Multicultural Counseling Competencies: An Exploratory Factor Analysis

Mu I ticu I t u ral Counseling Competencies: An Exploratory Fact&

Analysis

Cheryl C. Holcomb-McCoy

The author examined the underlying factors of the Association of Multicultural Counseling and Development’s (AMCD) Multicultural Competencies. One hundred fiftyone professional counselors who are members of the American Counseling Association responded to a survey that included items reflecting AMCDs multicultural competencies and Explanatory Statements. An exploratory factor analysis revealed 5 multicultural competencies factors: Aware- ness, Knowledge, Definitions of Terms, Racial Identity Development, and Skills.

Considerable attention has been focused on the multicultural competence of professional counselors (Atkinson, Thompson, & Grant, 1993; Ponterotto & Casas, 1987; Pope-Davis & Coleman, 1997; S. Sue, 1998). In response to this attention, the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Counseling Association (ACA) es- tablished guidelines for providing counseling services to members of different ethnic/cultural groups. For example, the APA Committee for Ethnic Minority Affairs developed Guidelinesfor Providers ofPsy- chological Services to Ethnic, Linguistic, and Culturally Diverse Popu- lations (APA, 1993) to guide the practice of counseling psychologists. In a similar fashion, the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), the accrediting body for most counselor education programs, recently included more multicultural content in their Counselor Preparation Standards (CACREP, 1994). Although extensive rhetoric has focused on the need for competent

counselors to work with diverse clientele, there continues to be a lack of consensus regarding what constitutes multicultural counseling competence. In D. W. Sue et al.’s (1982) classic article reflecting the report from the American Psychological Association’s divi-

Cheryl C. Holcornb-McCoy is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling and Personnel Services at the University of Maryland, College Park. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Cheryl C. Hobmb-McCoy, 321 4 Benjamin Building. University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 (e-maiL chl93@umniLumdedq) .

Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development / April 2000 / Vol. 28 83

sion of Counseling Psychology (Division 17)-“Position Paper: Cross- Cultural Counseling Competencies”-a three-domain framework for describing multicultural competence was introduced. The first domain-awareness-stresses a counselor’s understanding of personal beliefs and attitudes and how counselors are the products of their own cultural conditioning. The second domain-kknowledge-reinforces the counselor’s understanding of the worldviews of culturally different clients. The third domain-skill-deals with the process of actively developing and practicing appropriate intervention strategies needed for working with culturally different clients. In 1998, D. W. Sue et al. expanded the earlier work of D. W. Sue et al. (1982). The more recent work integrates the literature regarding each of the three domains and describes, in detail, what is required of multiculturally competent counselors in professional and organizational settings. D. W. Sue et al. [ 1998) stated that becoming multiculturally competent means “the ability to free one’s personal and professional development &om the unquestioned socialization of our society and profession.” In addition to D. W. Sue et al.’s (1982) three-dimensional frame-

work of multicultural competence, other perspectives regarding multicultural competence have been offered. Pope-Davis, Reynolds, Dings, and Ottavi (19941 suggested that multicultural competence in counseling is “an appreciation of and sensitivity to the history, current needs, strengths, and resources of communities and individuals who historically have been underserved and underrepresented by psychologists (p. 466) .” Ridley, Mendoza, Kanitz, Angermeier, and Zenk (1994) proposed a conceptualized model of cultural sensitivity that is based on perceptual schema theory. Ridley and his colleagues described cultural sensitivity as the “ability of counselors to acquire, develop, and actively use an accurate cultural perceptual schema in the course of multicultural counseling” (p. 130). S. Sue (1 998) offered a more scientific approach to cultural compe-

tence. He indicated that cultural competence consists of three characteristics: being scientifically minded, having skills in dynamic sizing, and being proficient with a particular cultural group. Being scientifically minded stresses the counselor‘s ability to form hypotheses rather than making premature conclusions about the status of culturally different clients. The second characteristic, having skills in dynamic sizing, reinforces the importance of the counselor’s skills “to know when to generalize, when to individualize, and finally when to be exclusive’’ (S. Sue, 1998, p. 4461. In otherwords, the counselor’s ability to use dynamic sizing decreases the counselor’s tendency to use stereotypes while still embracing the client’s culture. Finally, proficieny with a particular cultural group includes the counselor’s

84 Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development / April 2000 / Vol. 28

expertise or knowledge of the cultural groups with which he or she works, sociopolitical influences, and specific skills needed to work with culturally different clients. In accordance with D. W. Sue et al.’s (1982) classic framework of

multicultural competence (i.e., awareness, knowledge, skills), the Professional Standards Committee of the Association for Multicultural Counseling and Development (AMCD), a division ofACA, proposed a revised set of multicultural competencies including characteristics of a culturally skilled counselor (D. W. Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992). The AMCD’s multicultural competencies were derived by using a 3 x 3 (Characteristic x Domains) matrix in which the characteristics of a “culturally skilled counselor” were cross-classified with the domains of multicultural competence (i.e., awareness, knowledge, and skills). The three characteristics of a culturally skilled counselor are (a) counselor awareness of their own cultural values and biases, (b) counselor awareness of a client’s worldview. and (c) culturally appropriate intervention strategies. Each competency builds on the domains of multicultural competence along with the counselor’s own personal awareness, knowledge of clients’ worldviews, and skills. For example, the counselor characteristic-counselor awareness of own cultural values, and biases-has nine competencies that focus on a counselor’s awareness of his or her own cultural background, knowledge about his or her own cultural heritage and the limits of his or her competencies in working with culturally different populations. Recently, the AMCD expanded these competencies by offering operational definitions of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” in con- junction with explanatory statements that address behaviors and activities that lead to the attainment of multicultural competence (Arredondo et al., 1996). Despite AMCD’s recommendation that the Multicultural Compe-

tencies be used to guide the training and practice of counselors, there has been no research to determine whether the Multicultural Competencies reflect the three-dimensional model suggested by D. W. Sue et al. (1982). It is interesting to note that previous factor analytic work based on various measures of multicultural counseling competence has not supported the three-dimensional model (e.g., LaFromboise. Coleman, 13 Hernandez, 1991; Ponterotto, et al., 1996; Sodowsky. 1996). Thus, for the present study, I developed a survey based on AMCD’s Multicultural Competencies and Explanatory State- ments and surveyed a sample of counselors’ (i.e., ACA members) self-perceived multicultural competence. Using an exploratory factor analysis to determine the underlying factors of the multicultural competence items, I hypothesized that three factors would emerge


because the AMCD’s Multicultural Competencies were based on D. W. Sue et al.’s (1982) proposed tripartite model.

METHOD

Participants

A stratified sample of 500 professional counselors was selected from the membership of the ACA ( N = 55,281). The sample was stratified both by ethnic background and recency of graduation. To ensure an adequate sample size of ethnic minority counselors for later data analyses, I attempted to oversample ethnic minorities. This was accomplished by recruiting half of the sample from the membership of AMCD ( n = 250). the division of ACA that includes the most ethnic minority members (49%). In addition, to ensure an adequate sample of recent graduates for later comparisons, half of the non-AMCD (n = 250) and AMCD members (n = 125) were recruited from ACA members who joined the association after 1992. Participants in the study were 151 professional counselors. Of the

participants, 79% had master’s degrees, and 15% had doctoral degrees (see Table 1). All four ACA regions were represented, with 21% from the Northeast, 28% from the Midwest, 32% from the South, and 17% from the West (see Table 2). Regarding work settings, 3 1% of the participants worked in schools: 24% were employed in mental health agencies: 17% worked on college and university campuses: and the remaining 12% indicated that their work setting was best described as business/industry, government, corrections facility, or “other.” In comparison, the total ACA membership consists of counselors who work in schools (25%). mental health agencies (17%). private practice (3 1%); the remaining 27% work in colleges, government agencies, or both business settings.

One third (34%) of the participants were between the ages of 45 and 54 years: 69% were women, and 3 1% were men. ACA’s membership, in comparison, is 71% female and 29% male. Twenty-eight percent of the counselors in the sample were between 35 and 44 years old, and 24% were between 25 and 34 years old. Because AMCD members were oversampled, the proportion of ethnic minorities (e.g., African American, Asian American) in the final sample was 30%, excluding participants who identified themselves as “other.” Sixty-six percent of the participants were of European/White descent, 19% were of Mrican/Black descent, and 6% were of Latino/Hispanic descent. A small percentage of the participants (6%) indicated that they had Asian or Native American backgrounds, while 4% marked “other.”


TABLE 1

Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Sample ACA

Characteristic n % n %

Sex Female Male

Ethnic background AfricanlBlack EuropeanMlhite Hispanic/Latino AsianlPacific Islander Native American Other

Age group 65+ years 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 24 and under

PhD, EdD EdS MEd, MA, MS Other

Highest earned degree

104 47

29 99 9 4 4 6

4 14 51 42 37 3

23 7

119 2

69 31

19 66 6 2 3 4

3 9

34 28 24 2

15 5

79 1

21,701 11,462

1,690 34,913

79 1 421 298 549

6,687 1,067

25,980 3,612

71 29

4 90 2 1 1 1

18 3

70 9

_ _ ~ ~ ~

Note. Dashes indicate that the age group variable for American Counseling Association (ACA) members was not available. PhD = Doctor of Philosophy; EdD = Doctor of Education; EdS = Education Specialist; MEd = Master of Education; MA = Master of Arts; MS = Master of Science.

The actual representation of ethnic minorities in ACA is estimated to be 7% (ACA, 1995; see Table 1). However, the membership of AMCD includes 49% ethnic minorities. Regarding recency of graduation from an entry level counseling

program, 5 1% of the participants graduated between 1990 and 1995, 28%graduated between 1980 and 1989,15% between 1970 and 1979, and 6% graduated before 1970. Thirty percent of the participants graduated from an entry level counseling program in or after 1994.

instrument

The first step in developing the survey was to review the literature on multicultural counseling competence and AMCD’s Multicultural Competencies. The review provided the basis for developing a de- tailed outline of the survey’s content. Individuals who were “experts”

Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development / April 2000 / Val. 28 87

TABLE 2

Professional Counselor Representation by American Counseling Association (ACA) Geographic Region

Sample ACA (n = 151) (n = 55,281)

Region n % n %

Northeast 32 21 11,311 21 Midwest 42 28 13,090 23 South 49 32 19,421 34 West 25 17 11,182 20 Virgin Islands 2 1 30 Puerto Rico 1 1 247

in the Multicultural Competencies reviewed the outline and offered feedback regarding its content, the inclusiveness of the proposed areas of study, and its relevance to multicultural competence. After individual consultation and feedback from the experts, items were generated for the survey. Three experts then reviewed the survey for item clarity and comprehensiveness of the subject area. Based on their comments and feedback, format and wording changes were made. The final revision of the survey consisted of 61 items. The items

were divided into six areas: (a) multicultural counseling curriculum in an entry-level graduate program, (b) faculty and students in entry-level program, (c) multicultural clinical experiences in entry-level program, (d) postgraduate multicultural training and experience, (e) demographic information, and (f) self-assessment of multicultural counseling competence and training. Parts 1 through 4 required the participants to provide information on their entry level and postgraduate multicultural counseling training experiences. Part 5 included demographic information such as sex, age, ethnic background, year of graduation with highest degree, and accreditation status of graduate counseling program.

Part 6 included 32 behaviorally based statements that were based on the Ah4CD’s Operationalized Multicultural Counseling Compe- tencies and Explanatory Statements (e.g., “I can discuss how culture affects the help-seeking behaviors of clients”). Participants were asked to assess and report on three areas for each statement: (a) self-perceived competence, (b) adequacy of training received concerning this specific competency, and (c) types of training received. Compe- tence was rated using a 4-point Likert-type scale: 4 = extremely com-


petent, 3 = competent, 2 = somewhat competent, and 1 = not competent. To assess the adequacy of their training, participants used the following 4-point Likert-type scale: 4 = more than adequate training received, 3 = adequate training received, 2 = less than adequate training received, 1 = no training received. To assess where their training had been received, participants chose one or more areas from the following options: multicultural course(s) in entry level counseling program: core counseling courses infused with multicultural content; informal professional development activities (e.g., independent readings, life experiences); formal professional development activities (e.g., workshops, seminars); and advanced degree programs. See Appendix for a list of items in Part 6.

Procedure

Five hundred prospective participants received the survey by mail with a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study and instruc- tions for completing the instrument (e.g., anonymity). A self-addressed, stamped envelope was included to encourage return of the surveys. No follow-up letters or sumeys were mailed because of the lack of additional funds. Of the 500 surveys mailed, 15 1 surveys (30%) were re turned.

RESULTS

A principal components factor analysis with an oblimin rotation was performed to investigate the underlying factors of the competence items in Part 6 of the survey. Five factors were extracted. Minimum eigenvalues were used to determine the number of factors to extract in the final solution, and a minimum factor loading of .30 was required for an item to be interpreted as part of a factor. The factor analysis resulted in the identification of five factors, which explained 63% of the variance of the competence items. Table 3 shows the factor loadings of the five factors as well as their eigenvalues and the percentage of variance explained by each factor. In addition, alpha coefficients for each factor are shown in Table 3 . The alpha coefficients ranged &om .66 to .92, with the highest internal

consistency resulting for Factors 1, 2, and 5 and the lowest for Fac- tor 4 This factor also included the smallest number of items ( n = 2).

On Factor 1, 15 of the 16 items had factor loadings higher than .50. Loading most heavily on this factor were Items 22 (“I can discuss how culture affects the help-seeking behaviors of clients”), 2 1 (“I can discuss how culture affects a client’s vocational choices”), 18


TABLE 3

Factor Loadings of Competence Items and Internal Consistency of Factors

Items With Highest Alpha Eigenvaluel

Factor Loadings Factor Loadings Coefficients Variance

1 16 .38 .92 14.97147% 17 .69 18 .77 20 .77 21 .81 22 .84 23 .71 24 .74 25 .54 26 .71 27 .74 28 .64 29 .60 30 .52 31 .59 32 .54

1 .65 2 .75 3 .86 4 .44 7 .46

10 -.95 11 -. 82 12 -.79

8 .48

6 -.35 15 -.31

3 9 -.87 .79 1.14/4%

4 19 .42 .66 .92/3%

5 5 -.46 .91 .59/2%

2 .92 2.3717%

(‘‘I can articulate the possible differences between the verbal behavior of the five major ethnic groups”), and 20 (“I can discuss within group differences among ethnic groups”). Because the items referred primarily to knowledge of cultural groups and issues, Factor 1 was called “Knowledge. ” The items loading highest on Factor 2 were Item 3 (“I am able to

discuss how my culture has influenced the way I th ink) , Item 2 (“I am aware of how my cultural background and experiences have influenced my attitudes about psychological processes”), and Item 1 (“I can discuss my own ethnic/cultural heritage”). Because the items


loading on Factor 2 focused on an individual’s cultural awareness, this factor was labeled “Awareness.”

In contrast to the previous two factors, Factor 3 seemed to have a more specific orientation. Items related to definitions of multicultural terms or terminology loaded highest on this factor. For example, Item 10 (‘‘I can define prejudice”) loaded highest on this factor. Because all of the items referred to definitions of important terms used in the field of multicultuml counseling, Factor 3 was named “Definitions ofTerms.” Items that loaded on Factor 4 concerned racial identity develop-

ment. These loadings suggested that Factor 4 might reflect the expectation that counselors have knowledge of racial identity development theories (e.g.. “I can discuss the counseling implications for at least two models of Minority Identity Development”). Given the increasing prominence of models and theories of racial and ethnic identity development in the literature over the last two decades (i.e., Cross, 1971; Helms, 1984; Ruiz, 19901, it is not surprising that Racial Identity Development emerged as a factor. The item loading highest on Factor 5 was Item 5 (‘‘I verbally com-

municate my acceptance of culturally different clients”). Items concerning counselor behaviors loaded highest on this factor. Because the items referred primarily to counselor skills and behaviors, Fac- tor 5 was labeled the “Skills” factor.

DISCUSSION

An exploratory factor analysis was performed to examine the domains underlying the Multicultural Competencies presented by the AMCD. A unique feature of this study was that it explored self-perceived multicultural competence based on AMCD’s Multicultural Compe- tencies. Although other instruments have been used to assess counselors’ self-perceived multicultural competence, the current study is the first known attempt to explore self-perceived multicultural competence by using an instrument based on the AMCD’s Multicultural Competencies. The results suggest that racial identity development and multicultural terminology along with awareness, knowledge, and skills are significant factors of multicultural competence. Although several of the competencies refer to racial identity theories and the definitions of multicultural terms, this study suggest that they rep- resent independent factors and should not be subsumed under the original dimensions. Furthermore, the finding that these factors exist and account for a percentage of the variance is critical to the preparation of multiculturally competent counselors. Because most methods of multicultural counseling training focus on a combination of D. W.


Sue et al.’s (1992) three-dimensional framework of multicultural competence (Carney & Kahn, 1984; Ivey, 1987; Kelly, 1990; Pederson, 19881, there is a possible limitation in current multicultural training. Multicultural counseling courses, for example, are generally designed to increase students’ cultural awareness (e.g., Parker & McDavis, 19791, facilitate skill acquisition (e.g., Pederson & Ivey, 1993). and provide information regarding specific racial/ethnic and cultural groups (e.g., Mio & M o m s , 1990). If the five domains of multicultural competence exist, then courses should also focus on theories of racial/ethnic identity development as well as the terminology used to describe multicultural concepts. Although the results of this exploratory study suggest that there

are two additional domains of multicultural competence-racial identity development and definitions of terms-the findings are consistent with the current multicultural literature. D. W. Sue et al. (1998). for example, have proposed that multicultural counseling competence consists of counselors “being conversant and familiar with the major models of minority racial/cultural identity development” as well as major models of White racial identity/consciousness development. Regarding multicultural training, Ottavi, Pope-Davis, and Dings (1994) have suggested that racial identity development should be considered an integral component in the planning of multicultural counseling training after discovering that counselor trainees’ racial identity development was moderately correlated with multicultural competence. Simi- larly, Sabnani, Ponterotto, and Borodovsky‘s (199 1) study introduced a model of multicultural counseling training that consisted of tasks related to each stage of White identity development. Regarding the use of appropriate terms, various multicultural training

cumcula have included the discussion of terminology (Mio & Mor- ns, 1990). Johnson (1990) identified the understanding of relevant terms as having an important bearing on the multicultural competence of counselor trainees. Johnson found that counselor trainees were unable to make meaningful distinctions between the concepts of “race” and “culture;” therefore, he suggested that specific components in multicultural counselor education should be devoted to the clarification of terminology. Similarly, Pederson ( 199 1) noted that “part of the confusion in multicultural counseling has been due to the careless use of language in describing the construct” (p. 5).

LI M lTATl0 NS AN D CON C L U SI 0 N

Several potential limitations are important to consider when inter- preting the results of this exploratory study. Perhaps the primary


limitation of this study is its self-report nature. As with any survey, the participants may have selected socially desirable responses. Second, the high percentages of ethnic minority persons and recent graduates included in the sample affect the representativeness of ACA membership. Although the results do not reflect the ethnic composition of ACA, the participants were representative of all ACA geographic regions, work settings, sexes, and work positions. In addition to concerns about self-report and generalizablity. one must also consider the moderate size of the sample and the exploratory nature of the study.

Despite these limitations, the data suggest significant issues for further exploration and examination. Counselor trainers and super- visors may want to explore the extent to which multicultural terminology and racial identity development are taught and emphasized in their programs. If these areas are significant to the development of multicultural competence, course and supervision content must be modified to include these content areas. Failure to address racial identity development and multicultural terminology might limit counselor trainees’ ability to acquire multicultural competence.

Of critical importance to future research is the replication of this study with a larger sample. A larger sample would probably confirm the findings of this study and could reveal even more significant results. Fur- thermore, future research with a larger sample is warranted to determine whether there is one underlying factor or several factors, as found in this study. Rogers and Ponterotto [ 1997) found that their multicultural counseling competency scale [i.e., Multicultural School Psychology Counseling Competency Scale) resulted in one underlying factor. They suggested that this finding might have been attributed to the fact that the items addressing awareness, knowledge, and skills were highly intercorrelated. In addition, LaFromboise, Coleman, and Hernandez [ 199 1) found three factors underlying multicultural competence when using the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised: cross-cultural counseling skill, sociopolitical awareness, and cultural sensitivity. Future research is needed to determine the possible relationships between the varying underlying factors of multicultural competence.

Finally, future research is needed to develop and validate an instrument, such as the one used in this study, based on AMCDs Multicultural Competencies. The development of such an instrument may assist not only in assessing multicultural competence but also in building a link between AMCD’s Competencies and the assessment of multicultural competence. Assessing a counselor trainee’s status on each factor may be valuable to counseling professionals because a trainee’s scores may indicate areas in which further training


is needed. The development of an instrument that includes norms for the factor scores would also be advantageous.

If the counseling profession is to provide effective services to a rap- idly changing and diverse society, ongoing effective multicultural training and the evolution of multiculturally competent counselors are a necessity. Counseling professionals, therefore, must under- stand the underlying factors/domains of multicultural competence. Although further research is needed to confirm and further explain the nature of multicultural competence, the findings of this study provide useful information for understanding the Multicultural Com- petencies presented by the AMCD.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (1993). Guidelines for providers of psychological services to ethnic, linguistic, and culturally diverse populations. American

Arredondo. P., Toporek. R., Brown. S.. Jones, J., Locke, D. C., Sanchez, J.. & Stadler. H. (1996). Operationalizatwn of the multicultural counseling competencies. Alex- andria. VA: Association for Multicultural Counseling and Development.

Atkinson. D. R., Thompson. C. E., & Grant, S. K. (1993). A three-dimensional model for counseling racial/ethnic minorities. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 257-277.

Carney. C . G., & Kahn, K. B. (1984). Building competencies for effective cross-cultural counseling: A developmental view. The Counseling Psychologist, 12, 11 1-1 19.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (1994). Accreditation and procedures manual and application. Alexandria, VA Author.

Cross, W. E. (1971). The Negro-to-Black conversion experience. B h k World, 20, 13-27. Helms. J. E. (1984). Toward a theoretical explanation of the effects of race on coun-

seling: A Black and White model. The Counseling Psychologist, 12, 153-165. Ivey, A. E. (1987). The multicultural practice of therapy: Ethics, empathy, and dia-

lectics. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 195-204. Johnson. S. D. (1990). Toward clarifying culture, race, and ethnicity in the context

of multicultural counseling. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Deueloprnent,

Kelly, G. D. (1990). The cultural family of origin: A description of a training strategy. Counselor Educatwn and Supervision, 30, 77-84.

LaFromboise. T. D., Coleman, H. L. K., & Hernandez, A. (1991). Development and factor structure of the Cross-Cultural Competency Inventory-Revised. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 380-388.

Mio. J. S.. & Morris, D. R. (1990). Cross-cultural issues in psychology training programs: An invitation for discussion. Professional Psychology: Research and Prac- tice, 21. 434-441.

Ottavi. T. M.. Pope-Davis. D. B.. & Dings, G. (1994). Relationship between White racial identity attitudes and self-reported multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 149-154.

Parker, W. M.. & McDavis, R. J. (1979). A n awareness experience: Toward counseling minorities. Counselor Education and Supervision, 18. 312-317.

Pederson, P. B. (1988). A handbook for development of multicultural awareness. Al- exandria. VA: American Association for Counseling and Development.

Pederson, P. B. (1991). Introduction to Part 1: A conceptual framework. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 5.

PSyCholOgist, 48, 45-48.

18, 41-50.


Pederson, P. B.. & Ivey. A. (1993). Culture-centered counseling and interviewing skills: A practical guide. Westport, CT Praeger.

Pontei-otto. J. G., & Casas. J. M. (1987). In search of multicultural competencewithin counselor education programs. Journnl of Counseling and &wlopment 65, 43U434.

Ponterotto. J. G . . Rieger. B. T.. Barrett. A . Harris, G., Sparks, R.. Sanchez, C. M., & Magids, D. (1996). Development and initial validation of the Multicultural Coun- seling Awareness Scale. In G. R. Sodowsky & J. C. Impara (Eds.). Multicultural assessment in counseling and clinical psychology (pp. 247-282). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.

Pope-Davis, D. B.. & Coleman, H. L. K. (Eds.). (1997). Multicultural counseling competencies: Assessment, education, and training, and supervision Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pope-Davis, D. B.. Reynolds, A. L.. Dings, J. G.. &Ottavi. T. M. (1994). Multicultural competencies of doctoral interns at University counseling centers: An exploratory investigation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25, 466-470.

Ridley. C. R.. Mendoza. D. W.. Kanitz. B. E.. Angermeier. L.. & Zenk. R. (1994). Cultural sensitivity in multicultural counseling: A perceptual schema model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 125-136.

Rogers. M. R.. & Ponterotto. J. G. (1997). Development of the Multicultural School Psychology Counseling Competency Scale. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 2 1 1-21 7.

Ruiz. A. S. (1990). Ethnic identity: Crisis and resolution. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 18, 29-40.

Sabnani. H. B., Ponterotto, J. G.. & Borodovsky. L. G. (1991). White racial identity development and cross-cultural counselor-training: A stage model. The Counsel- ing Psycblogist 19, 76- 102.

Sodowsky. G. R. (1996). The Multicultural Counseling Inventory: Validity and appli- cations in multicultural training. In G. R. Sodowsky & J. C. Impara (Eds.). Multicultural assessment in counseling and clinical psychology (pp. 283-324). Lincoln. NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.

Sue, D. W.. Arredondo. P.. & McDavis. R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling & Deuel- oprnent, 70, 477-486.

Sue. D. W.. Bernier, Y.. Durran. A . Feinberg. L.. Pederson. P. B.. Smith, E. J.. & Vasquez-Nuttail, E. (1982). Position paper: Cross-cultural counseling competencies. The Counseling Psychologist. 10, 45-52.

Sue, D. W., Carter, R.. Casas. J. M.. Fouad. N.. Ivey, A. E., Jensen. M.. LaFromboise. T.. Manese. J. E.. Ponterotto. J. G., & Vasquez-Nutall. E. (1998). Multicultural counseling competencies: Individual and organizational development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sue, S. (1998). In search of cultural competence in psychotherapy and counseling. American Psychologist, 53, 440-448.

APPENDIX

Survey items

1. I can discuss my own ethnicjcultural heritage. 2. I am aware of how my cultural background and experiences

have influenced my attitudes about psychological processes. 3. I am able to discuss how my culture has influenced the way

I think.


4.

5.

6.

7.

8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21. 22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

I can recognize when my attitudes, beliefs, and values are interfering with providing the best services to my clients. I verbally communicate my acceptance of culturally different clients. I nonverbally communicate my acceptance of culturally different clients. I can discuss my family’s perspective regarding acceptable and nonacceptable codes-of-conduct. I can discuss models of White identity development. I can define racism. I can define prejudice. I can define discrimination. I can define stereotype. I can identify the cultural bases of my communication style. I can identify my negative and positive emotional reactions toward persons of other racial and ethnic groups. I can identify my reactions that are based on stereotypical beliefs about different ethnic groups. I can give examples of how stereotypical beliefs about culturally different persons impact the counseling relationship. I can articulate the possible differences between the non-verbal behavior of the five major ethnic groups (i.e., African/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Native American, European/White). I can articulate the possible differences between the verbal behavior of the five major ethnic groups (i.e., African/Black, European/White, Hispanic, Asian, Native American). I can discuss the counseling implications for at least two models of Minority Identity Development. I can discuss within group differences among ethnic groups (e.g., low SES [socioeconomic status] Puerto Rican client versus high SES Puerto Rican client). I can discuss how culture affects aclient’s vocational choices. I can discuss how culture affects the help-seeking behaviors of clients. I can discuss how culture affects the manifestation of psychological disorders. I can describe the degree to which a counseling approach is appropriate for a specific group of people. I can explain how factors such as poverty and powerlessness have influenced the current conditions of at least two ethnic groups. I can discuss research regarding mental health issues and culturally different populations.


27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

I can discuss how the counseling process may conflict with the cultural values of at least two ethnic groups. I can list at least three barriers that prevent ethnic minorities from using mental health services. I can discuss the potential bias of two assessment instruments frequently used in the counseling process. I can discuss family therapy from a cultural/ethnic perspective. I can anticipate when my helping style is inappropriate for a culturally different client. I can help clients determine whether a problem stems from racism or biases in others.

Note. Survey Items based on the Mutlicultural Competencies of the Association for Multicultural Counseling and Development (D. W. Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992).


Documents

Multicultural Counseling Competencies: An Exploratory Factor Analysis