CORRELATES OF PERCEIVED MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE:
EXPERIENCE AND ETHNIC IDENTITY
Kevin A. Smith
B.S., University of California, Davis, 2003
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
PSYCHOLOGY
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SUMMER
2010
CORRELATES OF PERCEIVED MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE:
EXPERIENCE AND ETHNIC IDENTITY
A Thesis
by
Kevin A. Smith
Approved by:
______________________________, Committee Chair
Marya C. Endriga, Ph.D.
______________________________, Second Reader
Lawrence S. Meyers, Ph.D.
______________________________, Third Reader
Gregory M. Kim-Ju, Ph.D.
____________________
Date
ii
Student: Kevin A. Smith
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
______________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
iii
_______________
Date
Abstract
of
CORRELATES OF PERCEIVED MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCE:
EXPERIENCE AND ETHNIC IDENTITY
by
Kevin A. Smith
This study examined experience and ethnic identity as correlates of multicultural
competence in a group of 150 graduate school students attending California State
University, Sacramento. The results show ethnic identity and experience to be significant
predictors of the Multicultural Knowledge subscale of the California Brief Multicultural
Competence Scale (CBMCS; Gamst et al., 2004), and experience to be a significant
predictor of the Non-Ethnic Ability subscale. The Sensitivity to Consumers and
Awareness of Cultural Barriers subscales were not significantly predicted by any of the
variables of interest. Further analysis show significant compositional differences between
respondents identified as European American and those identified as an Ethnic Minority
or Multiracial. Reliability for three of the four subscales was good, with adequate
reliability on the fourth. Divergent validity for the CBMCS was evidenced through use of
the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Findings are
discussed.
___________________________________, Committee Chair
Marya C. Endriga, Ph.D.
____________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the dedication,
guidance, advice, encouragement, and advocacy of Lynda Young.
In addition, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Marya Endriga, for initially
bringing me on board to pursue this topic, for her continued support and encouragement,
and for her flexibility in meeting with me. I would like to thank Dr. Lawrence Meyers for
his patience working with me on the statistical analyses and Dr. Gregory Kim-Ju for
specific methodological guidance.
Finally I would like to thank my parents, Richard and Peggy Smith for stressing
the importance of continued education throughout my life, and my loving wife Ashley,
good friends Nick Le, David Eidem, Jill Riggins, the Peacetime Mandalorians, and many
others for their support.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................v
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
Mental Health Needs in an Increasingly Diverse Population................................1
Defining Cultural Competence ..............................................................................2
Measuring Cultural Competence ...........................................................................3
The Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory – Revised ....................................4
The Multicultural Awareness, Knowledge, Skills Survey .............................4
The Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale..................5
The Multicultural Competency and Training Survey ....................................5
The Multicultural Counseling Inventory .......................................................6
The California Brief Multicultural Competence Scale ..................................7
Correlates of Perceived Cultural Competence ......................................................8
Ethnic Identity................................................................................................9
Defining Ethnic Identity ..........................................................................9
Measuring Ethnic Identity........................................................................9
Experience......................................................................................................9
Definition and Measurement....................................................................9
Description of Study ..............................................................................................10
vi
Page
2. METHOD ...................................................................................................................13
Participants ............................................................................................................13
Measures ................................................................................................................14
Demographic Survey .....................................................................................14
The California Brief Multicultural Competence Scale ..................................14
The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale ...........................................15
The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure ......................................................16
Procedure ...............................................................................................................16
3. RESULTS ...................................................................................................................18
Return Rate and Screening ....................................................................................18
Replace Missing Values ........................................................................................18
Data Manipulations ...............................................................................................19
Statistical Analyses................................................................................................19
Primary Analyses ...........................................................................................19
Further Analyses ............................................................................................28
4. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................34
The First Hypothesis .............................................................................................35
The Second Hypothesis .........................................................................................37
The Third Hypothesis ............................................................................................38
Strengths, Weaknesses, and Further Study ...........................................................39
vii
Page
Appendix A. Background Information ..........................................................................41
Appendix B. CBMCS ....................................................................................................43
Appendix C. M-C SDS Personal Reaction Inventory ...................................................45
Appendix D. M E I M ....................................................................................................47
References ........................................................................................................................49
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics, Cronbach’s Alphas, Skewness and Kurtosis ..............20
2. Table 2 Correlations of Variables in the Analysis of the Total Sample .....................22
3. Table 3 Nonethnic Ability Hierarchical Regression Results for the Total Sample ....23
4. Table 4 Knowledge Hierarchical Regression Results for the Total Sample ...............25
5. Table 5 Awareness Hierarchical Regression Results for the Total Sample................26
6. Table 6 Sensitivity Hierarchical Regression Results for the Total Sample ................27
7. Table 7 Correlations of Variables in the Subset Analysis: European American ........29
8. Table 8 Correlations of Variables in the Subset Analysis: Ethnic
Minority/Multiracial ........................................................................................................30
9. Table 9 Nonethnic Ability Hierarchical Regression Results for Subset: Ethnic
Minority/Multiracial ........................................................................................................32
10. Table 10 Knowledge Hierarchical Regression Results for Subset: Ethnic
Minority/Multiracial ........................................................................................................33
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Mental Health Needs in an Increasingly Diverse Population
As the United States becomes home to an increasingly diverse population, the
need for increasingly diverse services, including mental health services, becomes more
apparent. Many states already have what is called a “minority-majority;” a higher
representation of minority-status individuals compared to non-Hispanic Whites, with an
overall country-wide minority-majority anticipated by 2042 (Census Bureau, 2008). This
increasing diversity is in striking contrast to statistics underscoring the underutilization of
mental health services among minority individuals (Neighbors, Bashshur, Price,
Donavedian, Selig, & Shannon, 1992). Various factors contribute to this underutilization
including: ineffective service, decreased access, cultural and language barriers and
racism. The U.S. Surgeon General's report on mental health (2001) categorizes these
various factors into two broad distinctions: a failure of access (decreased access to
resources) and insufficient services (services that fail to adequately meet the needs of a
cross-cultural client). Defining characteristics that comprise ineffective service requires a
close examination of the competence of clinicians to deliver services to clients that come
from a wide range of different backgrounds, cultures, native languages, as well as family
structures and values. Quantifying this “multicultural competence” might best be
measured by way of client perceptions of satisfaction and positive treatment outcomes,
but can also be measured via self-report and supervisor/peer-report inventories. With the
2
bias of minority underutilization of service skewing treatment outcomes in favor of
clients more acculturated to the dominant culture while failing to appropriately represent
those clients that are wholly absent from treatment, it is important to be able to examine
the self-report, perceived competence of clinicians.
Defining Cultural Competence
Prerequisite to quantifying cultural competence would be to capture its meaning
with a concise definition. An early conceptualization of cultural competence describes it
as “a set of congruent behaviors, attitudes, and policies that come together in a system,
agency, or among professionals and enable that system, agency, or those professionals to
work effectively in cross-cultural situations” (Cross, Bazron, Dennis, & Isaacs, 1989, p.
iv). Green (1995) describes cultural competence as an ability of clinicians to serve clients
in their “professional work in a way that is congruent with the behavior and expectations
that members of a distinctive culture recognize as appropriate among themselves” (p. 52).
As an extension of general competence within a particular field, cultural competence
adds the stipulation that knowledge, skills, and abilities utilized for the benefit of clients
in a professional relationship be able to successfully be applied to cross-cultural
relationships.
Contemporary conceptualization of cultural competency can be divided into three
dimensions: beliefs and attitudes, knowledge, and skills (Carney & Kahn, 1984; Sue,
Bernier, Durran, Feinberg, Pedersen, Smith, & Vasquez-Nuttal, 1982). Each of these
three dimensions can further be associated with one of three characteristics: counselor
awareness of their own assumptions, values, and biases; understanding the worldview of
3
cross-cultural clients; and developing appropriate intervention strategies and techniques
(Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992). These dimensions have been operationally defined
with the intent to quantify them sub-categorically within an assessment of cultural
competence.
Beliefs and attitudes encompass the degree to which a professional is able to
acknowledge their own cultural heritage as well as to value and respect cross-cultural
differences. This includes being aware of the effects of one's cultural background on
psychological processes, recognizing the limits of one's competency, and being
comfortable with cross-cultural differences between client and counselor (Sue et al.,
1992). Knowledge describes specific knowledge about a counselor's own racial and
cultural heritage as well as knowledge of client cultures. In addition, knowledge also
describes an understanding of how oppression, racism, discrimination, and stereotyping
affect counselors and their clients, including a counselor's own racist attitudes and beliefs
(Sue et al., 1992). Skills, within Sue, Arredondo, and McDavis' (1992) work, is described
as a combination of education, experience, and training which is continually sought after
and obtained for the purpose of most beneficially working with cross-cultural clients.
Researchers have developed a number of scales that measure various aspects of
cultural competency and, through their development, have more clearly defined the
component parts of the whole.
Measuring Cultural Competence
Cultural competence, as well as any other service-oriented proficiency, can be
measured from both the professional and client end. Mental health providers can provide
4
self-report assessments of their appraisal of multicultural competence, supervisors and
peers can provide third-party assessments of a clinician's competence, and clients can
provide feedback on their impression of a clinician's competence. Issues of
confidentiality, convenience, as well as diplomatic and logistical concerns within the
workplace have focused many existing competence measures to rely on clinician-based
self-report.
The Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised
The Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised (CCCI-R; LaFromboise,
Coleman, & Hernandez, 1991) is a supervisor-based rating scale developed to assess the
cross-cultural competence of students preparing to enter the counseling profession. The
CCCI-R contains 20 items rated on a 6 point scale to assess cross-cultural skills,
awareness, and cultural sensitivity. Items were developed theoretically consistent with
aspects of multicultural competency as outlined by Sue, Arredondo, and McDavis (1992).
Initial factor analyses show this measure to be unifactorial, with a single factor
accounting for 51% of the total variance. The CCCI-R demonstrates a high level of
statistical reliability with an alpha of .95 (LaFromboise et al., 1991).
The Multicultural Awareness, Knowledge, Skills Survey
In 1991, D'Andrea, Daniels, and Heck created a separate inventory, called the
Multicultural Awareness, Knowledge, Skills survey (MAKSS; D'Andrea et al., 1991).
This 60 item self-report assessment is scored on a four-point Likert-type scale. Items are
divided evenly between three separate subscales which measure cross-cultural awareness,
knowledge, and skills. Factor analyses conducted by the researchers confirm the three-
5
factor structure of the inventory with alphas of .75, .96, and .90 for the subscales
Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills, respectively.
The Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale
The Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS;
Ponterotto, Gretchen, Utsey, Rieger, & Austin, 2002) is a revision of the Multicultural
Counseling Awareness Scale-Form B (Ponterotto & Alexander, 1996) and contains 32
self-report items measuring two factors on a 7 point Likert-type scale. This inventory
attempts to measure both multicultural knowledge as well as awareness of dominantculture norms. Development of the two-subscales in the original MCAS-B was the result
of factor analysis; the two-factor model accounting for 28% of the variance. The first
factor measured primarily knowledge and skills while the second factor accounted for
awareness. Alpha coefficients were reported as .85 for both the Knowledge/Skills as well
as the Awareness subscales (Ponterotto et al., 2002).
The Multicultural Competency and Training Survey
The Multicultural Competency and Training Survey (MCCTS; Holcomb-McCoy,
2000) is a 31-item, self-report inventory measuring five competence subscales using a
four point, Likert-type scale. Subjects respond to statements such as “I can define
racism." on a scale ranging from 1, indicating “not competent” to 4 indicating “extremely
competent.” The five factors of the MCCTS: Knowledge, Awareness, Definition of
Terms, Racial Identity Development, and Skills were identified through the factor
analysis of 61 items. Some of the strengths of the MCCTS are in its development. The
measure was developed theoretically with the Association of Multicultural Counseling
6
and Development’s (AMCD) multicultural competencies, and approximately half of the
sample was chosen from the membership of AMCD, which constituted 49% minority
members. Unfortunately out of 500 initially delivered surveys, only 151 (30%) were
returned.
The Multicultural Counseling Inventory
The Multicultural Counseling Inventory (MCI; Sodowski, Taffe, Gutkin, & Wise,
1994; Sodowski, Kui-Jackson, Richardson, & Corey, 1998) is a 40-item inventory with
items rated on a four point, Likert-type scale (1 = very inaccurate, 4 = very accurate) split
into four subscales: Awareness, Knowledge, Skills, and Relationship. Items from the
Awareness subscale focus on a subject’s familiarity with different cultures. Knowledge
items assess a subject’s understanding of current multicultural counseling research and
application with clients. The Skills subscale seeks to measure a subject’s professional
ability to effectively work with and adapt to the special needs of ethnic minority clients.
The Relationship subscale focuses on the client-counselor relationship and highlights the
importance of such within a counseling framework.
The MCI demonstrates criterion-related validity through positive correlations
between MCI scores and both counselor training and client-contact experience with
culturally diverse clients (Sodowski et al., 1994; Sodowski et al., 1998) as well as
construct validity as the results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses
(Sodowski et al. 1994; Sodowski, 1996).
7
The California Brief Multicultural Competence Scale
The California Brief Multicultural Competence Scale (CBMCS; Gamst, Dana,
Der-Karabetian, Aragon, Arellano, Morrow, & Martenson, 2004) is a self-report measure
designed to measure multicultural counselor competency along four dimensions:
Sensitivity to Consumers, Awareness of Cultural Barriers, Nonethnic Ability, and
Multicultural Knowledge. The CBMCS derives its 21 items from four previouslydeveloped scales; the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised (CCCI-R;
LaFromboise et al., 1991), the Multicultural Awareness, Knowledge, Skills Survey
(MAKSS; D'Andrea et al., 1991), the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale-Form B
(MCAS-B; Ponterotto & Alexander, 1996), and the Multicultural Competency and
Training Survey (MCCTS; Halcomb-McCoy, 2000), and validated against the
Multicultural Counseling Inventory (MCI; Sodowsky, Taffe, Gutkin, & Wise, 1994). The
primary purpose of the authors in creating the CBMCS was to minimize the shortcomings
of previous instruments (small sample sizes, effects of social desirability, limited
validity), continue factor analytic research with all of the viable existing measures, and to
create a short form, self-report measure that demonstrates high reliability and validity
(Gamst et al., 2004).
The CBMCS was developed through the theoretical and statistical selection of
items taken from the CCCI-R, MAKSS, MCAS-B, and the MCCTS with subscales
validated against the MCI. Thirteen items from an initial pool of 157 items were
eliminated due to having significant social desirability correlations. The remaining items
were again tested against a sample of 1,244 participants divided into three groups to
8
facilitate two exploratory factor analyses as well as one confirmatory factor analysis. A
four-factor model was chosen to represent the data set, with liberal item elimination
disposing of items that did not produce a correlation of .55 or greater on one factor while
simultaneously correlating at .35 or lower on the other three factors. Items were also
eliminated if they had extraction communality lower than .50 (Gamst et al., 2004). The
four-factor model consisted of 27 items at this point, and accounted for 44.2% of the total
variance.
Following the liberal elimination of items from the first of three factor analytic
analyses, the remaining 27 items were evaluated for content validation within a
community of mental health professionals. A panel of 20 experts were individually asked
to rate the “appropriateness” of each of the 27 items on a four-point, Likert-type scale.
Six of the 27 items were eliminated when over half of the expert panel determined the
item to be ambiguously “appropriate.” The final 21 items were then subject to a
confirmatory factor analysis.
Correlates of Perceived Cultural Competence
A number of variables significantly correlate with the various measures of
cultural competence. Experience (number of minority clients, participation in
multicultural research projects, and number of multicultural courses) (Sodowski et al.,
1998; Gamst et al., 2004), social desirability (Constantine & Ladany, 2000; Constantine,
2000), ethnic identity (Ottavi, Pope-Davis, & Dings, 1994; Ponterotto et al., 2002; Chao,
2006), sex (Gamst et al., 2004) and race (Vinson & Neimeyer, 2000) have been found to
correlate with summed scores of perceived cultural competence, or with subscale scores.
9
Ethnic Identity
Defining ethnic identity. Ethnic identity is a term used to describe the cultural
heritage and differentiated group background of individuals based on color, language and
religion (Horowitz, 1985). Ethnic identity describes a “subset of identity categories in
which eligibility for membership is determined by attributes associated with, or believed
to be associated with, descent.” (Chandra, 2005, p. 3) as well as common culture and
history. An ethnic group must be “larger than a family” unit, but defined “primarily by
descent” and shared history (2000, Fearon and Laitin, p. 20). Ethnic Identity has been
found to correlate with multicultural competence (Chao, 2006), specific values and
beliefs (Felix-Ortiz, Newcomb, & Myers, 1994) and ethnicity (Phinney & Ong, 2007).
Measuring ethnic identity. The focus in measuring Ethnic Identity has
historically focused on stage models based on the work on psychosocial development and
identity by Erik Erikson (1959, 1968) identity formation studies by James Marcia (1966),
and the developmental stages of Jean Piaget (1932, 1952). Early models of ethnic identity
development centered on the African American experience living in the United States
(Parham & Helms, 1981), and continue through the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure
(MEIM; Phinney, 1992).
Experience
Definition and measurement. Experience is defined in a number of ways. It is
often reported as a measure of a subject's years of experience in the field of mental
health, the number of workshops and training with multicultural issues that a subject has
attended, and participation in multicultural research. It is important to note that
10
experience is distinguishable from the didactic presentation of knowledge that forms the
backbone of educational training; experience is a training component in its own right and
is qualitatively different from training through focused knowledge acquisition (Burnett,
Hamel, & Long, 2004; Evans & Larrabee, 2002; D’Andrea, Daniels, & Heck, 1991).
Experience can be conceptualized as an additive component of an individual’s journey
toward subject mastery/competence (more experience presumably leading to more
mastery/competence), or a qualitative component of training (simply having field
experience or not). Regarding measurement, experience can be quantified as time unit
exposure to the desired environment (e.g. years of experience in the field of mental
health), or a categorical distinction of whether an individual has any subject-specific
exposure or not. Research in training programs specific to multicultural counseling
demonstrate increases in student multicultural counseling development “regardless of the
length of time the training was offered” (Burnett et al., 2004) which provide a framework
for valuing experience qualitatively within a training population rather than forcing a
quantitative focus that is frequently inappropriate for students who are likely to cluster at
low/no levels of experience.
Description of Study
The current study seeks to examine factors that are associated with self-report
assessments of cultural competency within a graduate student population as a
confirmation and continued exploration of the original article detailing the development
and examination of the CBMCS. Specifically, a categorical measure of experience in
mental health (Experience) and the quantitative measure of Ethnic Identity will be
11
examined for their ability to account for the variance in cultural competency scores as
measured with subscale scores in the areas of Nonethnic Ability, Awareness of Cultural
Barriers (Awareness), Multicultural Knowledge (Knowledge), and Sensitivity to
Consumers (Sensitivity).
This study specifically hypothesizes:
I. A positive correlation between experience and multicultural competence
subscale scores.
II. A positive correlation between ethnic identity scores and multicultural
competence subscale scores.
III. That experience will be a stronger predictor of multicultural competence
subscale scores than will ethnic identity scores.
The current hypotheses are congruent with the conventional notion that higher
levels of experience predict higher levels of self-reported competence. As reported by the
original authors of the CBMCS, doctorate and masters level clinicians scored the highest
on the Awareness of Cultural Barriers subscale (Gamst et al., 2004), and high-school
level service providers scored the lowest on the Non-Ethnic Ability subscale. Though
degree distinctions are not experience distinctions per se, programs awarding higher
degrees require more experience as a component of successful completion. The current
study seeks to more closely examine the nature of these stratified distinctions in a tighter
sample (almost exclusively) within the range of training for their first licensable
counseling degree. Specifically, looking at individual experience against self-reported
competence in an age-varied sample of graduate students seeking their Master’s degree
12
should shed light on the question of whether previously documented (Gamst et al., 2004)
competence discrepancies are weighted toward qualitative differences in counselorspecific training programs (high school, masters, doctorate), or additive quantitative
effects of increased outside opportunities and progression through degree program as
evidenced and documented in validation of the MCI (Sodowski et al., 1994; Sodowski et
al., 1998).
This study also seeks to examine Ethnic Identity as a factor in accounting for
variance in self-reported competence scores. Specifically, the study seeks to corroborate
previously identified correlations between Ethnic Identity and multicultural competence
(Munley, Lidderdale, Thiagarajan & Null, 2004) using the CBMCS and MEIM.
13
Chapter 2
METHOD
Participants
The sample for this study was taken from a population of graduate level students
at the California State University, Sacramento campus currently enrolled in postbaccalaureate level coursework either within the Department of Psychology's Counseling
Psychology track or from the Department of Education's Counselor Education program.
A total of 165 individuals (a greater than 50% response rate of the total prospective
participants), 22 males (13.3%) and 143 females (86.7%) participated in the study. Ages
ranged from 18 to 68 (M=30.17, SD=9.39). Ethnicity was self-reported with 6.7% of
participants identifying as African-American, 13.3% identifying as Asian, 61.8%
identifying as European American or White, 10.3% identifying as Hispanic or Latino
American, and 4.2% identifying themselves as Multiracial. Approximately one-in-five
participants (21.2%) responded that they speak a language other than English well
enough to provide mental health services in that language. Sixty one point two percent of
the sample was currently pursuing a Master's degree leading toward a license in Marriage
and Family Therapy (MFT). Nearly half of the participants (47.9%) had taken, or were
currently taking, a graduate level course in multicultural mental health or multicultural
social work. The majority of participants were born in the United States (84.8%).
14
Measures
Participants were each given a packet of questionnaires and demographic survey
forms in addition to a consent form and the contact information for the supervising
professor. The consent form and demographic survey were always attached at the front of
the packet, and were followed by the California Brief Multicultural Competence Scale
(CBMCS), Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS), Multi-Ethnic Identity
Measure (MEIM), and the Self-Construal Scale (SCS) in an evenly-distributed, randomly
arranged order.
Demographic Survey
Participants responded to a number of demographic questions (Appendix A)
assessing age, gender, ethnic background, current graduate training program, years of
experience in the field of mental health, previous multicultural coursework (both graduate
and undergraduate), participation in multicultural workshops/training or research, fluency
in a non-English language, and being born in the United States.
The California Brief Multicultural Competence Scale
The California Brief Multicultural Competence Scale (Appendix B) (CBMCS) is
a brief (21 item) self-report measure designed to measure multicultural counselor
competency along four dimensions: Sensitivity, Awareness, Nonethnic Ability, and
Multicultural Knowledge (Gamst, G., Dana, R. H., Der-Karabetian, A., Aragon, M.,
Arellano, L., Morrow, G., & Martenson, L., 2004). The items in the CBMCS were
derived through the factor analysis of items derived from four previously-developed
scales; the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised (CCCI-R; LaFromboise et al.,
15
1991), the Multicultural Awareness, Knowledge, Skills Survey (MAKSS; D'Andrea et
al., 1991), the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale-Form B (MCAS-B; Ponterotto
& Alexander, 1996), and the Multicultural Competency and Training Survey (MCCTS;
Holcomb-McCoy, 2000). Reported subscale alphas were .90 for Nonethnic Ability, .80
for Knowledge, .78 for Awareness, and .75 for Sensitivity. Current study alphas were
slightly lower for the Nonethnic Ability and Knowledge subscales at .88 and .76
respectively, slightly higher for Awareness at .85, and significantly lower for Sensitivity
at .52. Divergent validity for the CBMCS in the current study was demonstrated using the
MCSDS as a covariate where it was not significantly correlated with any of the four
subscales.
The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Appendix C) (Crowne &
Marlowe, 1960) is a 33 item self-report measure developed to assess an individuals' need
for social approval with scores ranging from 0 to 33. Higher scores indicate a higher
measured need for social approval while lower scores indicate a lower need for social
approval. The need for social approval has been identified as being a likely contributor to
self-reported measures of multicultural competency (Sodowsky, Kuo-Jackson,
Richardson, & Corey, 1998), and as such, needs to be accounted for when developing
measures as well as performing research based on already established measures. The
current study’s reliability coefficient of .84 is above the range found in previous studies
of the psychometric properties of this scale which range from .70 to .78 (Crino, Svoboda,
16
Rubenfeld, & White, 1983; Tanaka-Matsumi & Kameoka, 1986; Holden & Fekken,
1989).
The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure
The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (Appendix D) (MEIM; Phinney, 1992) is
a tool used to assess ethnic identity achievement and attitudes toward others. It is a 23item inventory with three fill-in-the-blank/multiple choice items with the remainder being
measured on a four-point Likert-type scale. The MEIM is divided into three subscales;
Affirmation/Belonging, Ethnic Identity Achievement, and Ethnic Behaviors. As
originally reported by Phinney (1992), the reliability of the overall measure ranged from
.81 within a high-school sample to .90 in a college sample. A two subscale, 12-item
revision of the scale (Phinney, 2001) was used. The current study reports a Cronbach’s
alpha of .87, very near the anticipated value for a college sample. The subscales had
reported reliabilities that ranged between high-school and college samples as .75 to .86
for Affirmation/Belonging and .69 to .80 for Ethnic Identity Achievement.
Procedure
Upon the approval of a Human Subjects application, professors from both the
Psychology and Education departments were contacted asking if they would be willing to
allow the distribution of questionnaire packets within their graduate classrooms. Graduate
students coordinated with willing professors to enter either at the beginning or at the end
of a lecture to briefly introduce the questionnaire and distribute them. All potential
subjects were informed that participation was strictly voluntary, no compensation was
offered, and all participants were instructed that they were free to discontinue the
17
questionnaire at any time and decline to submit it. Subjects were asked to locate the
consent form, and include it with their completed questionnaire which included a selfaddressed, stamped envelope for convenience. Questionnaire packets were constructed
with different sequences of measures (excluding the demographic questionnaire which
always came first) to control for contextual effects of inventory order.
18
Chapter 3
RESULTS
Return Rate and Screening
Of 324 distributed packets, 51% (165) were returned. Two packets did not have
consent forms and were discarded. Returned questionnaire packets were input directly
into SPSS. This raw data was then checked for completeness. Seventeen subjects failed to
provide any information on, and four subjects provided too little information for, an
entire independent variable of interest and were discarded. Variables were examined for
outliers, and subjects scoring greater than three standard deviations from the mean on any
variable of interest (three cases) were discarded. A total of 138 subjects were analyzed in
this study.
Replace Missing Values
A Replace Missing Values (RMV) correction of mean substitution was made for
subjects missing no more than a single response for any of the inventory subscales. A
total of 13 subjects had a single data point input via the RMV correction and a single
subject (1) had two data points from two separate subscales input. Missing data was also
examined for patterns. Of the fifteen total data points replaced, it was noted that one item
was missing three times in the data (2.2%). This was item ten from the CBMCS, “I am
aware that being born a White person in this society carries with it certain advantages.”
All other missing data were missing only once.
19
Data Manipulations
An examination of the years of experience variable indicated that approximately
half of all respondents reported zero years of experience after their highest degree. A
new, two-category variable was created, consisting of those reporting zero years of
experience after their highest degree (without experience), and those reporting one or
more years (with experience). Of those individuals with experience (M = 3.47 years, SD
= 3.46) two were removed from the study as outliers. The new categorical variable for
experience is run as an independent variable.
Examination of the self-reported ethnicity variable showed cell sizes too small to
perform relevant analyses as collected for each ethnic minority. Self-reported ethnicities
were re-coded into a two-category variable consisting of those who identified themselves
as European American (63.4%) and those that reported as being an Ethnic
Minority/Multiracial (36.6%).
Statistical Analyses
Primary Analyses
Reliability coefficients, with the exception of the Sensitivity subscale of the
CBMCS, were on par with reported scale and subscale reliabilities for all variables of
interest and can be found in Table 1 along with means and standard deviations.
A three-stage hierarchical linear regression analysis was used to predict the level
of Nonethnic Ability, Knowledge, Awareness, and Sensitivity as measured by the
CBMCS subscales. Anticipated covariates were input in the first two blocks to control for
.88
.76
.85
.52
.84
.87
NA
Nonethnic Ability
Knowledge
Awareness
Sensitivity
Social Desirability
Ethnic Identity
Experience
.51
2.93
16.02
3.14
3.22
2.59
2.43
M
.50
.58
6.17
.48
.60
.55
.55
SD
-.03
-.05
-.26
-.47
-1.34
.14
-.14
Statistic
.21
.21
.21
.21
.21
.21
.21
SE
-2.03
-.03
-.62
.28
1.98
-.05
.33
Statistic
Kurtosis
.41
.41
.41
.41
.41
.41
.41
SE
Note: E. American = European American. E. Minority/M = Ethnic Minority/Multiracial.
α
Variable
Skewness
Total Sample (N = 138)
Descriptive Statistics, Cronbach’s Alphas, Skewness, and Kurtosis
Table 1
.52
2.94
16.00
3.14
3.22
2.61
2.45
M
.50
.57
6.07
.50
.62
.56
.56
SD
Women
(N = 123)
.48
2.74
15.47
3.11
3.18
2.50
2.39
M
.50
.56
6.48
.43
.54
.53
.55
SD
E. American
(N = 88)
.56
3.27
17.00
3.18
3.28
2.76
2.49
M
.50
.46
5.53
.56
.68
.55
.56
SD
E. Minority/M
(N = 50)
20
21
possible social desirability and ethnicity effects leaving the variables of primary interest
to be entered in the final block. Social Desirability was entered alone in the first block.
Ethnicity was entered into the second block; Ethnic Identity and Experience were
simultaneously entered into the third block.
The correlations of the variables are shown in Table 2. Significant correlations
were identified for the Knowledge subscale with Ethnicity, Ethnic Identity, and
Experience demonstrating that higher levels of knowledge were associated with Ethnic
Minority/Multiracial status. Higher Knowledge scores were also associated with
individuals reporting one or more years of field experience, as well as individuals with
higher Ethnic Identity scores. The Nonethnic Ability subscale correlated significantly
with Experience, indicating that those who reported having one or more years of
experience in the field of mental health were associated with having higher Nonethnic
Ability.
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted for the Nonethnic Ability
subscale with Social Desirability entered in the first block where it was not a significant
covariate. Ethnicity was entered in the second block and was not a significant covariate.
Ethnic Identity and Experience were added in the third block, producing a statistically
significant prediction model, F(4, 133) = 2.18, p = .08, R2 = .06, Adjusted R2 = .03 as
seen in Table 3, with Experience as a significant predictor suggesting that individuals that
have one or more years of experience in the field of mental health report higher nonethnic
ability in working with culturally diverse clients than those without experience.
Note: * p < .05. ** p < .01.
8. Experience
7. Ethnic Identity
6. Social Desirability
5. Ethnicity
4. Sensitivity
3. Awareness
2. Knowledge
1. Nonethnic Ability
Variable
-
.700**
2
-
.234**
.163
3
-
.754**
.216*
.298**
4
Correlations of Variables in the Analysis of the Total Sample (N = 138)
Table 2
-
.066
.082
.230**
.086
5
-
.120
.160
.081
.036
.086
6
-
.133
.439**
.007
-.012
.247**
.115
7
-
-.038
-.062
.080
.051
.095
.194*
.198*
8
22
23
Table 3
Nonethnic Ability Hierarchical Regression Results for the Total Sample (N = 138)
Block
R2
1
.007
2
3
.013
.033
β
Pearson r
sr2
.09
.09
.01
.01
.08
.09
.01
.09
.10
.08
.09
.01
Constant
1.88
.26
Social Desirability
.01
.01
.08
.09
.01
Ethnicity
.02
.11
.01
.09
.00
Experience*
.23
.09
.21
.20
.04
Ethnic Identity
.10
.09
.11
.12
.01
Model
b
SE-b
Constant
2.30
.13
Social Desirability
.01
.01
Constant
2.20
.18
Social Desirability
.01
Ethnicity
Note: sr2 = squared semi-partial correlation.
* p < .05.
24
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted for the Knowledge subscale
with Social Desirability entered in the first block where it was not a significant covariate.
When Ethnicity was added in the second block, the prediction model was statistically
significant, F(2, 135) = 3.76, p = .03, R2 = .05, Adjusted R2 = .04 shown in Table 4. This
is to suggest that, when Social Desirability is held constant, those identified as Ethnic
Minorities/Multiracial were associated with higher knowledge than European Americans.
In the final block, the model increased in predictive power, F(4, 133) = 4.33, p = .003, R2
= .12, Adjusted R2 = .09 with Ethnic Identity and Experience both equally powerful
predictors. Generally, with all other variables in the analysis statistically controlled, those
with higher Ethnic Identity scores and those who report having one or more years of
experience report higher multicultural knowledge.
The results of the hierarchical regression analysis conducted for the Awareness
subscale are shown in Table 5. Social Desirability was entered in the first block as a
covariate, Ethnicity added in the second block, and Ethnic Identity and Experience added
together in the third block. None of the variables entered produced a significantly
predictive model.
The results of the hierarchical regression analysis conducted for the Sensitivity
subscale are shown in Table 6. Social Desirability was entered in the first block as a
covariate, Ethnicity added in the second block, and Ethnic Identity and Experience added
together in the third block. None of the variables entered produced a significantly
predictive model.
25
Table 4
Knowledge Hierarchical Regression Results for the Total Sample (N = 138)
β
Pearson r
sr2
.04
.04
.00
.01
.01
.04
.00
.26
.10
.23
.23
.05
Constant
1.73
.25
Social Desirability
.00
.01
.01
.04
.00
Ethnicity
.15
.10
.13
.23
.01
Experience*
.21
.09
.19
.19
.04
Ethnic Identity*
.19
.09
.20
.25
.03
Block
R2
Model
1
.00
2
3
.05
.12
b
SE-b
Constant
2.54
.13
Social Desirability
.00
.01
Constant
2.23
.17
Social Desirability
.00
Ethnicity**
Note: sr2 = squared semi-partial correlation.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
26
Table 5
Awareness Hierarchical Regression Results for the Total Sample (N = 138)
β
Pearson r
sr2
.08
.08
.01
.01
.07
.08
.01
.09
.11
.07
.08
.01
Constant
3.06
.29
Social Desirability
.01
.01
.08
.08
.01
Ethnicity
.11
.12
.09
.08
.01
Experience
.11
.10
.09
.09
.01
Ethnic Identity
-.06
.10
-.06
-.01
.00
Block
R2
Model
1
.01
2
3
.01
.02
b
SE-b
Constant
3.09
.14
Social Desirability
.01
.01
Constant
2.98
.19
Social Desirability
.01
Ethnicity
Note: sr2 = squared semi-partial correlation.
27
Table 6
Sensitivity Hierarchical Regression Results for the Total Sample (N = 138)
β
Pearson r
sr2
.16
.16
.03
.01
.16
.16
.02
.05
.09
.05
.07
.00
Constant
2.92
.23
Social Desirability
.01
.01
.16
.16
.03
Ethnicity
.06
.10
.06
.07
.00
Experience
.05
.08
.06
.05
.00
Ethnic Identity
-.03
.08
-.04
.01
.00
Block
R2
Model
1
.03
2
3
.03
.03
b
SE-b
Constant
2.94
.11
Social Desirability
.01
.01
Constant
2.88
.15
Social Desirability
.01
Ethnicity
Note: sr2 = squared semi-partial correlation.
28
Further Analysis
To corroborate initial findings against gender, identical hierarchical linear
regressions were conducted on the female subset of individuals with similar significance
findings.
To further investigate ethnicity effects on the primary analysis, subscale
regressions were run on the two subsets of individuals identified as European American
and Ethnic Minority/Multiracial.
A two-stage hierarchical linear regression was used to predict the levels of
Nonethnic Ability, Knowledge, Awareness, and Sensitivity within the European
American subset. Social Desirability was entered as a covariate in the first block. Ethnic
Identity and Experience were simultaneously entered into the second block.
The correlations of the variables are shown in Table 7. There were no significant
correlations between any of the CBMCS subscale scores and any of the independent
variables.
A two-stage hierarchical linear regression was used to predict the levels of
Nonethnic Ability, Knowledge, Awareness, and Sensitivity within the Ethnic
Minority/Multiracial subset via analyses identical to those conducted with the European
American subset.
The correlations of the variables are shown in Table 8. Significant correlations
were identified for both the Nonethnic Ability and Knowledge subscales with
Experience. Individuals reporting one or more years of experience were associated with
having more MC knowledge and nonethnic ability.
Note: ** p < .01.
7. Experience
6. Ethnic Identity
5. Social Desirability
4. Sensitivity
3. Awareness
2. Knowledge
1. Nonethnic Ability
Variable
-
.70**
2
-
.14
.11
3
-
.67**
.15
.29**
4
Correlations of Variables in the Subset Analysis: European American (N = 88)
Table 7
-
.16
.09
-.03
.10
5
-
.01
-.10
-.08
.13
.10
6
-
-.17
-.12
-.01
.04
.03
.02
7
29
Note: * p < .05. ** p < .01.
7. Experience
6. Ethnic Identity
5. Social Desirability
4. Sensitivity
3. Awareness
2. Knowledge
1. Nonethnic Ability
Variable
.71**
2
.33*
.22
3
.85**
.28*
.31*
4
5
.16
.04
.09
.03
Correlations of Variables in the Subset Analysis: Ethnic Minority/Multiracial (N = 50)
Table 8
.29*
.09
-.02
.24
.07
6
.12
.03
.12
.16
.44**
.50**
7
30
31
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with Nonethnic Ability subscale
scores as the dependent variable. Social Desirability was entered on the first block and
was not a significant covariate. When Ethnic Identity and Experience were added in the
second block, the prediction model was statistically significant, F(3, 46) = 5.24, p = .003,
R2 = .26, Adjusted R2 = .21, as seen in Table 9, with Experience predicting Nonethnic
Ability scores. Within the Ethnic Minority/Multiracial subset of individuals, when the
effects of Social Desirability are held constant, higher Nonethnic ability is associated
with having one or more years of mental health experience.
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with Knowledge subscale scores
as the dependent variable. Social Desirability was entered on the first block and was not a
significant covariate. Adding Ethnic Identity and Experience together to the second block
produced a statistically-significant prediction model, F(3, 46) = 4.60, p = .007, R2 = .23,
Adjusted R2 = .18, as seen in Table 10. Experience significantly predicts Knowledge
scores. When Social Desirability effects are held constant in this subset, higher
knowledge is associated with having one or more years of mental health experience.
32
Table 9
Nonethnic Ability Hierarchical Regression Results for Subset: E. Minority (N = 50)
Block
R2
Model
1
.00
2
.26
β
Pearson r
sr2
.03
.03
.00
.01
.02
.03
.00
.56
.14
.50
.50
.25
.00
.16
.00
.07
.00
b
SE-b
Constant
2.43
.26
Social Desirability
.00
.02
Constant
2.13
.52
Social Desirability
.00
Experience**
Ethnic Identity
Note: E. Minority = Ethnic Minority/Multiracial. sr2 = squared semi-partial correlation.
** p < .001.
33
Table 10
Knowledge Hierarchical Regression Results for Subset: E. Minority (N = 50)
Block
R2
Model
1
.01
2
.23
β
Pearson r
sr2
.09
.09
.01
.01
.03
.09
.00
.46
.14
.42
.44
.17
.22
.16
.19
.24
.03
b
SE-b
Constant
2.60
.26
Social Desirability
.01
.01
Constant
1.73
.52
Social Desirability
.00
Experience**
Ethnic Identity
Note: E. Minority = Ethnic Minority/Multiracial. sr2 = squared semi-partial correlation.
** p < .01.
34
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
The importance of multicultural (MC) counseling competence in the social
sciences and services industry is not disputed; MC competence guidelines have been in
existence for the American Psychological Association (APA, 2003) and others for some
years. Some of the difficulty in implementing rigorous standards for MC education in
training programs has been the ambiguity of definition and measurement to both
individually gauge student mastery, as well as to assess entire training programs (Sue et
al., 1992). In light of this, many researchers have stepped up to provide MC competence
measures (Ponterotto et al., 2002; Holcomb-McCoy, 2000; Sodowski et al., 1994;
D’Andrea et al., 1991; LaFromboise et al., 1991;) in an effort to address the significant
absence of an empirically reliable and valid inventory. Some of the shortcomings of these
measures are inherent to the process of their development: the reliance of self-report,
small sample sizes associated with individual training programs, low response rate from
counselors through their respective professional organizations, as well as the bias in
numbers toward counselors who are female and European American. Some of the
shortcomings in developing these measures are being overcome through rigorous
theoretical and empirical item creation and selection, and this study examined one such
inventory, the CBMCS.
Prior to data collection and analysis, several hypotheses were created out of
observation of the strengths of previous measures, to test the applicability of the CBMCS
35
subscales in a graduate student population against two very specific variables of interest:
Ethnic Identity as measured by the MEIM, and experience as measured quantitatively
through the demographic questionnaire.
The First Hypothesis
The first hypothesis was that experience would be positively correlated with the
four CBMCS subscale scores. The analysis found positive correlations with the
Nonethnic Ability and Knowledge subscales. Further analysis into this hypothesis broke
out some interesting distinctions. The primary analysis examined experience
categorically between those who reported having zero years of experience, and those who
reported having one or more years. This categorical breakdown was deemed suitable for
primary analysis, as respondents were split nearly 50/50 on this response, and within the
subset of individuals reported as having experience, years of experience was heavily
skewed toward the lower end. This observation is quite reasonably accounted for by the
in-training college sample.
With significant Ethnicity effects found in the preliminary examination, follow-up
analyses broke out two separate subsets of individuals to examine: those who responded
as being European American and those identified as being an Ethnic Minority or
Multiracial. The size of each of these two groups is relatively small, and the
interpretations are more provisional in nature.
Within the subset of individuals responding as European American, analyses were
conducted to examine the predictive value of Ethnic Identity and Experience on
multicultural competence subscale scores with no significant predictor variables
36
identified. The previously identified correlations seemed to have been washed out within
this group.
Examination of the subset of individuals responding as Ethnic
Minority/Multiracial was a contrast to the European American analysis. Much larger
variance was accounted for by the regression models in this subset for the Nonethnic
Ability and Knowledge subscales at 21% and 18% respectively with Experience being
the single significant predictor in both.
The positive correlations found with experience are consistent with the very plain
theoretical position that experience would generally lead to higher ability, competence,
knowledge and skills as determined to be relevant for any particular discipline. To posit
that the quality of having experience within a particular field should increase self-report
measures of competence within that field would be fairly unremarkable. The current
study acknowledges findings from the original work in developing the CBMCS and
attempts to look closer. Gamst and colleagues (2004) originally sampled individuals
ranging from high school to practicing doctoral level clinicians. Nearly two-thirds of the
sample used for the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was female, the average
age was over 37 years having an average of 10.51 years of experience in the field of
mental health. The current study samples individuals who are significantly younger
(mean age of 30.17 years old), with less experience in the field of mental health (half of
respondents reported zero years of experience, the mean number of years for the other
half was 3.47). Where Gamst and colleagues were able to report experience differences
by degree, unspecified by training program, the current study examines differences of the
37
quality of having any experience in the field for graduate students in the progress of
pursuing their degree. Experience differences in the current study on the Nonethnic
Ability subscale were significant, corroborating (as we qualitatively compare education
beyond high school with experience in the field of mental health) Gamst and colleagues’
observation that the lowest education category of their sample (high school) also scored
the lowest on this subscale. Gamst et al. (2004) also noted that doctorate and masters
level clinicians scored the highest on the Awareness of Cultural Barriers subscale. The
current study found no significant experience effects on this subscale, both in the primary
and subsequent analyses. This may be due to the fact that the current study is almost
exclusively limited to individuals with Bachelor’s degrees pursuing their Master’s degree
with little/no high school or doctoral candidates observed. It may also be that quality
differences between degree programs in general are more salient predictors of this
subscale than mental health experience. It may be a worthwhile continuation of this
research to examine a larger sample with a “years of experience” variable nested within a
variable of degree program.
The Second Hypothesis
The second hypothesis, that Ethnic Identity would have a positive correlation with
CBMCS subscales was tested via hierarchical regression and was significantly correlated
with the Knowledge subscale. Prior to the formulation of any conclusions, it is important
to take a closer look at the ethnicity subset analyses; one would expect to continue to find
significant Ethnic Identity effects within one or both of these subset analyses to reject the
null condition for this hypothesis. A quick review of the correlations identified in Table 2
38
shows a significant correlation between Ethnicity and Ethnic Identity – Ethnic
Minority/Multiracial respondents had higher Ethnic Identity scores than European
American respondents and so analysis on the total sample entered Ethnicity as a
covariate. Despite showing significant effects of Ethnic Identity on the Knowledge
subscale when controlling for Ethnicity, no significant effects of Ethnic Identity were
found in either the European American or the Ethnic Minority/Multiracial subsets. While
this doesn’t eliminate the possibility that Ethnic Identity provides significant predictive
power for subscale scores, that conclusion is outside of the ability of the current study to
defend.
The Third Hypothesis
The final hypothesis stated that Experience would be a stronger predictor of
multicultural competence than Ethnic Identity. In the total sample analysis, Experience
significantly predicted both Nonethnic Ability and Knowledge scores and Ethnic Identity
significantly predicted Knowledge scores. A look at the semi-partial correlations for the
Knowledge scores in Table 4 show that Experience alone accounted for four percent of
the variance in the total sample where Ethnic Identity accounted for three percent. While
this is certainly not a definitive margin, further analysis within the subset of Ethnic
Minority/Multiracial individuals seems to corroborate the notion that Experience is a
stronger predictor of Nonethnic Ability where it accounts for a much greater 25% and
17% of the variance for Nonethnic Ability and Knowledge, respectively. Ethnic Identity
in this subset did not surface as a significant predictor of either subscale.
39
Strengths, Weaknesses, and Further Study
The strengths of the current study are, in large part, inherited from the very strong
theoretical development and empirical testing of the CBMCS. The large sampling,
multiple testing groups, expert examination, and reliability of the measure are all
strengths of its development. The current study examines subjects from a single,
identified campus, which minimizes demographic confounds of geography, campusspecific subculture contributions (political, religious, socio-economical, public/private,
etc.), and training program variety. Subjects were almost exclusively pursuing a Master’s
degree in counseling, which served to focus the examination of experience in the current
study. Despite having a very homogenous sample with regards to education level and
geography, age and ethnicity were reasonably varied. Future research may capitalize on
these strengths across additional campuses, and with a larger sample, to delve even
further in describing both individual reports of multicultural competence, as well as
evaluate the efficacy of specific training programs.
Perhaps the largest weakness of the current study is the small sample size. Where
Ethnicity is broken out of the total sample analysis, the categorical European American
vs. Ethnic Minority/Multiracial division is a synthetic breakdown and a compromise to
sample size. To assume ethnic homogeneity within the Ethnic Minority/Multiracial
subset would be to paint dangerously broad strokes of interpretation over finer details of
ethnic minority differences. Another weakness derived from the sample size (at least in
part) is the categorical breakdown of the experience variable. Ideally, the distribution of
experience within the sample would allow for its examination as a continuous variable,
40
but given the nature of the sampled population (younger college students at a public
university) it is unlikely that a sufficiently experience-varied sample could be drawn.
Just as many of the strengths of the current study are passed from the
development and rigorous testing of the CBMCS, some of the weaknesses are also
shared. In the item pool for the CBMCS, Gamst and colleagues were unable to secure
permission from Sodowski to use her items and so were only able to use the MCI as a
validation tool. The liberal item elimination process in developing the CBMCS was
driven by a very strong statistical selection process and is justified, in lieu of a
frontloaded theoretical item development, because contributing measures presumably
used a theoretically-justified method in creating their items. The procedure of eliminating
items “if elimination of the item caused the alpha to increase” (Gamst et al., 2004, p. 16)
is also interpretable as an opportunistic way, in the absence of a content-based
disqualifier, to artificially raise reliability. While the authors did arrange for item
elimination via an expert panel, only the final round of 27 items was judged (where six
were eliminated).
Self-report measures as an entire category tie social desirability and clinician
subjectivity to inventory scores while amplifying test-retest effects when evaluating
individuals or training programs. Self-report scores of competence tend to be higher than
observer ratings (Cartwright, Daniels, & Zhang, 2008). To more accurately generalize
outcomes, and to provide greater interpretable findings, supervisor ratings and consumer
satisfaction would serve useful in corroborating self-report measures.
41
APPENDIX A
Background Information
1. Age:__________
2. Sex:
_____Female
_____Male
3. Ethnic Background:____________________
4. Current Graduate Training Program:
_____Master’s Program in Counseling or Marriage Family Therapy (MFT)
_____Master’s Program in Social Work
_____Doctoral Program in Counseling or Clinical Psychology
_____Doctoral Program in Social Work
_____Doctoral Internship or Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Counseling or Clinical
Psychology
_____Other (please describe):_________________________________________
5. Years of experience in the field of mental health since highest degree:__________
6. Have you had a graduate level course in multicultural mental health and
counseling/social work?
_____Yes
_____No
_____Currently taking
7. How many other graduate multicultural courses have you completed?__________
8. How many undergraduate multicultural courses have you completed?__________
9. How many workshops and/or training seminars on multicultural issues in mental
health outside of your degree program (e.g., work) have you taken?__________
10. Have you ever conducted, or were a research assistant for, a multicultural research
project?
_____Yes
_____No
42
11. Do you speak a language other than English well enough to provide mental health
services in that language?
_____Yes; please specify:______________________________
_____No
12. Were you born in the United States?
_____Yes
_____No
43
APPENDIX B
CBMCS
Below is a list of statements dealing with multicultural issues within a mental health
context. Please indicate the degree to which you agree with each statement by circling
the appropriate number.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
I am aware that being born a minority in
this society brings with it certain
challenges that White people do not have
to face.
I am aware of how my own values might
affect my client.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
I have an excellent ability to assess,
accurately, the mental health needs of
persons with disabilities.
I am aware of institutional barriers that
affect the client.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
I have an excellent ability to assess,
accurately, the mental health needs of
lesbians.
I have an excellent ability to assess,
accurately, the mental health needs of
older adults.
I have an excellent ability to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of
psychological tests in terms their use
with persons from different cultural,
racial, and/or ethnic backgrounds.
I am aware that counselors frequently
impose their own cultural values upon
minority clients.
My communication skills are appropriate
for my clients.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
10. I am aware that being born a White
person in this society carries with it
certain advantages.
(OVER)
44
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
11. I am aware of how my cultural
background and experiences have
influenced my attitudes about
psychological processes.
12. I have an excellent ability to critique
multicultural research.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
13. I have an excellent ability to assess,
accurately, the mental health needs of
men.
14. I am aware of institutional barriers that
may inhibit minorities from using mental
health services.
15. I can discuss, within a group, the
differences among ethnic groups (e.g.
low socioeconomic status (SES), Puerto
Rican client vs. high SES Puerto Rican
client).
16. I can identify my reactions that are based
on stereotypical beliefs about different
ethnic groups.
17. I can discuss research regarding mental
health issues and culturally different
populations.
18. I have an excellent ability to assess,
accurately, the mental health needs of
gay men.
19. I am knowledgeable of acculturation
models for various ethnic minority
groups.
20. I have an excellent ability to assess,
accurately, the mental health needs of
women.
21. I have an excellent ability to assess,
accurately, the mental health needs of
persons who come from very poor
socioeconomic backgrounds.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
45
APPENDIX C
M-C SDS Personal Reaction Inventory
Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read
each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you
personally. Circle either T for true or F for false.
T = True
F = False
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
7. I am always careful about my manner of dress.
8. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a
restaurant.
9. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was
not seen I would probably do it.
10. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something
because I thought too little of my ability.
11. I like to gossip at times.
12. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against
people in authority even though I knew they were right.
13. No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener.
14. I can remember “playing sick” to get out of doing
something.
15. There have been occasions when I took advantage of
someone.
16. I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake.
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
17. I always try to practice what I preach.
18. I don’t find it particularly difficult to get along with loud
mouthed, obnoxious people.
(OVER)
T
F
T
F
1. Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of
all the candidates.
2. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in
trouble.
3. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am
not encouraged.
4. I have never intensely disliked anyone.
5. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in
life.
6. I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way.
46
19. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget.
20. When I don’t know something I don’t at all mind admitting
it.
21. I am always courteous, even to people who are
disagreeable.
22. At times I have really insisted on having things my own
way.
23. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things.
24. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for
my wrongdoings.
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
25. I never resent being asked to return a favor.
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
29. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off.
T
F
30. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me.
T
F
31. I have never felt that I was punished without cause.
T
F
T
F
T
F
26. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very
different from my own.
27. I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my
car.
28. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good
fortune of others.
32. I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only
got what they deserved.
33. I have never deliberately said something that hurt
someone’s feelings.
47
APPENDIX D
MEIM
In this country, people come from a lot of different cultures and there are many different
words to describe the different backgrounds or ethnic groups that people come from.
Some examples of the names of ethnic groups are Mexican-American, Hispanic, Black,
Asian-American, American Indian, Anglo-American, and White. Every person is born
into an ethnic group, or sometimes two groups, but people differ on how important their
ethnicity is to them, how they feel about it, and how much their behavior is affected by it.
These questions are about your ethnicity or your ethnic group and how you feel about it
or react to it.
Please fill in:
In terms of ethnic group, I consider myself to be____________________
Use the numbers given below to indicate how much you agree or disagree with each
statement.
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Somewhat Disagree
3
Somewhat Agree
4
Strongly Agree
_____1.
I have spent time trying to find out more about my own ethnic group, such as its
history, traditions, and customs.
_____2.
I am active in organizations or social groups that include mostly members of my
own ethnic group.
_____3.
I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means for me.
_____4.
I like meeting and getting to know people from ethnic groups other than my own.
_____5.
I think a lot about how my life will be affected by my ethnic group membership.
_____6.
I am happy that I am a member of the group I belong to.
_____7.
I sometimes feel it would be better if different ethnic groups didn’t try to mix
together.
_____8.
I am not very clear about the role of my ethnicity in my life.
_____9.
I often spend time with people from ethnic groups other than my own.
_____10.
I really have not spent much time trying to learn more about the culture and history
of my ethnic group.
(OVER)
48
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Somewhat Disagree
3
Somewhat Agree
4
Strongly Agree
_____11.
I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group.
_____12.
I understand pretty well what my ethnic group membership means to me, in terms of
how to relate to my own group and other groups.
_____13.
In order to learn more about my ethnic background, I have often talked to other
people about my ethnic group.
_____14.
I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group and its accomplishments.
_____15.
I don’t try to become friends with people from other ethnic groups.
_____16.
I participate in cultural practices of my own group, such as special food, music or
customs.
_____17.
I am involved in activities with people from other ethnic groups.
_____18.
I feel a strong attachment towards my own ethnic group.
_____19.
I enjoy being around people from ethnic groups other than my own.
_____20.
I feel good about my cultural or ethnic background.
Write in the number that gives the best answer to each question.
_____21.
My ethnicity is
(1) Asian or Asian American
(2) Black or African American
(3) Hispanic or Latino
(4) White, Caucasian, European, not Hispanic
(5) American Indian
(6) Mixed; parents are from two different groups
(7) Other (please write in):____________________
_____22.
My father’s ethnicity is (use numbers from above)
_____23.
My mother’s ethnicity is (use numbers from above)
49
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education,
training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists.
American Psychologist, 58, (5), 377-402. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.377
Burnett, J. A., Hamel, D., & Long, L. L. (2004). Service learning in graduate counselor
education: Developing multicultural counseling competency. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 180-191.
Carney, C. G., & Kahn, K. B. (1984). Building competencies for effective cross-cultural
counseling: A developmental view. The Counseling Psychologist, 12, 111-119.
doi:10.1177/0011000084121010
Cartwright, B. Y., Daniels, J., & Zhang, S. (2008). Assessing multicultural competence:
Perceived versus demonstrated performance. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 86, 318-322.
Chandra, K. (2005). What is Ethnic Identity and does it matter? Retrieved March 3, 2009,
from New York University Web site:
www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/chandra/ars2005.pdf
Chao, R. (2006). Counselors’ multicultural competencies: Race, training, ethnic identity,
and color-blind racial attitudes. In G. R. Waltz and R. Yep (Eds.), VISTAS:
Perspectives on counseling 2006 (pp. 73-76). Alexander, VA: American
Counseling Association.
50
Constant, A., Gataullina, L., & Zimmerman, K. F. (2006). Ethnosizing immigrants.
Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA): Discussion Paper No. 2040.
Constantine, M. G. (2000). Social desirability attitudes, sex, and affective and cognitive
empathy as predictors of self-reported multicultural counseling competence. The
Counseling Psychologist, 28(6), 857-872. doi:10.1177/0011000000286008
Constantine, M. G., Ladany, N. (2000). Self-report multicultural counseling competence
scales: Their relation to social desirability attitudes and multicultural case
conceptualization ability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(2), 155-164.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.47.2.155
Crino, M. D., Svoboda, M., Rubenfeld, S., & White, M. C. (1983). Data on the MarloweCrowne and Edwards social desirability scales. Psychological Reports, 53, 963968.
Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs. (1989). Towards a culturally competent
system of care volume 1. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child
Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
doi:10.1037/h0047358
D'Andrea, M., Daniels, J., & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating the impact of multicultural
counseling training. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 143-150.
Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the Life Cycle: Volume 1. Madison, CT. International
Universities Press Inc.
51
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York, NY. W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc.
Evans, K. M., & Larrabee, M. J. (2002). Teaching the multicultural counseling
competencies and revised career counseling competencies simultaneously.
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30, 21-39.
Fearon, J. & Laitin (2000). Violence and the social contruction of ethnic identity.
International Organization 54, 4 (Autumn 2000), 845-877.
doi:10.1162/002081800551398
Felix-Ortiz, M., Newcomb, M., & Myers, H. (1994). A multidimensional measure of
cultural identity for Latino and Latina adolescents. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 16, 99-116.
Gamst, G., Dana, R. H., Der-Karabetian, A., Aragon, M., Arellano, L., Morrow, G.,
Martenson, L. (2004). Cultural competency revised: The California Brief
Multicultural Competence Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 37, 163-183.
Green, J.W. (1995). Cultural Awareness in the Human Services: A Multi-Ethnic
Approach 2rd Ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Holcomb-McCoy, C. C. (2000). Multicultural counseling competencies: An exploratory
factor analysis. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 28, 83-97.
Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. (1989). Three common social desirability scales: Friends,
aquaintances, or strangers? Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 180-191.
doi:10.1016/0092-6566(89)90022-6
52
Horowitz, D. (1985). Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
LaFromboise, T. D., Coleman, H. L., & Hernandez, A. (1991). Development and factor
structure of the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 380-388. doi:10.1037/07357028.22.5.380
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558. doi:10.1037/h0023281
Munley, P.H., Lidderdale, M.A., Thiagarajan, M., Null, U. (2004). Identity development
and multicultural competency. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 32, 283-295.
Neighbors, H. W., Bashshur, R., Price, R., Donavedian, A., Selig, S., & Shannon, G.
(1992). Ethnic minority health service delivery: A review of the literature.
Research in Community and Mental Health, 7, 55-71.
Ottavi, T. M., Pope-Davis, D. B., & Dings, J. G. (1994). Relationship between White
racial identity attitudes and self-reported multicultural counseling competencies.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41(2), 149-154.
Parham, T. A., & Helms, J. E. (1981). Influences on Black students' racial identity
attitudes on preferences for counselor race. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
28, 250-256. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.28.3.250
Phinney, J. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents.
The Journal of Early Adolescence, 9(1-2), 34-49.
doi:10.1177/0272431689091004
53
Phinney, J. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with
adolescent and young adults from diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 7, 156-176. doi:10.1177/074355489272003
Phinney, J. (2001). The multigroup ethnic identity measure (MEIM). Retrieved from
www.calstatela.edu/academic/psych/ftp/meim.doc
Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic
identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
54, 271-281. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.271
Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgement of the Child. London. Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trubner and Co.
Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York, NY. International
University Press. doi:10.1037/11494-000
Ponterotto, J. G., & Alexander, C. M. (1996). Assessing the multicultural competence of
counselors and clinicians. In L. A. Suzuki, P. J. Meller, & J. G. Ponterotto (Eds.),
Handbook of multicultural assessment (pp. 651-672). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ponterotto, J. G., Gretchen, D., Utsey, S. O., Rieger, B. P., & Austin, R. (2002). A
revision of the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30, 153-180.
54
Pope-Davis, D. B., Liu, W. M., Nevitt, J., & Toporek, R. L. (2000). The development and
initial validation of the Multicultural Environmental Inventory: A preliminary
investigation. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6, 57-64.
doi:10.1037/1099-9809.6.1.57
Sodowsky, G. R., Kuo-Jacksom, P. Y., Richardson, M. F., & Corey, A. T. (1998).
Correlates of self-reported multicultural competencies: Counselor multicultural
social desirability, race, social inadequacy, locus of control racial ideology, and
multicultural training. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 256-264.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.45.3.256
Sodowsky, G. R., Taffe, R. C., Gutkin, T. B., & Wise, L. L. (1994). Development of the
Multicultural Counseling Inventory: A self-report measure of multicultural
competencies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 137-148.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.41.2.137
Sodowski, G. R. (1996). The Multicultural Counseling Inventory: Validity and
applications in multicultural training. In G. R. Sodowski & J. C. Impara (Eds.),
Multicultural Assessment in Counseling and Clinical Psychology (pp. 283-324).
Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling
competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 20, 64-88.
55
Sue, D. W., Bernier, Y., Durran, A., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P. B., Smith, E. J., &
Vasquez-Nuttal, E. (1982). Position paper: Cross-cultural counseling
competencies. The Counseling Psychologist, 10, 45-52.
doi:10.1177/0011000082102008
Tanaka-Matsumi, J., & Kameoka, V. A. (1986). Reliabilities and concurrent validities of
popular self-report measures of depression, anxiety, and social desirability.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 328-333.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.54.3.328
Tokar, D. M., & Swanson, J. L. (1991). An investigation on the validity of Helms's
(1984) model of White racial identity development. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38(3), 296-301. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.38.3.296
U.S. Census Bureau, 2008, “An Older and More Diverse Nation by Midcentury,”
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/releases/archives/population/012496.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Mental Health: Culture, race,
and ethnicity – a supplement to mental health: A report of the Surgeon General.
Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, Office of the Surgeon General.
Vinson, T. S. & Neimeyer, G. J. (2000). The relationship between racial identity
development and multicultural counseling competency. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 28(3), 177-192.
56
Vinson, T. S. & Neimeyer, G. J. (2003). The relationship between racial identity
development and multicultural counseling competency: A second look. Jounal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31(4), 262-277.