the L, K, Ma (5), and Si (0) scales. The counselors had lower L, Ma (5) and Si (0) scores,
but a higher K score.
In a follow-up study of this same series, Cottle, Lewis, and Penney (1954)
extracted 111 items from these instruments that characterized counselor responses and
combined them with 39 items that were adapted from the Counseling Psychologist scale
of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men. When this scale was then administered
to 60 male teachers that had no graduate courses in counseling and 60 male graduate
students and counselors as a pilot study, the researchers concluded that answers to the
items of the experimental scale could differentiate the two groups. But as Heikkinen and
Wegner (1973) pointed out, the study by Cottle and Lewis (1954) examined the
characteristics of experienced counselors, not necessarily effective counselors.
Heikkinen and Wegner also concluded from their systematic review of MMPI research
that counselors had greater extroversion (low Si), possibly more defensiveness (high K),
more calm and efficiency (lower Ma), and were more honest (low L) than other
professional groups. It was suggested that other instruments than the MMPI might prove
more beneficial for predicting counselor effectiveness. Heikkinen and Wegner also noted
that there can be uncertainty regarding a definition of effectiveness, as effectively
predicting future grades may not be the same as effectively predicting a climate of growth
for a client.
Phillips (1970) studied the MMPI profiles of 149 ministers and psychologists that
were accepted into a marriage counseling program. The subjects were rated according to
their counseling ability into three groups: Upper, Middle, and Lower. Based upon the