, A., West, C., Erford, B. T., & Karkhanis, S. (2022). A meta-study of Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation (CORE). An analysis of publication characteristics from 2010–2019. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 13 (2), 134 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2020.1829967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan, D. M., & Gladding, S. T. (2011). A vision for the future of counseling: The 20/20 principles for unifying and strengthening the profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89 (3), 367 – 372. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00101.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katrak, K. K., Olson, E. S., Erford, B. T., Chang, C. Y., Saks, J., & Villette, L. (in press). A meta-study of the Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy (CJCP): An analysis of publication characteristics from 2000–2019. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwag, D., Chang, C. Y., Hinkle, D. G., Erford, B. T., & Wills, L. (in press). A meta-study of the British Journal of Guidance and Counselling (BJGC): An analysis of publication characteristics from 2000–2019. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LeViness, P., Bershad, C., Gorman, K., Braun, L., Murray, T. (2019). The association for university and college counseling center directors annual survey 2018. https://taucccd.memberclicks.net/assets/documents/Survey/2018%20aucccd%20survey-public-revised.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorelle, S., Byrd, R. J., & Crockett, S. (2012). Globalization and counseling: Professional issues for counselors. The Professional Counselor, 2 (2), 115 – 123. <ulink href="http://tpcjournal.nbcc.org/category/pdf-articles/volumes/volume-2/volume-2-issue-2/">http://tpcjournal.nbcc.org/category/pdf-articles/volumes/volume-2/volume-2-issue-2/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacInerney, E. K., Johnsen, S. T., Cobb, N., Smith, H., & Erford, B. T. (2020). Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling publication patterns from 1998 to 2017: Author and article characteristics. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 41 (2), 82 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaoc.12082</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehlhouse, K., Johnsen, K. B., & Erford, B. T. (2022). A meta-study of the Journal of Career Development : An analysis of publication characteristics from 2000 to 2019. Journal of Career Development, 50 (3), 534–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453221112110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menzies, A., Kepley, L., Crockett, S. A., Erford, B. T., Byrd, R., & Aier, B. (2020). A meta-study of the Journal of Mental Health Counseling: An analysis of publication characteristics 2000–2019. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 42 (3), 206 – 219. https://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.42.3.02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, M. K., St. Clair, A. M., & Erford, B. T. (2022). A meta‑study of the international journal for the advancement of counselling (IJAC): An analysis of publication characteristics from 2000–2019. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 44 (4), 738–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-022-09484-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milowsky, A. I., Haffner, A. M., Crockett, S. A., Erford, B. T., & Byrd, R. (in press). Journal of College Counseling: Analysis of publication characteristics from 2000–2019. Journal of College Counseling.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myers, J. E., & Sweeney, T. J. (2007). Wellness in counseling: An overview. (ACAPCD-09). American Counseling Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Hara, C., Chang, C. Y., & Giordano, A. L. (2021). Multicultural competence in counseling research: The cornerstone of scholarship. Journal of Counseling & Development, 99 (2), 200 – 209. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12367</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pesavento, A. R., Muller, L. A., Smith, H. L., Erford, B. T., & Cobb, N. A. (2022). Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development author and article characteristics from 1998 to 2017. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 51 (2), 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmcd.12243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ratts, M. J., Singh, A. A., Nassar-McMillan, S., Butler, S. K., & McCullough, J. R. (2016). Multicultural and social justice counseling competencies: Guidelines for the counseling profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 44 (1), 28 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmcd.12035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rippeto, M., Stewart, E., Chowning, M., Karkhanis, S., Erford, B. T., & Kepley, L. (2021). A metastudy of Adultspan Journal: Publication characteristics from 1999 to 2019. Adultspan Journal, 20 (1), 17 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1012/adsp.12103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., & Mortenson, E. (2020). Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15 (6), 1295 – 1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saks, J., Fuller, A., Erford, B. T., & Bardhoshi, G. (2020). Meta-study of Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development (MECD) publication patterns from 2000–2019. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 53 (4), 279 – 288. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2020.1735222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegler, E., Stafford, C., Crockett, S., Zhou, Y., & Erford, B. T. (2020). A meta-study of Journal of Employment Counseling (JEC): An analysis of publication patterns from 2010–2019. Journal of Employment Counseling, 57 (4), 178 – 189. https://doi.org/10.1002/joec.12153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sylvester, A.-M., Wary, S., Reilly, J., Erford, B. T., & MacInerney, E. (2021). A metastudy of the Journal of Humanistic Counseling: An analysis of publication characteristics from 2000 to 2019. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 60 (2), 101 – 116. https://doi.org/10.1002/johc.12159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). ACS public use microdata sample (PUMS). [Data file]. https://<ulink href="http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/pums.html">www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/pums.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watson, J. C., Ho, C., & Boham, M. (2021). Advancing the counseling profession through intervention research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 99 (2), 134 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12361</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, D., Melanson, M., & Erford, B. T. (2021). The Professional Counselor : Author and article characteristics from 2011 to 2019. The Professional Counselor, 11 (1), 61 – 72. https://doi.org/10.15241/dw.11.1.61</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wills, L., Bradford, E., & Erford, B. T. (2022). Meta-study of Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology (JSACP) articles from 2007–2019. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 14 (2), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.33043/JSACP.14.2.127-139</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, X., Cummings, J. A., & Erford, B. T. (2022). A meta-study of Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling: An analysis of publication characteristics from 2011–2020. Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling, 12 (2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.18401/2022.12.02.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, X., Milowsky, A., Chang, C. Y., & Erford, B. T. (in press). A meta-study of the journal of creativity in mental health (JCMH): An analysis of publication characteristics, 2005–2019. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2023.2168323</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Bradley T. Erford; Catherine Y. Chang; Stephanie A. Crockett; Rebekah Byrd; Sarah T. Johnsen; Erin K. MacInerney; Alyson Menzies; Andrew I. Milowsky; Jordana Saks; LeAnn Wills; Xi Zhang; Candice Alder; Billie Anderson; Samantha Barstack; Emily Bradford; Jennifer Choi; Jenna A. Cummings; Alexandra Fuller; Jennifer Gayowsky; Gala Gonsalves; Alyson M. Haffner; Daniel G. Hinkle; K. Britt Johnsen; Arden Johnson; Karishma K. Katrak; Leah Kepley; Daun Kwag; Kaitlyn Mehlhouse; Marcella Melanson; Madison K. Miller; Lauren A. Muller; Emily S. Olson; Alyssa R. Pesavento; Margaret Rippeto; Elizabeth Stewart; Emily Siegler; Carly Stafford; Anne M. St. Clair; Anne-Marie Sylvester; Lexa Villette; Kristin Watson; Samantha Wary; Caroline West; Dorrie Williams and Candice Yu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref168"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1395706
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: An Omnibus Synthesis of Author and Article Publication Characteristics in 22 Counseling Journals from 2010 to 2019
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Erford%2C+Bradley+T%2E%22">Erford, Bradley T.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5891-5770">0000-0001-5891-5770</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chang%2C+Catherine+Y%2E%22">Chang, Catherine Y.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Crockett%2C+Stephanie+A%2E%22">Crockett, Stephanie A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Byrd%2C+Rebekah%22">Byrd, Rebekah</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Johnsen%2C+Sarah+T%2E%22">Johnsen, Sarah T.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22MacInerney%2C+Erin+K%2E%22">MacInerney, Erin K.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Menzies%2C+Alyson%22">Menzies, Alyson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Milowsky%2C+Andrew+I%2E%22">Milowsky, Andrew I.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Saks%2C+Jordana%22">Saks, Jordana</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wills%2C+LeAnn%22">Wills, LeAnn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zhang%2C+Xi%22">Zhang, Xi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alder%2C+Candice%22">Alder, Candice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anderson%2C+Billie%22">Anderson, Billie</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Barstack%2C+Samantha%22">Barstack, Samantha</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bradford%2C+Emily%22">Bradford, Emily</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Choi%2C+Jennifer%22">Choi, Jennifer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cummings%2C+Jenna+A%2E%22">Cummings, Jenna A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fuller%2C+Alexandra%22">Fuller, Alexandra</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gayowsky%2C+Jennifer%22">Gayowsky, Jennifer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gonsalves%2C+Gala%22">Gonsalves, Gala</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Haffner%2C+Alyson+M%2E%22">Haffner, Alyson M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hinkle%2C+Daniel+G%2E%22">Hinkle, Daniel G.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Johnsen%2C+K%2E+Britt%22">Johnsen, K. Britt</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Johnson%2C+Arden%22">Johnson, Arden</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Katrak%2C+Karishma+K%2E%22">Katrak, Karishma K.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kepley%2C+Leah%22">Kepley, Leah</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kwag%2C+Daun%22">Kwag, Daun</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mehlhouse%2C+Kaitlyn%22">Mehlhouse, Kaitlyn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Melanson%2C+Marcella%22">Melanson, Marcella</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Miller%2C+Madison+K%2E%22">Miller, Madison K.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Muller%2C+Lauren+A%2E%22">Muller, Lauren A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Olson%2C+Emily+S%2E%22">Olson, Emily S.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pesavento%2C+Alyssa+R%2E%22">Pesavento, Alyssa R.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rippeto%2C+Margaret%22">Rippeto, Margaret</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stewart%2C+Elizabeth%22">Stewart, Elizabeth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Siegler%2C+Emily%22">Siegler, Emily</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stafford%2C+Carly%22">Stafford, Carly</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Clair%2C+Anne+M%2E+St%22">Clair, Anne M. St</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sylvester%2C+Anne-Marie%22">Sylvester, Anne-Marie</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Villette%2C+Lexa%22">Villette, Lexa</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Watson%2C+Kristin%22">Watson, Kristin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wary%2C+Samantha%22">Wary, Samantha</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22West%2C+Caroline%22">West, Caroline</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Williams%2C+Dorrie%22">Williams, Dorrie</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yu%2C+Candice%22">Yu, Candice</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Measurement+and+Evaluation+in+Counseling+and+Development%22"><i>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</i></searchLink>. 2023 56(3):187-208.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scholarship%22">Scholarship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Journal+Articles%22">Journal Articles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Periodicals%22">Periodicals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authors%22">Authors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Counseling%22">Counseling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Meta+Analysis%22">Meta Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trend+Analysis%22">Trend Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Characteristics%22">Individual Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Productivity%22">Productivity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Publishing%22">Faculty Publishing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Analysis%22">Content Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Design%22">Research Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sample+Size%22">Sample Size</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/07481756.2023.2224028
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0748-1756<br />1947-6302
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Articles published in 22 counseling journals from 2010-2019 were compared on 26 author and article characteristics. Women now constitute majorities of authorship and counseling journals are publishing larger proportions of research articles, 63% of which used quantitative approaches and about 11% of which studied counseling interventions.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1395706
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1395706
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/07481756.2023.2224028
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 187
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Scholarship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Journal Articles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Periodicals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Authors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Counseling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Meta Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trend Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Productivity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Publishing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sample Size
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: An Omnibus Synthesis of Author and Article Publication Characteristics in 22 Counseling Journals from 2010 to 2019
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Erford, Bradley T.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chang, Catherine Y.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Crockett, Stephanie A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Byrd, Rebekah
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Johnsen, Sarah T.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: MacInerney, Erin K.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Menzies, Alyson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Milowsky, Andrew I.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Saks, Jordana
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wills, LeAnn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zhang, Xi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alder, Candice
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anderson, Billie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Barstack, Samantha
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bradford, Emily
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Choi, Jennifer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cummings, Jenna A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fuller, Alexandra
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gayowsky, Jennifer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gonsalves, Gala
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Haffner, Alyson M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hinkle, Daniel G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Johnsen, K. Britt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Johnson, Arden
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Katrak, Karishma K.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kepley, Leah
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kwag, Daun
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mehlhouse, Kaitlyn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Melanson, Marcella
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Miller, Madison K.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Muller, Lauren A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Olson, Emily S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pesavento, Alyssa R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rippeto, Margaret
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stewart, Elizabeth
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Siegler, Emily
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stafford, Carly
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Clair, Anne M. St
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sylvester, Anne-Marie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Villette, Lexa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Watson, Kristin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wary, Samantha
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: West, Caroline
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Williams, Dorrie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yu, Candice
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0748-1756
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1947-6302
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1