Secondary trauma risk and protective factors among counseling trainees

Kasey P. S Goodpaster, Purdue University

Abstract

Because secondary trauma has serious consequences for professionals and their clients, but has not yet been studied with counseling trainees, this study examines the prevalence, risk factors, and protective factors for secondary trauma among trainees. Specifically, in this study, secondary trauma is considered to encompass two distinct components: secondary traumatic stress (STS) and vicarious trauma (VT). Therefore, this study examines the relatedness of personal trauma history, multidimensional empathy, and supervisor-attachment, and secondary trauma (i.e., STS and VT). Graduate counseling trainees (N = 227), including practicum students and interns, who were counseling at least one client with a history of personal trauma, completed the following measures: (a) the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS; Bride, Robinson, Yegidis, & Figley, 2004), which measures secondary traumatic stress; (b) the Trauma and Attachment Belief Scale (TABS; Pearlman, 2003), which measures vicarious traumatization; (c) the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980), which measures empathy; (d) the Experiences in Supervision Scale (ESS; Gunn & Pistole, 2012), which measures supervisor-attachment; and (e) a personal trauma history questionnaire designed for this study. Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses, with STSS secondary traumatic stress and TABS vicarious trauma as the dependent variables, respectively, tested the following hypotheses: (a) trainee secondary trauma prevalence rate will be comparable to published prevalence rates for counseling professionals, that is, be between 19% and 57%; (b) trainee personal trauma history and empathy will contribute positively and uniquely to secondary trauma; (c) trainee secure supervisor-attachment will contribute negatively and uniquely to secondary trauma; and (d) trainee emotional empathy (i.e., empathic concern and personal distress) will contribute more to secondary trauma than cognitive empathy (i.e., perspective taking and fantasy). A research question asked whether the interaction between personal trauma history and empathy, and between personal trauma history and attachment, explain secondary trauma better than any of those variables alone. For STSS secondary traumatic stress, regression results indicated that (a) trainee STS prevalence rate was 51.5%, which was comparable to published prevalence rates; (b) trainee personal trauma history and empathy did not contribute positively and uniquely to STS; (c) low trainee anxious supervisor-attachment, but not avoidant supervisor-attachment, contributed negatively and uniquely to STS; and (d) trainee emotional empathy did not contribute more to STS than cognitive empathy. For TABS vicarious trauma, regression results indicated that (a) trainee VT prevalence rate was 7.0%, which was lower than published prevalence rates; (b) trainee personal trauma history and three empathy dimensions (i.e., empathic concern, personal distress, and fantasy), but not the fourth (i.e., perspective taking), contributed positively and uniquely to VT; (c) trainee secure supervisor-attachment contributed negatively and uniquely to VT; and (d) trainee emotional empathy (i.e., empathic concern and personal distress) contributed more to VT than cognitive empathy (i.e., fantasy). For both STSS and TABS, interactions (i.e., between personal trauma history and empathy, and between personal trauma history and supervisor-attachment) did not contribute significant variance to explaining secondary trauma. These findings have implications for psychology supervision and education. Limitations of the study and implications for future research are discussed.

Degree

Ph.D.

Advisors

Pistole, Purdue University.

Subject Area

Counseling Psychology

COinS