| Computer simulations in rehabilitation counselor training have received considerable attention in recent years, with research focusing on the influence of knowledge and skills on clinical problem-solving behavior in computer simulation performance. However, the affective domain of simulation performance has not been adequately explored. The purpose of this study was two-fold: (1) to see if a modification of Berven & Scofield's (1980a) computer simulation is able to distinguish different problem-solving approaches among graduate students in rehabilitation counseling, and (2) to explore the relationship between affective factors (i.e., five factors of personality, and cognitive complexity) and problem-solving approaches.;The participants were 65 graduate students in rehabilitation counseling programs, and 30 professionals with at least three years or more experience of direct service in a rehabilitation counseling agency. Participants were located predominantly throughout the Midwest. The criterion group members (rehabilitation professionals) were used to establish the scoring criteria for the enhanced computer simulation. The student participants completed the computer simulation, the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) and the Repertory Grid Test (RGT).;Cluster analysis resulted in the identification of four homogenous groups in terms of a linear combination of computer simulation performance indexes (Proficiency Index (PI) and Efficiency Index (EI)). Discriminant analysis was used to assist in interpreting cluster membership in terms of PI and EI. The clusters mirrored problem-solving approaches originally found in patient-management problem research (McGuire & Babbott, 1967), and in computer simulation research in rehabilitation counseling (Berven & Scofield, 1980a; Berven, 1985; Chan, Parker, Lam, Mecaskey, & Malphurs, 1987; Mecaskey, Chan, Wong, Parker, Carter, & Lam, 1989; Chan, Rosen, Wong, & Kaplan, 1993). These approaches were: thorough and discriminating, shotgun, constricted, and random.;Discriminant analysis using cluster membership as the dependent variable and the personality factors of the NEO FFI as discriminating variables was not significant. Additionally, a one-way analysis of variance was not significant when used to identify differences in scores of cognitive complexity on the RGT among the problem-solving approaches. Implications of the obtained results for future personality research and the use of computer simulations in rehabilitation counseling education and research are discussed. |
