Predictors of Observer Ratings of Multicultural Counseling Competence in Black, Latino, and White American Trainees

Transcription

1 Journal of Counseling Psychology 2001, Vol. 48, No. 4, Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc /01/$5.00 DOI: // Predictors of Observer Ratings of Multicultural Counseling Competence in Black, Latino, and White American Trainees Madonna G. Constantine Teachers College, Columbia University Using transcribed intake sessions of 52 counselor-client dyads, this study explored the relative contributions of (a) counselor and client race or ethnicity, (b) counselor-client racial or ethnic match, (c) previous academic training in multicultural counseling, and (d) self-reported multicultural counseling competence to observer ratings of trainees' multicultural counseling competence. Results revealed that (a) Black American and Latino American counselor trainees were rated as more multiculturally competent than their White American peers, and (b) prior multicultural training was positively predictive of observer-rated multicultural counseling competence. Implications of the findings for counselor training and practice are presented. Sue and his colleagues' (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992; Sue et al., 1982) seminal work on the multicultural competencies of counselors has been widely endorsed in the field of counseling psychology. In general, multiculturally competent counselors are believed to possess appropriate attitudes and beliefs, knowledge, and skills in working with diverse cultural populations. The multicultural counseling competencies have also served as the catalyst for the development of several self-report measures to assess multicultural counseling competence, including (a) the Multicultural Awareness/Knowledge/Skills Survey (D'Andrea, Daniels, & Heck, 1991), (b) the Multicultural Counseling Inventory (MCI; Sodowsky, Taffe, Gutkin, & Wise, 1994), and (c) the Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (Ponterotto, Gretchen, Utsey, Rieger, & Austin, 2000) previously known as the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale-Form B (Ponterotto et al., 1996). A fourth multicultural scale, the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised (CCCI-R; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Hernandez, 1991), was developed for third-party use in evaluating counselors' multicultural competence. Several researchers have examined self-perceived multicultural counseling competence in relation to criterion evaluations of multicultural counseling competence. In one such study, Ladany, Inman, Constantine, and Hofheinz (1997) found no significant relationship between one self-report measure of multicultural counseling competence and counselors' multicultural case conceptualization ability (i.e., counselors' ability to identify and integrate racial and cultural factors into their conceptualizations of clients' problems). In their study, multicultural case conceptualization ability was presumed to reflect an aspect of demonstrated multi- Special thanks to the practicum trainees, clients, and clinic personnel who participated in the study. I also thank Jim Corter, who provided valuable statistical consultation, and members of my research team (especially the transcribers and raters) who assisted with this project. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Madonna G. Constantine, Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 West 120th Street, Box 92, New York, New York Electronic mail may be sent to mcsj6@coiumbia.edu. cultural counseling competence. In an extension of the aforementioned investigation, Constantine and Ladany (2000), after accounting for potential social desirability attitudes of the respondents, reported nonsignificant relationships between four self-report multicultural counseling competence instruments and multicultural case conceptualization ability. However, a potential limitation of studies using multicultural case conceptualization indices is that "academic" multicultural conceptualizations are still somewhat removed from the demonstration of multicultural skills in actual counseling situations. In an innovative investigation examining the relationship between self-perceived and observer-rated multicultural counseling competence, Worthington, Mobley, Franks, and Tan (2000) found that there was little relationship between these two constructs. A primary limitation of their study, however, was that the analogue situation to which counselor participants were exposed may not have elicited behaviors that reflected their responses in real-life counseling scenarios. Other limitations of Worthington et al.'s study included their failure to take into account the roles of formal multicultural counseling training and counselor race or ethnicity when examining correlates of observer-rated multicultural counseling competence. In previous investigations, both prior multicultural training and race or ethnicity have been found to be consistently predictive of counselors' self-reported abilities to work with culturally diverse clients (e.g., Constantine, Juby, & Liang, 2001; Neville et al., 1996; Ottavi, Pope-Davis, & Dings, 1994; Pope- Davis, Reynolds, Dings, & Nielson, 1995; Pope-Davis, Reynolds, Dings, & Ottavi, 1994; Sodowsky, Kuo-Jackson, Richardson, & Corey, 1998; Sodowsky et al., 1994). In many of these studies, counselors of color have tended to report greater levels of multicultural counseling competence than their White American counterparts, and higher levels of multicultural training have been associated with greater self-perceived multicultural counseling competence. There is a need for research that examines multicultural counseling competence through observational methods involving actual counseling situations. No published study to date has evaluated the relationship between self-reported and observer-rated multicultural counseling competence using data from real counseling sessions. 456

2 MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING COMPETENCE 457 Hence, a primary goal of this investigation was to explore the relationship between practicum trainees' self-perceived multicultural counseling competence and observer ratings of their multicultural counseling competence using transcribed data from counseling intake situations. Moreover, because prior multicultural training and counselor race or ethnicity have been noted previously as significant predictors of self-perceived multicultural counseling competence, this study examined these variables in relation to observer ratings of practicum trainees' multicultural counseling competence. In addition, it is possible that counselors' and clients' racial or ethnic background in consort might affect the degree to which some counselors are viewed as demonstrating multiculturally competent behavior (e.g., similarity in client and counselor cultural background may contribute to increased interpersonal comfort and, subsequently, to greater multicultural counseling successes). Thus, this study also explored counselor and client racial or ethnic background, along with counselor-client racial or ethnic match (i.e., similarity or dissimilarity in counselor-client racial or ethnic background). Two main hypotheses guided this investigation. First, previous multicultural training, counselor and client race or ethnicity, and counselor-client racial or ethnic match would contribute significant variance to observer ratings of counselor trainees' multicultural counseling competence. In particular, higher amounts of prior multicultural training would be positively associated with observer-rater multicultural counseling competence. Moreover, trainees of color would be rated as more multiculturally competent than their White American peers. No specific hypothesis was offered about the relationship between observer-rated multicultural counseling competence and client race or ethnicity and counselorclient racial or ethnic match. In light of previous investigations that reported little or no relation between self- and other-rated multicultural counseling competence (e.g., Constantine & Ladany, 2000; Ladany et al., 1997; Worthington et al., 2000), the second hypothesis was that counselor trainees' self-reported multicultural counseling competence would not contribute significant variance to observer-rated multicultural counseling competence beyond the variance already explained by counselor and client race or ethnicity, counselor-client racial or ethnic match, and previous multicultural training. Participants Method Counselor trainees. Counselor trainee participants were 52 (29 with MA or MS degrees and 23 with BA or BS degrees) graduate students who were matriculating in either a doctoral or a master's academic training program located in the northeast region of the United States. This sample of students was composed of 38 (73%) women and 14 (27%) men who ranged in age from 22 to 44 years (M = 29.77, SD = 6.07). The racial and ethnic composition of the students was as follows: 31 (60%) White Americans, 11 (21%) Latino Americans, and 10 (19%) Black Americans. These trainees reported a mean of months (SD = 31.72; mode = 12; range = 0 120) of counseling experience, and most of them (92%) reported having taken at least one course related to multicultural or crosscultural counseling issues. Clients. Because multicultural competence scales primarily assess counselors' competence in working with people of color (Constantine & Ladany, 2000), and in order to ensure some consistency across demographic characteristics, only clients of color were chosen to participate in the study. The 52 participating clients were 41 (79%) women and 11 (21 %) men, with a mean age of years (SD = 8.60, range = 18-57). By race or ethnicity, 32 (62%) of the clients self-identified as Black American, 15 (29%) as Latino American, 4 (8%) as Asian American, and 1 (2%) as Biracial American. Only 2 of these clients reported having previously sought counseling, having attended a mean number of 3.50 (SD =.71) sessions. By demography, the average percentage of female clients who frequented the clinic was 74%, and nearly 70% of the clinic's clients tended to self-identify as persons of color. Instruments Demographic questionnaire. Counselor trainee participants were asked to indicate their race or ethnicity, sex, age, highest degree earned, total months of counseling experience, and the number of formal courses they had taken previously related to cross-cultural or multicultural issues. MCI (Sodowsky et al., 1994). The MCI is a 40-item, 4-point Likerttype scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 4 (very accurate) that assesses several of the proposed multicultural counseling competencies identified by Sue et al. (1982) and Sue et al. (1992). It consists of four subscales measuring Multicultural Counseling Awareness (10 items, possible range of scores = 10-40), Multicultural Counseling Knowledge (11 items, possible range of scores = 11-44), Multicultural Counseling Skills (11 items, possible range of scores = 11-44), and Multicultural Counseling Relationship (8 items, possible range of scores = 8-32). MCI total scale scores range from 40 to 160. The MCI Awareness subscale assesses issues such as multicultural sensitivity, multicultural interactions and experiences, general cultural understanding, and multicultural advocacy. The Knowledge subscale consists of items that measure phenomena such as multicultural case conceptualization and treatment strategies and knowledge of cultural information. The Skills subscale is comprised of items assessing multicultural and general counseling skills. Finally, the Relationship subscale includes items measuring aspects of counselors' interpersonal processes with racial and ethnic minority clients. The MCI (Sodowsky et al., 1994) was chosen for use in this study because it has been identified as one of the most widely used and validated self-report multicultural competence scales (Pope-Davis & Dings, 1995). Moreover, it has been found to have adequate construct validity, favorable criterion-related validity, and good content validity (Pope-Davis & Dings, 1995). On the basis of findings from previous investigations, a mean Cronbach's alpha of.87 has been reported for the entire MCI scale, and mean Cronbach's alphas of.78,.77,.80, and.68 have been reported for the Awareness, Knowledge, Skills, and Relationship subscales, respectively (Sodowsky et al., 1998). In this investigation, the following Cronbach's alphas were computed:.89 for the entire MCI scale,.78 for the Awareness subscale,.83 for the Knowledge subscale,.73 for the Skills subscale, and.68 for the Relationship subscale. CCCI-R (LaFromboise et al, 1991). The CCCI-R is a 20-item, 6-point Likert-type instrument ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) designed for third-party assessment of cross-cultural counseling competence. It is a unifactor scale that was developed on the basis of the cross-cultural counseling competencies identified by the Education and Training Committee of Division 17 of the American Psychological Association (Sue et al., 1982). The CCCI R is composed of items representing three areas: cross-cultural counseling skill, sociopolitical awareness, and cultural sensitivity. CCCI-R scores range from 20 to 120, and the CCCI-R is reported to have good content, construct, and criterion-related validity (LaFromboise et al., 1991; Sabnani & Ponterotto, 1992). A coefficient alpha of.95 was noted in the CCCI-R's validation sample (La- Fromboise et al., 1991).

3 458 CONSTANTINE Procedures Trainee participants were recruited through a community counseling training clinic headed by a PhD, licensed counseling psychologist. The clinic served as an in-house practicum site for students in the master's and doctoral counselor training programs. All of the counselor participants were completing a required practicum course through the clinic at the time of the study. The counselor trainees were asked to participate in a two-part research project examining their ability to conduct a standard intake assessment with various types of clients. All interested participants signed a consent form. In order not to cue participants to the research intent, the intake sessions were audiotaped prior to the administration of the survey packet. In the first part of the investigation, practicum counselors were randomly assigned to see one client who sought mental health counseling for a 45-min audiotaped intake session. The types of issues typically represented by clients who present for mental health treatment at the training clinic include mood, anxiety, adjustment, and personality disorders as discussed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). As is the typical procedure in the training clinic, all potential clients undergo a brief telephone screening by the clinic's director to assess the nature and severity of their presenting concerns. Clients are also notified during the phone screening that their counseling sessions are audiotaped because their counselors are supervised trainees. After clients' concerns are identified in a preliminary manner during the screening, they are contacted to schedule an intake appointment when an opening becomes available. Clients are generally scheduled for an intake session with a counselor within 2 weeks of their phone screening. Clients who were contacted to schedule their intake appointments were asked to participate in the study. They were told that the primary purpose of the investigation was to evaluate their counselors' ability to conduct a standard intake assessment with various types of clients. Clients were also informed that their choice to participate would not affect their status to receive any of the services offered by the clinic. Three clients refused to participate in the study and were referred to nonparticipating practicum counselors for their intake session. The clients who chose to participate signed a consent form. To maintain some level of consistency across presenting concerns, only clients who presented with some type of DSM-IV adjustment disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), as determined by the counseling psychologist who conducted the brief phone assessments, were selected for inclusion in the study. Of the 52 counseling dyads, 9 (17%) were composed of clients and counselors with similar racial or ethnic backgrounds. Specifically, 7 of the counselor-client dyads were Black American and the remaining 2 were Latino American. After the intake session was completed, clients were debriefed individually by research assistants and were provided with an opportunity to ask questions or to learn additional information about the investigation. No monetary incentives were given to clients for their participation. In the second half of the research study, after the audiotaped intake session, practicum counselors were asked to complete a survey packet consisting of a brief demographic questionnaire and the MCI. After completing the questionnaires, the practicum counselors were debriefed individually. No financial incentives were given to the trainees for their participation in the study. To ensure anonymity, participants were assigned a code number that was used to match their completed survey packet with the audiotaped intake session and the subsequent transcribed session. The intake sessions were transcribed in order to mask the trainees' race or ethnicity so as not to somehow bias the raters. Four advanced master's students in counseling transcribed the audiotaped intake sessions, and 2 of these students checked the transcriptions for accuracy. Two advanced doctoral students in counseling psychology with expertise in multicultural counseling issues served as raters in the present study. In particular, the raters had had extensive exposure to multicultural counseling issues through didactic, clinical, and research experiences. Using the CCCI-R, the two raters evaluated the counselor trainees' multicultural counseling competence after reading each transcribed session at least twice. The evaluators were trained for nearly 15 hr in the coding of the CCCI-R and were not aware of the research hypotheses. They practiced coding the CCCI-R on a sample of five transcribed intake sessions that were collected as part of a pilot study to the current investigation. They then independently read and rated each of the transcribed intake sessions used in the present study. The coders' evaluations of the trainees' multicultural counseling competence were compared after they completed all of their ratings. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the two raters was Preliminary Analyses Results Dummy codes were created to examine the relationships between the categorical variables and the continuous variables under study. Specifically, two dummy codes were created for the counselor race or ethnicity variable, with White American counselor trainees coded as zero (the constant). Three dummy codes were created for the client race or ethnicity variable, with Black American clients serving as the constant. One dummy code was created for the counselor-client racial or ethnic match variable, with the culturally dissimilar dyads coded as zero (the constant). The means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the variables studied are displayed in Table 1. Because of the multicollinearity of the MCI subscales, the full-scale score of the MCI (as opposed to the four individual subscales) was used as the index of selfreported multicultural counseling competence. A 3 (counselor race or ethnicity) X 2 (sex) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted (p =.05) to determine whether trainees differed significantly with regard to the number of previous months of counseling experience, prior multicultural counseling coursework, MCI full-scale scores, and CCCI-R scores. No significant interaction effects were found, Pillai's trace =.14, F(8, 88) = 0.84, p >.05. Moreover, no significant main effect differences by sex were revealed, Pillai's trace =.07, F(4,43) = 0.76, p >.05. However, main effect differences by race or ethnicity were found, Pillai's trace =.72, F(8, 88) = 6.21, p <.001. Follow-up univariate tests by race or ethnicity revealed significant differences on the multicultural coursework variable, F(2, 46) = 12.65, p <.001, and the CCCI-R variable, F(2, 46) = 37.35, p <.001. Examination of the means using Tukey's honestly significant difference tests indicated that Black American (M = 1.90, SD = 0.74) and Latino American (M = 1.82, SD = 0.40) practicum trainees reported greater amounts of formal multicultural counseling training than did their White American (M = 0.97, SD = 0.48) peers. Furthermore, Black American (M = , SD = 6.85) and Latino American (M = , SD = 7.89) practicum trainees were rated as having higher CCCI-R scores than were White American (M = 70.35, SD = 12.73) trainees. Because of these significant differences, counselor race or ethnicity was included as an independent variable in the main analysis. Prior to the main analysis, a power analysis was conducted to determine whether the sample size of 52 was sufficient to detect differences should they exist. Results indicated that an effect size of at least/ 2 =.35 could be detected with five predictor variables, a =.05, power =.89.

4 MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING COMPETENCE 459 f g K S3 S 2 8 r 2 S g SfJ 3 i I I I - O O H en p ~-; r r r i i i i i i i i q ss # # O VI *""" ^ O\ 00 V^ i O O O O ^"t ro <S S r r i' r ' ' r i i i * * * * 11 SI II 1-H W Main Analysis A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted using the CCCI-R ratings as the criterion variable. In the first step of the equation, both counselor and client race or ethnicity were entered. Counselor-client racial or ethnic match was entered into the second step of the regression equation. The number of prior multicultural counseling courses taken was entered into the third step of the hierarchical regression analysis, and the full-scale scores of the MCI were entered into the fourth step. Table 2 provides a summary of the hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting the CCCI-R ratings. The counselor and client race or ethnicity variables as a whole contributed significant variance to CCCI-R ratings, F(5, 46) = 19.83, p <.001; R 2 =.68 (adjusted R 2 =.65). However, only counselor race or ethnicity contributed unique variance to the CCCI-R ratings in that Black American and Latino American counselor trainees were rated as having higher levels of multicultural counseling competence than were White American trainees. In the next step of the equation, counselor-client racial or ethnic match did not contribute significant variance to observer-rated multicultural counseling competence, R 2 change =.01, F(6, 45) change = 0.93, p >.05, R 2 =.69 (adjusted R 2 =.65). In the third step of the regression analysis, the number of previous multicultural counseling courses accounted for significant variance in CCCI-R ratings, R 2 change =.08, F(4, 44) change = 15.29, p <.001, R 2 =.77 (adjusted R 2 =.73). In particular, higher levels of multicultural counseling training were associated with greater observer-rated multicultural counseling competence. In the final step of the hierarchical regression analysis, MCI full-scale scores contributed significant variance to CCCI-R ratings, R 2 change =.03, F(8, 43) change = 6.59, p <.05, R 2 =.80 (adjusted R 2 =.76). However, it is important to note that the nonsignificant relationship between the MCI full-scale scores and the CCCI-R ratings in Table 1 (r =.03) and the standardized beta weight of -.19 in this step of the equation suggest that this finding is an artifact of suppression. Thus, it should not be interpreted as a substantive result. The entire regression model, consisting of counselor and client race or ethnicity, counselor-client racial or ethnic match, previous academic training in multicultural counseling, and self-reported multicultural counseling competence, accounted for 80% of the variance in CCCI-R ratings. Discussion 1 3 CO i c s s s-i if "S! g S B < «55 o2 T ^ UUOuDnU SSSSSuS U This study examined the contributions of counselor and client race or ethnicity, counselor-client racial or ethnic match, previous academic training in multicultural counseling, and self-reported multicultural counseling competence in predicting observer-rated multicultural counseling competence. Results revealed that counselor race or ethnicity contributed unique significant variance to CCCI-R ratings. In particular, Black American and Latino American counselor trainees were rated as significantly more multiculturally competent than their White American peers. These findings parallel the results of several previous studies that indicated that counselors of color generally perceive themselves to possess higher levels of multicultural counseling competence than White American counselors (e.g., Pope-Davis et al., 1995; Sodowsky et al., 1994, 1998). In the present study, it is also possible that Black

5 460 CONSTANTINE Table 2 Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting CCCI-R Ratings Variable B SEB t Step 1 Counselor race or ethnicity Black Americans versus other Latino Americans versus other Client race or ethnicity Latino Americans versus other Asian Americans versus other Biracial Americans versus other Step 2 Counselor-client racial or ethnic match Step 3 MC courses Step 4 MCI full-scale scores ** 7.40** ** -2.57* Note. CCCI-R = Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised (LaFromboise et al., 1991); MC courses = number of formal multicultural counseling courses previously taken; MCI = Multicultural Counseling Inventory (Sodowsky et al., 1994). Total R 2 =.80. *p<,05. **/><.001. American and Latino American trainees were rated as better able to display multiculturally competent behavior than were White American trainees because of the potential salience of racial and ethnic issues in their lives, especially as members of numerical minority groups. This investigation was the first of its kind to consider and assess the effects of counselor and client racial or ethnic "match" (i.e., similarity or dissimilarity in counselor-client racial or ethnic background) in relation to observer ratings of multicultural counseling competence. Results indicated that, after accounting for counselor and client race or ethnicity, racial or ethnic matching did not contribute significant variance to CCCI-R ratings. These initial findings may be somewhat disconcordant with existing literature in the area of client preferences for counselors. That is, although previous studies have reported consistent and strong preferences of racial and ethnic minority clients for racially and ethnically similar counselors (Atkinson & Lowe, 1995), the present study's results suggest that counselor-client racial or ethnic similarity may not necessarily reflect multicultural counseling effectiveness. Although this study may provide some preliminary evidence in this regard, it is crucial to underscore that some clients of color may still express preferences for a racially or ethnically similar counselor because they expect the counselor to share similar cultural values or life experiences and, as a result, have a better understanding of their concerns. Hence, for some clients of color, it may be more important to work with a racially or ethnically similar counselor than to work with a White American counselor who is comparatively more multiculturally competent. This issue appears to be a complicated one, and future research is needed to clarify the relationships among client preferences for counselors, counselorclient matching, and multicultural counseling competence. After controlling for counselor and client race or ethnicity and counselor-client racial or ethnic match, results indicated that the number of formal multicultural counseling courses taken contributed significant positive variance to CCCI-R ratings. In many prior studies, participation in multicultural training activities has been linked to therapists' self-reported multicultural counseling competence (e.g., Constantine et al., 2001; Neville et al., 1996; Ottavi et al., 1994; Pope-Davis et al., 1994,1995; Sodowsky et al., 1994, 1998). The present study's findings provide support for the importance of multicultural training courses in exposing counselors to cultural issues regarding various populations. In particular, it appears that such training may be critical in helping counselor trainees to consider important cultural variables in their work with clients and, subsequently, to more effectively meet the mental health needs of culturally diverse individuals. Results revealed no meaningful relationship between counselor trainees' self-reported multicultural counseling competence, as measured by the MCI full-scale score, and observer ratings of their multicultural competence. In their analogue studies, Constantine and Ladany (2000) found no significant relationship between selfand other ratings of multicultural counseling competence, and Worthington et al. (2000) found very limited support for the association between self-reported and observer-rated multicultural counseling competence. Although the relationship between these constructs needs to be explored further in future investigations, the present study's findings suggest that self-reported and observerrated multicultural counseling competence may be two theoretically divergent constructs. This study's findings have several implications for the training and practice of culturally competent counselors and counseling psychologists. One such implication relates to the importance of training programs identifying ways to help future counselors more effectively address multicultural issues in the lives of culturally diverse individuals. Formal multicultural training may be one mechanism by which this goal may be achieved, and types of activities that might be fruitful in this regard include (a) didactic assignments that focus on the development of knowledge about a wide range of multicultural issues and (b) participation in experiential exercises that are designed to increase counselors' awareness of themselves and others as multicultural beings. In particular, self-awareness seems to be a critical factor in helping trainees and counselors to better understand how aspects of their cultural group

6 MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING COMPETENCE 461 memberships may affect their relationships and work with various types of clients (Constantine & Ladany, 2001). A possible implication of the study's findings for counselor practice is that matching counselors and clients by race or ethnicity may not necessarily result in greater counseling successes or outcomes. That is, although clients of color may express preferences for racially or ethnically similar counselors, such preferences do not diminish the importance of considering other phenomena when determining therapeutic pairings, such as counselors' demonstrated competence in working with diverse groups. For example, it may be far more effective for an Asian American client to work with a multiculturally competent White American counselor than to work with a far less multiculturally competent Asian American counselor. Furthermore, similarities and differences in counselors' and clients' values, worldviews, personality characteristics, and racial identity attitudes, to name a few, may represent additional considerations in matching counselors and clients. As an example, a Black American client who operates primarily from less developed racial identity attitudes (e.g., idealization of White culture with the concurrent denigration of Black culture) may not necessarily experience a comfortable rapport with a Black American counselor who functions primarily from more advanced racial identity attitudes (e.g., having an appreciation for all types of racial and ethnic cultures). This example further illustrates that such pairings may have profound effects on various types of counseling processes and outcomes. Another potential implication of the study's findings for both counselor training and practice relates to the importance of including behaviorally based methods of assessing multicultural counseling competence, as opposed to relying exclusively on self-report measures. In particular, Constantine and Ladany (2000) noted that self-report multicultural instruments may be measuring a type of "multicultural counseling self-efficacy" because they tend to tap respondents' beliefs related to providing services to multicultural populations, as opposed to their actual abilities to counsel diverse populations. Thus, the use of more valid procedures for evaluating demonstrated multicultural counseling competence may be necessary to more precisely determine trainees' and counselors' ability to work effectively with culturally diverse clients. This study's findings should be considered in light of several limitations associated with the research design. First, the relatively small numbers of participants in this study may have detracted from the power of some analyses to detect statistical significance. A second potential limitation of the investigation is that generalizability of the results is cautioned because the trainees who chose to participate may have had a particular interest in the topic, and they may differ from nonparticipating trainees. Third, the raters of the CCCI-R had to rely solely on one transcribed intake session to assess counselor trainees' multicultural competence. Thus, it is possible that the use of the CCCI-R to evaluate trainees at a single point in time may not have (a) fully reflected the range of trainees' behaviors in various counseling situations and (b) provided an accurate estimate of their actual multicultural counseling competence. Fourth, there was some inconsistency regarding the types of clients who presented for services at the training clinic. That is, although only clients who met the criteria for some type of DSM-IV adjustment disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) were included in the study, it is possible that some trainees were viewed as more or less multiculturally competent by the raters on the basis of unique client-specific variables such as interpersonal skills, motivation for treatment, and therapeutic insight. A fifth potential limitation of this study is that the CCCI-R raters at times may have under- or overestimated the multicultural counseling competence of some trainees in the absence of information that may have been tapped by this instrument, but that was not reflected in the transcribed intake sessions. Sixth, it is possible that some participants may have been cued to the research intent. For example, it is plausible to consider that some counselor trainees' responses to the MCI may have been influenced by their participation in the research task (i.e., the intake session). However, this option seems less likely to have resulted in "hypothesis guessing" by the counselor participants (Worthington et al., 2000) because the administration of the MCI followed the intake session. Finally, because the MCI is self-report in nature, some counselor trainees may have reported their anticipated rather than actual multicultural attitudes or behaviors, or they may have interpreted items differently than what was intended by the instrument's authors (Schwarz, 1999). Future investigators may wish to continue exploring the current study's variables in a larger sample of counselor trainees. In particular, research is needed to determine the extent to which this study's results would be replicated in situations involving nonintake counseling sessions. Furthermore, research that investigates the role of various types of multicultural training activities in the development of multicultural counseling competence would be helpful. In addition, there is a need for research that examines the relationships among various racial identity attitudes and observerrated multicultural counseling competence. For example, it is possible that certain racial identity attitudes may have accounted for differences in the extent to which trainees displayed multiculturally competent behavior in the present study as determined by the CCCI-R raters. In addition, there is a need for investigations that explore clients' evaluations of their counselors' multicultural competence in comparison to their counselors' self-report ratings. In researching this phenomenon, it may be vital for investigators to consider how clients' preferences for certain counselor characteristics (e.g., race, ethnicity, and sex) and their general counseling expectations and perceptions might affect their ratings in this regard. References American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Atkinson, D. R., & Lowe, S. M. (1995). The role of ethnicity, cultural knowledge, and conventional techniques in counseling and psychotherapy. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Constantine, M. G., Juby, H. L., & Liang, J. J-C. (2001). Examining self-reported multicultural counseling competence and race-related attitudes in White marital and family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 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, Constantine, M. G., & Ladany, N. (2001). New visions for defining and

7 462 CONSTANTINE assessing multicultural counseling competence. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. D'Andrea, M, Daniels, J., & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating the impact of multicultural counseling training. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, Ladany, N., Inman, A. G., Constantine, M. G., & Hofheinz, E. W. (1997). Supervisee multicultural case conceptualization ability and self-reported multicultural competence as functions of supervisee racial identity and supervisor focus. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, LaFromboise, T. D., Coleman, H. L. K., & Hernandez, A. (1991). Development and factor structure of the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory- Revised. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, Neville, H. A., Heppner, M. J., Louie, C. E., Thompson, C. E., Brooks, L., & Baker, C. E. (1996). The impact of multicultural training on White racial identity attitudes and therapy competencies. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 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, Ponterotto, J. G., Gretchen, D., Utsey, S. O., Rieger, B. P., & Austin, R. (2000). A construct validity study of the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale (MCAS). Unpublished manuscript. Ponterotto, J. G., Rieger, B. P., Barrett, A., Sparks, R., Sanchez, C. M., & Magids, D. (1996). Development and initial validation of the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale. In G. R. Sodowsky & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Multicultural assessment in counseling and clinical psychology (pp ). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Pope-Davis, D. B., & Dings, J. G. (1995). The assessment of multicultural counseling competencies. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pope-Davis, D. B., Reynolds, A. L., Dings, J. G., & Nielson, D. (1995). Examining multicultural competencies of graduate students in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 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, Sabnani, H. B., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1992). Racial/ethnic minority-specific instrumentation in counseling research: A review, critique, and recommendations. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 24, Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, Sodowsky, G. R., Kuo-Jackson, 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, Sodowsky, G. R., Taffe, R. C, Gutkin, T. B., & Wise, S. L. (1994). Development of the Multicultural Counseling Inventory: A self-report measure of multicultural competencies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 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, Sue, D. W., Bemier, J. E., Durran, A., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P., Smith, E. J., & Vazquez-Nuttall, E. (1982). Position paper: Cross-cultural counseling competencies. The Counseling Psychologist, 10, Worthington, R. L., Mobley, M., Franks, R. P., & Tan, J. A. (2000). Multicultural counseling competencies: Verbal content, counselor attributions, and social desirability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, Received May 30, 2000 Revision received January 12, 2001 Accepted January 16, 2001 Low Publication Prices for APA Members and Affiliates Keeping you up-to-date. All APA Fellows, Members, Associates, and Student Affiliates receive as part of their annual dues subscriptions to the American Psychologist and APA Monitor. High School Teacher and International Affiliates receive subscriptions to the APA Monitor, and they may subscribe to the American Psychologist at a significantly reduced rate. In addition, all Members and Student Affiliates are eligible for savings of up to 60% (plus a journal credit) on all other APA journals, as well as significant discounts on subscriptions from cooperating societies and publishers (e.g., the American Association for Counseling and Development, Academic Press, and Human Sciences Press). Essential resources. APA members and affiliates receive special rates for purchases of APA books, including the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, and on dozens of new topical books each year. Other benefits Of membership. Membership in APA also provides eligibility for competitive insurance plans, continuing education programs, reduced APA convention fees, and specialty divisions. More information. Write to American Psychological Association, Membership Services, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC