Date of Award


Degree Name

Doctor of Education


Counseling and Personnel

First Advisor

Dr. Robert L. Betz

Second Advisor

Dr. Bill Martinson

Third Advisor

Dr. Paul Griffeth

Fourth Advisor

Dr. Michael Keenan


This study investigated the effectiveness of a counselor-made computer advising system. Ninety-one (91) community college students who had declared career choices were randomly assigned to either ADVISOR (N = 46) or to traditional one-to-one advising (N - 45). The effectiveness of both advising processes was measured along four variables: satisfaction with the process indicated by student response to a survey after the completion of the first semester, compliance with the process as indicated by the students' actual registration for courses identified during advising, performance indicated by students' grade point average during the first semester, and completion indicated by the completion of first semester courses.

Also, the satisfaction of business and office students with each process was compared, and the satisfaction of those who used ADVISOR and did not return for further advising was compared with the satisfaction of those who used ADVISOR and returned for further advising.

Results indicated that students were equally satisfied with both processes, but they complied more with one-to-one advising. The results did not support the hypothesis that the ADVISOR students' performance and completions was equal to or greater than the one-to-one advised students. Business and office students did not differ significantly on the criterion of satisfaction, but the students who returned for further advising after using ADVISOR, were more satisfied than those who used only ADVISOR.

The first major limitation of the study was that the specialized population restricts inferences to broader populations of college students; only new students who had declared business career choices within one community college were considered. The second major limitation was that the treatments may be difficult to replicate at other sites because they were designed specifically for one community college.

The main conclusion was that although the hypotheses on compliance, completion, and performance were not supported, the hypothesis on satisfaction was supported, and this seems to indicate that satisfaction with a computer-advising process may not go hand in hand with other measures of effectiveness. In this study the satisfaction results differ most from the compliance results. The main conclusion is, therefore, that students may indicate satisfaction with a process but not comply with the information they receive from that process. Further studies are needed to confirm this conclusion in order to sensitize practicing advisors to the importance of compliance in measuring the effectiveness of any computer-advising process.

The results which were gathered comparing the satisfaction of different populations with both advising processes were inconclusive; thus, the study gives no direction concerning characteristics of the student for whom computer-assisted advising is effective. And finally, the results support conclusions of other studies that a combination of both one-to-one advising and computer-assisted advising leads to more satisfaction than computer-assisted advising alone; however, this is not a strong conclusion in this study because results collected on this variable were from small, disproportionate groups.


Fifth Advisor: Dr. Uldis Smidchens

Access Setting

Dissertation-Open Access