Evaluation Form for Residence Hall Counselors

Abstract

The Evaluation Form for Residence Hall Counselors, developed by Merle M. Ohlsen in 1951, is a 19-item assessment instrument designed for the systematic evaluation of the job performance and professional characteristics of staff working in dormitory settings. This tool was created to provide a structured method for supervisors to gauge the effectiveness of their counselors in delivering crucial support and guidance to students residing in university housing.

The form utilizes a mixed-method approach, incorporating both structured multiple-choice questions and detailed open-answer questions. This combination allows evaluators to assess specific job performance behaviors while also providing qualitative feedback regarding maturity, emotional stability, and professional growth potential, thereby yielding a comprehensive profile of the counselor.

Keywords

Residence Hall Counselors, Dormitory Staff Evaluation, Student Affairs, Job Performance, Counselor Effectiveness, Performance Assessment, Ohlsen, 1951.

Authors

Merle M. Ohlsen.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the scale is to provide a standardized, yet flexible, mechanism for the institutional evaluation of individuals serving as Residence Hall Counselors. It specifically focuses on assessing the quality of their interactions with students, their administrative efficiency, and their adherence to professional standards, such as confidentiality and referral protocols.

By evaluating nineteen distinct areas, the instrument helps administrative staff identify areas of strength and weakness in the counselor corps, facilitating targeted professional development and ensuring high standards of student support within university residential life programs.

Construct

The instrument measures the professional construct of Counselor Effectiveness in Residential Settings, which encompasses several dimensions of professional conduct. Key areas assessed include interpersonal skills (e.g., getting acquainted with students, group work), administrative competence (e.g., use of resources, record-keeping), ethical practice (e.g., keeping confidences), and overall professional maturity and growth potential.

Validity

The original test development article (Ohlsen, 1951) did not include formal reports on the validity of the Evaluation Form for Residence Hall Counselors. Consequently, specific data related to criterion validity, construct validity, or content validity are unavailable from the primary source.

However, the design of the scale, which includes detailed, job-specific open-ended questions alongside structured responses, suggests a high degree of face validity and content validity, as the items directly address core responsibilities and necessary characteristics—such as emotional stability and responsibility—critical for successful residential life work. The inclusion of diverse question formats is intended to enhance the overall assessment quality.

Reliability

Similar to validity, the original 1951 documentation lacks formal reporting of reliability coefficients, such as internal consistency measures (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) or test-retest reliability. The absence of these psychometric properties means that formal estimates of measurement precision were not published at the time of the instrument’s introduction.

It is hypothesized that the inclusion of qualitative, open-answer items alongside quantitative responses may contribute to the overall robustness of the assessment, potentially improving inter-rater reliability among experienced supervisors, although this remains an empirical question requiring modern validation studies.

Factor Analysis

No published information regarding the factor structure or the results of any formal Factor Analysis is available for the Evaluation Form for Residence Hall Counselors. Given the 1951 publication date and the primary focus on practical administrative utility, the scale appears to be a multi-faceted evaluation checklist rather than a unidimensional or empirically derived factor-based instrument.

Instrument

Test Type: Performance Evaluation Tool; Administrative Assessment.

Format: Mixed-format instrument utilizing both multiple-choice and open-answer (descriptive) response styles across 19 items.

Language Available: English (Original publication).

Population Group: Supervisors or administrators evaluating residential staff (Raters); Residence Hall Counselors (Ratees).

Age Group: Adult (College/University staff).

Population Details: Specifically designed for evaluating counselors providing guidance and support services in university dormitory settings.

Test Methodology: Evaluation is based on observed behaviors, administrative performance, and professional characteristics, often requiring qualitative description and judgment by the evaluator.

Keywords

Residence Life, Counselor Evaluation, Dormitory Management, Administrative Assessment, Professional Development, Ohlsen Scale, Reliability, Validity.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not available/Applicable (Historical publication).

Affiliation Email addresses: Not available/Applicable (Historical publication).

Correspondence Address: Information pertaining to Merle M. Ohlsen’s 1951 affiliation is not provided in the source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1951.

Permissions and Fees: The original article was published in Educational and Psychological Measurement and is copyrighted by SAGE Publications. Use of the specific items or the instrument requires permission from the copyright holder, SAGE Publications, as the material was reproduced by permission in the source documentation.

Reference’s

Ohlsen, Merle M. (1951). Evaluation of dormitory counselors’ services. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 11, 419-426. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316445101100313. © 1951 by SAGE Publications. Reproduced by Permission of SAGE Publications.

Items of the Evaluation Form for Residence Hall Counselors

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. How does he go about getting acquainted with his students?
2. Enumerate the specific things that he has done for the students in his house.
3. What is his concept of “keeping confidences”?
4. What kinds of cases has he referred to someone else?
5. To what extent has he routinely and consistently referred “deferred major” students to departmental representatives?
6. How does he work with his fellow associates?
7. Are his interview notes meaningful to others? (Describe.)
8. What has he done to improve himself on the job?
9. In your judgment what are his potentialities for professional growth and development?
10. How does he use the data in the cumulative folder in counseling?
11. How effectively does he use the catalog, the curricular aids, and other resources in program planning?
12. How is he regarded by the students?
13. How does he work with student groups? (Both small groups and house organizations).
14. In what group activities has he participated?
15. What is his single most outstanding qualification? (Describe.)
16. What is his weakest characteristic? (Describe.)
17. General reactions to him: (Describe especially his emotional stability, maturity and ability to take responsibility.)
18. How do you feel about these evaluations?