To date, two reviews of studies exa

To date, two reviews of studies examining the effectiveness of student counselling
have been carried out. Breakwell (1987) considered work that had been conducted
during the 20 years prior to 1986. Breakwell found that much of the research was
naturalistic, practice-based, and was largely conducted by counsellors evaluating
their own service. Data analysis was limited because the research was designed to
check the effectiveness of an individual service or practice rather than the efficacy of
counselling more broadly. Furthermore, generalisability of the research to the UK
was limited as the majority of studies that did try to address the efficacy of student
counselling had been conducted outside the UK. Similar conclusions were drawn by
a more recent systematic scoping review (Connell et al., 2006). Examining research
conducted from 1990 to 2004, the review concluded that there was only preliminary
evidence to suggest that short-term therapy was effective for student counselling
populations (e.g. Destefano, Mellott, & Petersen, 2001; Rickinson, 1997; Surtees,
Pharoah, & Wainwright, 1998; Turner, Valtierra, Talken, Miller, & Deanda, 1996;
Vonk & Thyer, 1999; Wilson, Mason, & Ewing, 1997). Limitations to these studies
were that they examined data from single institutions using relatively low quality
designs with inadequate control groups in the few studies where one had been used.
However, the major concern was that all but two of the studies were conducted
outside of the UK, thereby seriously undermining generalisation to UK services. A
further limitation of this research, a problem common to practice-based research,
was that the effectiveness data tended to only apply to clients who had completed
therapy. The drop-out rate for the above studies was between 17% and 37%, meaning
that evidence for the effectiveness of counselling was vulnerable to sample bias.
Whether early termination is a positive or negative outcome has long been
debated. Early research (Christensen, Birk, & Sedlacek, 1977; Robbins, Mullison,
Boggs, Riedesel, & Jacobson, 1985) indicated that that the majority of clients
dropping out of treatment from university counselling centres still needed help. It
should be noted however that clients in both these research studies dropped out
before their first therapy session. On the other hand, more recent research has
indicated that, for the majority of clients, attrition is a positive action which occurs
when counselling needs have been satisfied (April & Nicholas, 1996; Ellingson, 1990;
Norbury, 1995; Tryon, 1999). This is supported to some degree by the theory of
dose
effect relations which shows that the effect of therapy is greater in earlier
sessions with 30% of clients making measurable improvement after two sessions
(Howard, Kopta, Krause, & Orlinsky, 1986; Kopta, 2003) or that clients terminate
therapy when they have reached a ‘good enough level’ of improvement (Barkham
et al., 1996, 2006b). In contrast, however, a study of university counselling clients
found that early terminators (5 five sessions) were more likely to cite discomfort
with the service, compared to late terminators (five sessions) who were more likely
to stop treatment due to improvement attributed to therapy (Hynan, 1990).
Inconsistencies in research findings may be due to the way early termination or
drop-out is conceptualised (Hatchett & Park, 2003). Whether early termination from
therapy is planned (agreed between therapist and client) or unplanned (a unilateral
decision made by the client, most often cancellations or non-attendance) is often
examined as a unitary concept rather than being examined separately. The number of
sessions attended, i.e. whether the unplanned termination is early or late in therapy,
also needs to be considered.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Sampai saat ini, dua review studi memeriksa efektivitas mahasiswa konselingini telah dilakukan. Breakwell (1987) dianggap pekerjaan yang telah dilakukanselama 20 tahun sebelum hingga 1986. Breakwell menemukan bahwa banyak penelitiannaturalistik, praktek berbasis, dan sebagian besar dilakukan oleh konselor mengevaluasiLayanan mereka sendiri. Analisis data adalah terbatas karena penelitian dirancangPeriksa efektivitas layanan individual atau praktek daripada kemanjurankonseling secara lebih luas. Selain itu, generalisability penelitian ke Inggristerbatas sebagai sebagian besar studi yang memang berusaha untuk alamat kemanjuran mahasiswakonseling telah dilakukan di luar Inggris. Kesimpulan yang sama diambil olehlebih baru scoping sistematis review (Connell et al., 2006). Memeriksa penelitiandilakukan dari 1990 hingga 2004, review menyimpulkan bahwa tidak hanya awalbukti yang menunjukkan bahwa terapi jangka pendek ini efektif untuk siswa konselingPopulasi (misalnya Destefano, Mellott, & Petersen, 2001; Rickinson, 1997; Surtees,Firaun, & Wainwright, 1998; Turner, Valtierra, Talken, Miller, & Deanda, 1996;Vonk & Thyer, 1999; Wilson, Mason, & Ewing, 1997). Keterbatasan untuk studi iniadalah bahwa mereka memeriksa data dari satu institusi menggunakan relatif rendah kualitasdesain dengan kelompok kontrol tidak memadai dalam studi beberapa mana satu telah digunakan.Namun, kekhawatiran utama adalah bahwa semua kecuali dua dari studi yang dilakukandi luar Inggris, dengan demikian serius merusak generalisasi UK layanan. Alebih lanjut pembatasan penelitian ini, masalah umum penelitian berbasis praktik,itu data efektivitas cenderung hanya berlaku untuk klien yang telah menyelesaikanterapi. Tingkat drop-out untuk studi di atas adalah di antara 17% dan 37%, berartibahwa bukti untuk efektivitas konseling adalah rentan terhadap bias sampel.Apakah terminasi dini adalah hasil yang positif atau negatif telah lamadiperdebatkan. Penelitian awal (Christensen, Birk, & Sedlacek, 1977; Robbins, Mullison,Boggs, Riedesel, & Jacobson, 1985) mengindikasikan bahwa bahwa sebagian besar klienputus pengobatan dari Universitas konseling pusat masih diperlukan bantuan. Ituperlu dicatat bahwa klien dalam kedua Penelitian studi drop outsebelum sesi terapi pertama mereka. Di sisi lain, lebih penelitian terbaru telahmenunjukkan bahwa, untuk sebagian besar klien, gesekan adalah sebuah tindakan positif yang terjadiketika kebutuhan konseling telah puas (April & Nicholas, 1996; Ellingson, 1990;Norbury, 1995; Tryon, 1999). Hal ini didukung untuk beberapa derajat oleh teoridosis efek hubungan yang menunjukkan bahwa efek terapi lebih awalsesi dengan 30% dari klien membuat terukur perbaikan setelah dua sesi(Howard, Kopta, Krause, & Orlinsky, 1986; Kopta, 2003) atau bahwa klien mengakhiriTerapi ketika mereka telah mencapai 'tingkat cukup baik' perbaikan (Barkhamet al, 1996, 2006b). Sebaliknya, namun, sebuah penelitian Universitas konseling klienditemukan awal Terminator (5 lima sesi) lebih mungkin untuk mengutip ketidaknyamanandengan layanan, dibandingkan dengan akhir Terminator (lima sesi) yang lebih mungkinuntuk menghentikan pengobatan karena perbaikan dikaitkan dengan terapi (Hynan, 1990).Inkonsistensi di temuan penelitian mungkin karena cara awal penghentian ataudrop-out adalah dikonsepkan (Hatchett & Park, 2003). Apakah terminasi dini dariTerapi direncanakan (disepakati antara terapis dan klien) atau tidak direncanakan (sepihakkeputusan yang dibuat oleh klien, paling sering pembatalan atau ketidakhadiran) adalah seringdiperiksa sebagai sebuah kesatuan konsep daripada sedang diperiksa secara terpisah. Jumlahsesi menghadiri, yaitu apakah pemutusan tidak direncanakan awal atau akhir dalam terapi,juga perlu dipertimbangkan.