Skip to main content
Log in

Genetic Counselor Perceptions of Genetic Counseling Session Goals: A Validation Study of the Reciprocal-Engagement Model

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Genetic Counseling

Abstract

Although some researchers have attempted to define genetic counseling practice goals, no study has obtained consensus about the goals from a large sample of genetic counselors. The Reciprocal-Engagement Model (REM; McCarthy Veach, Bartels & LeRoy, 2007) articulates 17 goals of genetic counseling practice. The present study investigated whether these goals could be generalized as a model of practice, as determined by a larger group of clinical genetic counselors. Accordingly, 194 genetic counselors were surveyed regarding their opinions about the importance of each goal and their perceptions of how frequently they achieve each goal. Mean importance ratings suggest they viewed every goal as important. Factor analysis of the 17 goals yielded four factors: Understanding and Appreciation, Support and Guidance, Facilitative Decision-Making, and Patient-Centered Education. Patient-Centered Education and Facilitative Decision-Making goals received the highest mean importance ratings. Mean frequency ratings were consistently lower than importance ratings, suggesting genetic counseling goals may be difficult to achieve and/or not applicable in all situations. A number of respondents provided comments about the REM goals that offer insight into factors related to implementing the goals in clinical practice. This study presents preliminary evidence concerning the validity of the goals component of the REM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bartels, D. M., LeRoy, B. S., McCarthy, P., & Caplan, A. L. (1997). Nondirectiveness in genetic counseling: A survey of practitioners. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 72, 172–179.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, B. A., Biesecker, B. B., & Mastromarino, C. L. (2000). Goals, Benefits, and Outcomes of Genetic Counseling: Client and Genetic Counselor Assessment. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 94, 189–197.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Biesecker, B. B. (2001). Goals of genetic counseling. Clinical Genetics, 60, 323–330.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borders, L. D., Eubanks, S., & Callanan, N. (2006). Supervision of psychosocial skills in genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15, 211–223.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Butow, P. N., & Lobb, E. A. (2004). Analyzing the process and content of genetic counseling in familial breast cancer consultations. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13, 403–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, F. C. (1974). Genetic counseling. American Journal of Human Genetics, 26, 636–659.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, S. (1997). Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. IX. Teaching and counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 6, 287–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobb, E., Butow, P., Meiser, B., Tucker, K., & Barratt, D. M. (2001). How do geneticists and genetic counselors counsel women from high-risk breast cancer families? Journal of Genetic Counseling, 10, 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy Veach, P., Bartels, D. M., & LeRoy, B. S. (2007). Coming full circle: A Reciprocal Engagement Model of genetic counseling practice. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 16, 713–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resta, R., Biesecker, B. B., Bennett, R. L., Blum, S., Hahn, S. E., Strecker, M. N., et al. (2006). A new definition of genetic counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ task force report. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15, 77–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M., Freivogel, M.E., & Parrott, S. (2009). National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. Professional Status Survey 2008. Accessed from www.nsgc.org, April 14, 2009.

  • Wang, C., Gonzalez, R., & Merajver, S. D. (2004). Assessment of genetic testing and related counseling services: Current research and future directions. Social Science and Medicine, 58, 1427–1442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weil, J., Ormond, K., Peters, J., Peters, K., Biesecker, B. B., & LeRoy, B. (2006). The relationship of nondirectiveness to genetic counseling: Report of a workshop at the 2003 NSGC Annual Education Conference. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15, 85–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was done in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the first author’s Master of Science degree from the University of Minnesota. We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the genetic counselors who completed the online survey. Dr. Christina Palmer served as Action Editor on the manuscript review process and publication decision.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia McCarthy Veach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hartmann, J.E., Veach, P.M., MacFarlane, I.M. et al. Genetic Counselor Perceptions of Genetic Counseling Session Goals: A Validation Study of the Reciprocal-Engagement Model. J Genet Counsel 24, 225–237 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9647-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9647-6

Keywords

Navigation