ABSTRACT
Title of thesis: DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL VALIDATION OF THE
MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING SELF-EFFICACY SCALE ?
RACIAL DIVERSITY FORM
Hung-Bin Sheu, Master of Arts, 2005
Thesis directed by: Professor Robert W. Lent
Department of Counseling and Personnel Services
The purpose of the study is to develop and validate the Multicultural Counseling 
Self-Efficacy Scale ? Racial Diversity Form (MCSE-RD). Theoretical underpinnings
of the study were derived from social cognitive theory and the literature of 
multicultural counseling. Specifically, the MCSE-RD is designed to assess the 
helping professional?s perceived abilities in providing individual counseling to 
racially diverse clients. Data were collected from 181 graduate students in counseling-
related programs. Results of an exploratory factor analysis retained 37 items and
indicated that the MCSE-RD consists of three underlying factors. The MCSE-RD 
subscale and total scores showed adequate internal consistency and test-retest 
reliabilities. Also, convergent and discriminant validity was initially supported by
differential relations of MCSE-RD scores to general counseling self-efficacy, 
multicultural counseling competency, and social desirability. Finally, the MCSE-RD 
scores correlated significantly with demographic variables and educational/training 
backgrounds. In conclusion, psychometric properties of the MCSE-RD were initially 
supported by findings of the study.
DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL VALIDATION OF THE MULTICULTURAL 
COUNSELING SELF-EFFICACY SCALE ? RACIAL DIVERSITY FORM
by
Hung-Bin Sheu
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of 
Master of Arts
2005
Advisory Committee:
Professor Robert W. Lent, Chair
Professor Courtland C. Lee
Professor Karen M. O?Brien
? Copyright by
Hung-Bin Sheu
2005
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to gratefully acknowledge those who played instrumental roles in 
the completion of this thesis project.  First and foremost, I would like to thank my 
advisor, Dr. Robert W. Lent, for his unfailing support and encouragement throughout 
the entire process.  The study would not have been possible without his guidance,
patience and confidence in me.  In addition, I wish to thank my committee members, 
Drs. Courtland Lee and Karen O?Brien, whose constructive suggestions had helped to
improve the quality of my thesis.  I am also thankful for the valuable consultation I 
received from Drs. Charles Gelso, Clara Hill, Daushen Ju, William Liu, Akira Otani, 
Tarrell Portman, William Sedlacek, and Linda Tipton. Their expertise and feedback 
were crucial in this instrument development project.
Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for the support of my 
family, especially my parents.  They are almost 9,000 miles away and often have a 
hard time understanding what I am studying in the U.S. But, they are always there to 
support my growth and share my happiness.  I only hope I have been able to give as 
much back as they have given me.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements???????????????????????????i
List of Tables????????????????????????????...iii
Chapter I:        Introduction?????????????????????......?1 
Problem Statement???????????????????????..5
Chapter II:       Literature Review??????????????????...??.8
Self-Efficacy in Counseling and Counselor Training??????????8
General CSE Measures: Why They Are Not Sufficient for
Multicultural Counseling?????????????????..11
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Multicultural Counseling
Literature in Relation to CSE???????????????...15
Theoretical Underpinnings of the Current Study???????????.20
Research Questions and Hypotheses????????????????23
Chapter III:      Method????...????????????????????25
Participants??????????????????????????25
Scale Construction of the MCSE-RD???????????????...26
Criterion Measures???????????????????????29
Procedures??????????????????????????.32
Chapter IV:      Results????????????????..????????.34
Factor Analyses????????????????????????.34
Reliability Estimates and Scale Intercorrelations???????????39
Convergent and Discriminant Validity??????????????....41
MCSE-RD Scores and Demographic Variables???????????..43
MCSE-RD Scores, Educational Background, and Multicultural
Counseling Training???????????????????..45
Chapter V:       Discussion???????????????????????..51
Factor Structures of the MCSE-RD????????????????..51
Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the MCSE-RD Scores????.. 54
Criterion Validity of the MCSE-RD Scores?????????????.55
Chapter VI:      Implications??????????????????????...61
Chapter VII.     Limitations and Future Directions??????????????64
Appendices?????????????????????????????..66
References?????????????????????????????...73
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Items and Factor Loadings of the Multicultural Counseling 
Self-Efficacy ? Racial Diversity Form
36
Table 2: Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, Internal 
Consistency Estimates, and Test-Retest Reliabilities for the 
Multicultural Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale ? Racial 
Diversity Form 40
Table 3: Correlations of the Multicultural Counseling Self-
Efficacy Scale ? Racial Diversity Form to the Criterion 
Variables (CASES, MCI, MCSD)
41
Table 4: Multicultural Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale ? Racial 
Diversity Form and Demographic Variables
44
Table 5: Multicultural Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale ? Racial 
Diversity Form and Educational Backgrounds
46
Table 6: Correlations of Multicultural Counseling Self-Efficacy 
Scale ? Racial Diversity Form to Multicultural Counseling 
Training Backgrounds
48
Table 7: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses 
Predicting Self-Efficacy in Counseling Racially Diverse 
Clients (MCSE-RD Total Score)
50
1
Chapter I: Introduction
With the dramatically increasing diversification of the U.S. population, helping 
professionals have become aware of the important role that culture plays in service 
delivery and training (Hall, 1997; Sue, Arrendondo, & McDavis, 1992).  In fact, 
Neimeyer and Diamond (2001) recently identified commitment to issues of diversity, 
among 11 roles, as the most central feature of the identity of the counseling psychology 
profession in the future. Awareness of the importance of cultural diversity has provided 
the discipline a necessary impetus to advance our knowledge about, and develop effective 
services for, culturally different populations. The existing multicultural literature has 
echoed this trend, and theories and theory-derived instruments have been developed to 
facilitate the training of culturally competent helping professionals.
Not only is incorporating cultural factors in our work with diverse clienteles a
competence issue, it is also an ethical issue that lays the foundation of our profession. A 
recent collaboration by the Society of Counseling Psychology (Division 17) and the 
Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues (Division 45) of the 
American Psychological Association produced the Guidelines on Multicultural Education, 
Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists (APA, 2002). 
The Guidelines offer helping professionals aspirational principles when working in the 
multicultural setting. Six specific multicultural guidelines call for psychologists to: (a) 
recognize their attitudes and beliefs that can detrimentally influence their perceptions of 
and interactions with individuals who are ethnically/racially different from themselves; (b) 
recognize the importance of multicultural sensitivity/responsiveness, knowledge, and 
understanding about ethnically/racially different individuals; (c) employ the constructs of 
2
multiculturalism and diversity in psychological education; (d) recognize the importance 
of conducting culture-centered and ethical psychological research among persons from 
ethnic, linguistic, and racial minority backgrounds; (e) apply culturally appropriate skills 
in clinical and other applied psychological practice; and (f) use organizational change 
processes to support culturally informed organizational development and practice.
In addition to the APA Multicultural Guidelines, the Council of National 
Psychological Associations for the Advancement of Ethnic Minority Issues (CNPAAEMI) 
has developed two important monographs promoting culture-specific guidelines for 
working with four major racial/ethnic groups: African Americans, Asian 
Americans/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics/Latinos, and Native Americans. These two 
monographs are Guidelines for Research in Ethnic Minority Communities (2000) and 
Guidelines for Cultural Competence in the Treatment of Ethnic Minority Populations
(2002). Another important guidelines document, APA Professional Practice Guidelines 
for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients (APA, 2000), was developed 
for multicultural issues related to sexual orientation. These APA guidelines and 
CNPAAEMI guidelines clearly indicate the important role multiculturalism is expected to 
play in psychologists? professional activities. They also provide standards to ethically and 
effectively train students and deliver services to individuals and organizations with 
different cultural backgrounds.
Cultural factors need to be taken into account in different types of service delivery, 
such as assessment, training, outreach programs, direct therapy, and supervision (Abreu, 
Chung, & Atkinson, 2000). In terms of multicultural counseling practice, various models 
have been developed (see Fuertes & Gretchen, 2001; Ponterotto, Fuertes, & Chen, 2000 
3
for reviews). Although its empirical foundation has been questioned, the multicultural
counseling competency model, proposed and revised by Sue and his colleagues (Sue et 
al., 1992; Sue et al., 1982), has been extensively adopted by counseling training programs. 
In the past decade, several instruments, such as the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-
Revised (CCCI-R; LaFormboise, Coleman, & Hernandez, 1991), the Multicultural 
Counseling Inventory (MCI; Sodowsky, Taffe, Gutkin, & Wise, 1994), the Multicultural 
Awareness/Knowledge/Skills Survey (MAKSS; D?Andrea, Daniels, & Heck, 1991), and 
the Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS; Ponterotto, 
Gretchen, Utsey, Rieger, & Austin, 2002), have been developed to measure and validate 
the Sue et al. model.
In reviewing multiculturalism as a new paradigm in counseling theory, Essandoh 
(1996) contended that progress has been made only in theory and research. Ponterotto 
(1998) described the body of multicultural counseling research as still in its infancy 
because of the many conceptual and psychometric limitations of instruments available to 
measure relevant constructs. Likewise, Constantine and Ladany (2000, 2001) indicated 
the strong need for testing and revision of self-report measures of multicultural
counseling competency. Other researchers (Ridley, Mendoza, Kanitz, Angermeier, & 
Zenk, 1994) have argued that the underlying constructs represented by these measures are 
overlapping and not clearly defined. Moreover, these instruments have focused more on 
the knowledge and awareness dimensions of the Sue et al. model (1992), and paid less 
attention to the dimension of skills, specifically, the ability to develop culturally 
appropriate intervention strategies and techniques (e.g., the MCKAS). Those 
multicultural counseling competency instruments that do attempt to measure the 
4
dimension of culturally appropriate counseling skills tend to assess general counseling
skills rather than specific behaviors a counselor performs when working with culturally 
different clients. For example, the Skills subscale of the MCI includes items like ?I use 
varied counseling techniques and skills,? and ?I am effective at crisis interventions (e.g., 
suicide attempt, tragedy, broken relationship).? Moreover, instead of specifying a 
particular multicultural subgroup or setting, instructions of these multicultural counseling 
competence instruments (e.g., the MAKSS and MCI) direct respondents to give their self-
report ratings when working in a general multicultural counseling situation. The literature 
might, therefore, benefit from development of measures that assess more specific 
behaviors performed at various stages of counseling by culturally effective counselors 
when working with a specific class of diverse persons, such as racially different clients.
In reconceptualizing multicultural counseling competence, Constantine and Ladany 
(2001) envisioned multicultural counseling self-efficacy as one of the six dimensions of 
multicultural competence. This concept is defined as ?counselors? confidence in their
ability to perform a set of multicultural counseling skills and behaviors successfully? (p. 
491). This definition stresses the central role of counselors? confidence in performing 
skills, as opposed to knowledge and awareness, in multicultural counseling settings. 
Since verbal and nonverbal behaviors are the only channels for counselors to demonstrate 
their multicultural counseling competency, other researchers have also cited the 
importance and necessity of developing more precise self-efficacy measures to assess 
what counselors believe they can do in the context of multicultural counseling (Neville & 
Mobley, 2001; Worthington, 2002).
5
Because of the various cultural factors involved, multicultural counseling may be 
quite different from general counseling. In addition to clients? presenting issues and 
personal dynamics, practitioners have to take into account cultural variables, such as race, 
ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion as they design interventions for diverse clients. 
Some multicultural psychologists have suggested that we expand the dialogue on 
diversity to include, at a minimum, age, culture, disability, gender, educational level, 
ethnicity, language, physique, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic 
situation (e.g., Sue & Sue, 2003; Weinrach & Thomas, 1996). I agree with the need to be 
inclusive in multicultural counseling. However, it is a daunting task, if possible at all, to 
develop a single instrument capable of assessing self-efficacy for conducting counseling
with all possible multicultural subgroups. For the sake of the usefulness and brevity of 
the instrument, it is also impractical to design a scale that is to cover a variety of 
multicultural issues. In addition, self-efficacy is a domain-specific construct (Bandura, 
1997).  Thus, one may possess differing degrees of self-efficacy for working with 
different client groups, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) clients, 
racial minorities, or people with disabilities. To respond to the lack of a self-efficacy 
measure in the multicultural counseling literature, the current study is designed to 
develop and provide initial validation for a new instrument that focuses on counselors?
perceived ability to effectively work with racially different clients.
Problem Statement
Researchers have developed at least ten measures that assess counseling self-
efficacy in general. Some of these instruments focus on basic or advanced individual 
counseling skills (e.g., Johnson, Baker, Kopala, Kiselica, & Thompson, 1989; Larson, 
6
Suzuki, Gillespie, Potenza, Bechtel, & Toulouse, 1992), whereas others focus on certain 
content specialties, such as group counseling, career counseling, school counseling, or
psychiatry (e.g., Margolies, Wachtel, & Schmelkin, 1986; O?Brien, Heppner, Flores, & 
Bikos, 1997; Sutton & Fall, 1995). Although a few items from some of these instruments 
were designed to assess self-efficacy in the multicultural context, they tend to focus only 
on parts of the counseling process and assess this construct at intermediate or general 
levels that may not be helpful in predicting specific outcomes. Self-efficacy for 
conducting multicultural counseling with racial/ethnic minority groups has been left 
largely unexamined. Research investigating multicultural counseling self-efficacy, its 
development, and relationship to general counseling self-efficacy is clearly needed. It 
seems important that researchers examine systematically the construct of self-efficacy for 
counseling racially/ethnically diverse groups, and disseminate the findings to trainers and 
graduate programs to improve the quality of mental health services provided to our 
diverse clienteles. To achieve this purpose, it is necessary, as the first step, to develop a 
psychometrically and conceptually adequate measure of multicultural counseling self-
efficacy specifically for racially diverse groups.
The purpose of the current project is to develop and validate the Multicultural 
Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale ? Racial Diversity Form (MCSE-RD). The concept of 
self-efficacy from Bandura?s (1986, 1997) social cognitive theory is chosen to be the 
theoretical underpinning of the proposed instrument because it is seen as central to 
multicultural competence (Constantine & Ladany, 2001) and is assessed in relation to 
specific behaviors. To measure self-efficacy, the MCSE-RD focuses exclusively on the 
behavioral aspect of multicultural counseling competency. In other words, this measure 
7
taps the skills, as opposed to knowledge and awareness, component of Sue?s (2001) 
cultural competency model. Instead of measuring actual or externally assessed 
competency for multicultural counseling, the MCSE-RD emphasizes confidence in one?s 
perceived ability to provide effective counseling for racially diverse clients. To be 
thorough, MCSE-RD items cover various behaviors of counselors that are presumed to 
bring about successful outcomes at different stages of counseling for racially diverse 
clients.
8
Chapter II: Literature Review
Self-Efficacy in Counseling and Counselor Training
Self-efficacy, the core construct in social cognitive theory, refers to ?people?s 
judgment of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain 
designated types of performance? (Bandura, 1986, p. 391).  Posited as the central
mechanism of psychological change, self-efficacy has mediating effects in at least three 
areas: (a) approach versus avoidance behavior, (b) quality of performance in the target 
domain, and (c) persistence in the face of adversity or disconfirming experiences 
(Bandura, 1977).  Also, Bandura (1977, 1997) put forward four sources of information 
through which self-efficacy expectations are acquired and by which they can be modified: 
(a) performance accomplishments, that is, experiences of successfully performing the 
target behaviors; (b) vicarious leaning or modeling; (c) verbal persuasion, such as 
encouragement and support from significant others; and (d) physiological and affective 
states, such as the lack of anxiety and fear associated with the behavior.  All of these 
areas are relevant to counselor training and clients? adjustment. 
The concept of self-efficacy has been widely applied to counseling and 
psychotherapy.  Research has indicated the important role that self-efficacy plays in 
interventions for anxiety (Williams, 1995), depression (Maddux & Meier, 1995), eating 
disorders, and alcohol and drug abuse (Bandura, 1997; DiClemente, Fairhurst, & 
Piotrowaki, 1995).  From an agentic perspective, self-efficacy theory  provides both 
counselors and clients with the framework to focus on enablement factors, ?the personal 
resources to select and structure their environments in ways that set a successful course 
for their lives? (Bandura, 1997, p.177).  For people with adjustment difficulties, such as 
9
career development issues, self-efficacy also plays a key role in facilitating career 
interests, choice, and performance (Hackett, 1995; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2002).
With adequate levels of skills, counselors with higher self-efficacy will tend to 
have more self-aiding thoughts, experience anxiety as challenging rather than weakening, 
and set more realistic, moderately challenging goals (Larson, 1998).  However, without 
prerequisite counseling skills, a sense of high self-efficacy may put the counselor in a 
situation where he or she is likely to set unrealistic goals and then fail to achieve them.  
These unsuccessful experiences caused by unrealistic self-efficacy and goals may later on 
diminish the counselor?s efficacy beliefs because performance accomplishment (or 
failure) is a major source of self-efficacy.  Moreover, clients who seek help from 
counselors whose counseling efficacy beliefs considerably exceed their skills are likely to 
be disappointed because counselors may not be able to perform those skills required to 
achieve counseling goals and meet clients? expectations.  Actually, Bandura (1986) 
suggested it is best for self-efficacy beliefs to slightly exceed one?s current skills levels.  
Because of its impact on counselors? performance and clients? satisfaction, the 
compatibility of counseling self-efficacy and skills is particularly germane in counselor 
training.
According to Larson and Daniels (1998), at the time of their review, more than 
thirty studies had explored counseling self-efficacy (CSE) in relation to counselor 
training and supervision.  These studies focused on the central role of the self-efficacy 
construct apart from the larger social cognitive theory.  For the purpose of developing a 
measure assessing CSE, Larson and her colleagues (Larson et al., 1992) defined this 
construct as one?s beliefs or judgments about one?s capabilities to effectively counsel a 
10
client in the near future.  Larson (1998), later on, proposed a social cognitive model of 
counselor training (SCMCT) that applied social cognitive theory to counselor 
development.  Deemed to be responsible for effective counselor learning, the triadic 
reciprocal causality in the SCMCT includes three components: the counselor?s personal 
agency, the resulting efficacious actions in supervision and counseling, and the learning 
environment.  Personal agency includes CSE beliefs and the dynamic cognitive, 
motivational, and affective processes of the person.  Among these self-determining 
influences, CSE beliefs are viewed as the primary causal determinants between knowing 
how to counsel and executing effective actions.  Although the SCMCT added to the 
counselor training literature by providing the social cognitive framework, it pays 
relatively little attention to multicultural practice issues.  Cultural factors were not 
included in the research hypotheses proposed by the SCMCT; and the process by which 
counselors develop differential efficacy beliefs for working with various multicultural
subgroups was not discussed in the model.
Despite the progress made in counselor training, the concept of self-efficacy had 
not been applied to the multicultural counseling setting until very recently.  Using a 
sample of 94 counselors in training, Constantine (2001b) found that general counseling 
self-efficacy correlated significantly and positively (r = .51) with self-perceived 
multicultural counseling competence.  In another study, Constantine (2001a) further 
indicated that receipt of multicultural supervision was a significant predictor (
 = .28, p
< .01) of counselor trainees? multicultural counseling self-efficacy measured by the 
Multicultural Awareness/Knowledge/Skills Survey (MAKSS; D?Andrea et al., 1991).  
Although Constantine?s findings look intriguing, the MAKSS was not actually designed 
11
to be a self-efficacy measure.  Several scholars have offered a definition of multicultural
counseling self-efficacy.  Constantine and Ladany (2001) defined this construct as 
?counselors? confidence in their ability to perform a set of multicultural counseling skills 
and behaviors successfully? (p. 491).  Seemingly more inclusive, the definition of 
multicultural counseling self-efficacy provided by Neville and Mobley (2001) pertains to 
culturally based cognitive processes in which counselors in training construct beliefs 
regarding their capabilities in performing culturally appropriate tasks and behaviors 
during interaction with clients as well as with their peers and faculty.  However, no 
instruments have been developed to operationalize these definitions.  It is clear that the 
literature regarding the application of self-efficacy in the multicultural setting is still in its 
infancy.  More appropriate measures and empirical studies are needed to assess the 
concept of multicultural self-efficacy and explore its importance in counselor training.
General CSE Measures: Why They Are Not Sufficient for Multicultural Counseling
Recognizing the important implications of social cognitive theory in counselor 
training and development, researchers have developed several measures to assess the 
construct of counseling self-efficacy.  Most of the existing CSE literature focuses on the 
relationship between CSE and other important counselor training variables, such as 
counselor anxiety, counselor performance, and the supervision environment (Johnson et 
al., 1989; Ridgway & Sharpley, 1990; Sipps, Sugden, & Faiver, 1988).  Ten CSE
measures were identified by Larson and Daniels (1998).  Four measures focusing 
exclusively on individual counseling include: (a) the Interpersonal Skills Efficacy Scale 
(ISES; Munson, Zoerink, & Stadulis, 1986); (b) the Counselor Behavior Evaluation ?
Self-efficacy (CBE-SE; Munson, Stadulis, & Munson, 1986); (c) the Counselor Self-
12
Efficacy Scale (CSES; Johnson et al., 1989); and (d) the Counseling Self-Estimate 
Inventory (COSE; Larson et al., 1992).  Two instruments, the Counselor Self-Efficacy 
Scale (COSES; Melchert, Hays, Wiljanen, & Kolocek, 1996) and the Self-Efficacy 
Inventory (S-EI; Friedlander & Synder, 1983), assess self-efficacy in areas beyond 
individual counseling, such as group counseling, case management, and family 
interventions.  Still other scales were developed for specific domains including the 
Counselor Self-Efficacy Survey (CSS; Sutton & Fall, 1995) for school counseling, the 
Career Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale (CCSES; O?Brien et al., 1997), and the Self-
Efficacy Questionnaire (S-EQ; Margolies et al., 1986) for psychiatry.
With the exceptions of the COSE, COSES, and CCSES, these measures were 
designed for the purpose of particular studies and lacked psychometric information.  
According to Larson and Daniels? review (1998), the COSE has been the most popular 
(used in 43% of the studies reviewed by them) followed by the S-EI (13%).  Although 
these instruments have advanced our understanding of how self-efficacy mediates 
counselor performance and effectiveness of training programs, Lent, Hackett, and Brown 
(1998) pointed out some problems in assessing and defining counselor self-efficacy.  
These issues include: (a) using items and formats that may be more appropriate in 
assessing constructs (e.g., knowledge, values) other than self-efficacy; (b) presuming a 
level of counseling skills that would surpass that of most novice trainees; and (c) 
sampling self-efficacy inadequately with respect to more advanced or complex 
counseling tasks.  In tackling some of these issues, Lent, Hill, and Hoffman (2003) 
developed a new self-efficacy measure, the Counselor Activity Self-Efficacy Scales 
(CASES), for performing helping skills, managing the counseling process, and handing 
13
challenging counseling situations.  Nonetheless, these issues cited by Lent et al. (1998) 
warrant future conceptual work and empirical investigations. 
The predictive usefulness of a CSE measure in a particular context is related to its 
level of generality or specificity.  Bandura (1997) proposed three levels (specific, 
intermediate, general) of generality of assessment that have implications for predicting
different outcomes.  A self-efficacy measure at the specific level of generality is more 
likely to successfully predict performance in that particular domain.  On the other hand, 
an undifferentiated and contextless measure of self-efficacy would have weak predictive 
value in the same domain.  Likewise, context-free CSE measures are expected to be less 
helpful than more domain- specific CSE estimates in predicting counselor performance 
with particular types of clients or issues.  According to this criterion, most of the existing 
CSE measures are, theoretically, not ideally designed to predict counselor performance in 
the multicultural setting because multicultural issues are not the main focus of most of 
them.
Among the ten CSE measures reviewed by Larson and Daniels (1998) plus the new 
scale developed by Lent et al. (2003), only the COSE and CCSES have subscales for 
assessing multicultural CSE.  Out of 37 items, the Cultural Competence subscale of the 
COSE consists of four items focusing on social class and ethnicity issues.  Instead of 
assessing self-efficacy for a particular performance under a specific set of conditions, 
these items tend to focus on a more intermediate or global level of perceived efficacy 
(e.g., ?I will be an effective counselor with clients of a different social class,? ?In 
working with culturally different clients I may have a difficult time viewing situations 
from their perspective;? Larson et al., 1992, p. 111).  Thus, for predicting counselor 
14
effectiveness when working with racially diverse clients, the Cultural Competence 
subscale of the COSE is probably less helpful than would be a self-efficacy measure that 
taps specific counselor behaviors in this particular area.  This problem is also relevant to 
the Multicultural Competency Skills subscale of the CCSES that takes a more general 
approach to tap self-efficacy for multicultural issues in the context of career counseling 
(e.g., ?Understand special issues present for lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients in the 
workplace;? ?Understand special issues related to gender in the workplace;? ?Understand 
special issues related to ethnicity in the workplace;? O?Brien et al., 1997, p. 24).  
Moreover, these items seem less behaviorally based, and are more relevant to knowledge 
and awareness rather than skills.  In the newly developed CASES (Lent et al., 2003), self-
efficacy for working with multicultural issues is covered at a minimal level. There are 
only two items from the Counseling Challenges subscale of the CASES that assess 
participants? confidence in working with clients who are different from them in a major 
way or ways (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, age, and social class), and who have core 
values or beliefs that conflict with their own regarding religion or gender roles.  The 
remaining eight CSE measures do not attempt to assess self-efficacy in the multicultural
setting.
Based on the above literature review, the existing CSE measures either pay little 
attention to efficacy percepts regarding multicultural counseling or confound this 
construct with other variables such as awareness and knowledge.  In other words, these 
CSE instruments are not specifically situated in the multicultural setting.  Although much 
progress has been made at understanding the relationship between general CSE and 
counselor performance and supervision, it is unclear whether or not we could translate 
15
these findings into the multicultural counseling arena.  A major obstacle has been the 
absence of a conceptually adequate and psychometrically sound measure of multicultural
counseling self-efficacy.  More efforts need to be made to advance our understanding 
about counselors? perceived ability and actual performance when delivering services to 
people with different cultural backgrounds.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Multicultural Counseling Literature in Relation to CSE
Beginning in the early 1980s, training for multicultural counseling competence 
became an important issue for helping professionals.  Multicultural researchers have 
made good progress in at least four areas: (a) definition of multicultural competencies 
(Constantine & Ladany, 2001; Sue, 2001; Sue et al., 1982; Sue et al., 1992); (b) models 
of multicultural counseling (D?Andrea & Daniels, 2001; Fuertes & Gretchen, 2001; 
Ponterotto et al., 2000); (c) assessment of multicultural counseling competence (Coleman, 
1996; D?Andrea et al., 1991; LaFromboise et al., 1991; Ponterotto et al., 2002; Sodowsky
et al., 1994; Worthington, Mobley, Franks, & Tan, 2000); and (d) training of 
multicultural competencies (Abreu et al., 2000; Constantine, 2001a; Constantine & 
Ladany, 2000; Constantine, Ladany, Inman, & Ponterotto, 1996; Ponterotto & Casas, 
1987; Quintana & Bernal, 1995).  In addition to the progress made in theory and 
assessment, a recent survey indicated that 73% of APA-accredited counseling psychology 
programs offered one or more multicultural courses, and 42% of them required a 
multicultural course (Quintana & Bernal, 1995).  These research and practice efforts 
indicate the important role of multicultural issues in our professional identity.
Despite the growth in this literature, our knowledge regarding the phenomenon of 
multicultural counseling and how to effectively deliver services to culturally diverse 
16
clients still has a long way to go.  Training in multicultural counseling was criticized for 
focusing primarily on the knowledge and awareness domains of competence instead of on 
the skills domain (McRae & Johnson, 1991).  A survey conducted by Allison, Crawford, 
Echemendia, Robinson, and Knepp (1994) revealed that in counseling, school, and 
clinical psychology programs opportunities for training with diverse clients are limited, 
and only a small percentage of doctoral students felt ?extremely? or ?very? competent 
when working with racial/ethnic minority clients.  Moreover, in Quintana and Bernal?s 
(1995) survey, they concluded that most counseling psychology programs are ?providing 
training that leads to, at best, multicultural sensitivity, but very few appear to be 
providing training that prepares practitioners to be multiculturally proficient? (p.102).  
This status of multicultural counseling training presents a need for examining the missing 
link between what counselors know and what they do when providing services to 
culturally diverse clients.
Consistent with the literature on multicultural training, assessment of multicultural 
counseling competence tends to lean toward attitudes and knowledge dimensions and to 
pay less attention to the skills dimension of Sue et al.?s (1992) cross- cultural counseling 
competence model.  Although lacking empirical support, the model first proposed by Sue 
and his colleagues in 1982, and later revised in 1992, serves as the theoretical 
underpinning for most quantitative multicultural counseling competence measures.  The 
only exception is the Multicultural Competency Checklist, which evaluates competency 
at the level of academic programs (Ponterotto, Alexander, & Grieger, 1995).
At the individual level, there are three self-report scales and one other-report 
inventory that tap the construct of multicultural counseling competency.  All of them 
17
have initially acceptable psychometric properties, but need more validity evidence (Pope-
Davis & Dings, 1995).  The only other-report measure is the Cross-Cultural Counseling 
Inventory-Revised (CCCI-R; LaFormboise et al., 1991).  The CCCI-R consists of 20 
items assessing three underlying factors: (a) cross-cultural counseling skills; (b) socio-
political awareness; and (c) cultural sensitivity.  The instructions of the CCCI-R direct the 
respondent to rate the extent to which a counselor demonstrates a particular competency 
on a 6-pojnt Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).  
Although ten out of these twenty items fall into the cross-cultural counseling skill factor, 
some of them may measure constructs other than skills, such as values and attitudes (e.g., 
?comfortable with differences,? ?aware of own cultural heritage,? and ?values and 
respects cultural differences?).
Developed by Sodowsky and her colleagues (1994), the Multicultural Counseling 
Inventory (MCI) aims at operationalizing the Sue et al. model (1982, 1992).  The 
Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills subscales consist of 10, 11, and 11 items, respectively.  
A Multicultural Relationship subscale of 8 items was added to assess the counselor?s 
interactional process with minority clients.  Compared with other multicultural 
counseling competence measures, the MCI has accumulated more psychometric evidence 
supporting its use and provides the most behaviorally based assessment of multicultural 
counseling competence (Pope-Davis & Dings, 1995).  However, after taking a closer look 
at those items belonging to the Skills subscale, it would seem that some of them are more 
relevant in assessing the awareness dimension (e.g., ?understand my own philosophical 
preferences,? ?comfortable with exploring sexual issues?).  Moreover, some of these 
items seem to tap the skills dimension at the intermediate or general levels rather than at 
18
the specific level of multicultural interactions (e.g., ?effective at crisis interventions,?
?use varied counseling techniques and skills?) (Sodowsky, 1996, pp. 297-300).  Finally, 
the instructions of the MCI asks respondents to evaluate their competence when ?working 
in a multicultural counseling situation.?  Because the multicultural counseling situation 
may involve the counselor in working with different populations such as racial minorities, 
LGBT clients, or people with disabilities, participants may respond to the MCI with any 
of a number of multicultural subgroups in mind. In other words, the lack of domain-
specificity may lessen the MCI?s predictive effectiveness relative to counselors?
competence, interest, and performance at providing services to a specific population.
Originally designed to evaluate the impact of a cross-cultural counseling course, 
the Multicultural Awareness/Knowledge/Skills Survey (MAKSS) consists of 60 items 
that form the three subscales corresponding to the instrument?s title (D ?Andrea et al., 
1991).  In supporting its use, the MAKSS relies heavily on content validity, established 
by matching the survey items with the instructional objectives of the course.  The lack of 
a statistical procedure for selecting items and forming the three subscales is a major 
weakness of the MAKSS, especially its Awareness subscale (Pope-Davis & Dings, 1995).  
Similar to the MCI, some items of the Skills subscale of the MAKSS do not seem to 
measure competence in directly delivering effective services to clients (e.g., ?ability to 
accurately identify culturally biased assumptions as they relate to your professional 
training,? ?ability to critique multicultural research,? ?ability to consult with another
mental health professional?).  Also, the Skills subscale assesses competence in working 
with racial/ethnic minorities, women, men, older adults, gay persons, handicapped 
19
persons, and persons with low socioeconomic backgrounds, which might obscure the 
MAKSS?s predictive value relative to specific outcomes.
The Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS), 
formerly titled the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale (MCAS; Ponterotto et al., 
1996), was revised to assess the knowledge and awareness components of multicultural 
counseling competence (Ponterotto et al., 2002).  Originally, Ponterotto, Sanchez, and 
Magids (1991) attempted to develop the MCAS to measure the Sue et al. tripartite model 
(awareness, knowledge, and skills).  However, both qualitative and statistical procedures 
supported a two-factor model, with the knowledge and skills items loading together and 
the awareness items loading on a separate factor.  After revision, the MCKAS comprises 
32 items assessing only the knowledge and awareness dimensions and leaving out the 
skills dimension.  Initial reliability and validity evidence was provided for the MCKAS 
(Ponterotto et al., 2002). 
Based on the above literature review on quantitative assessment of multicultural 
counseling competency, it is fair to say that our field has progressed significantly in 
response to Ponterotto and Casas?s (1991) concern that little effort has been made to 
measure multicultural competence.  However, most of the existing instruments seem to 
focus more on the awareness and knowledge dimensions of Sue et al.?s (1992) tripartite 
model than on the skills dimension.  For those instruments including a subscale to assess 
multicultural counseling skills (e.g., the MCI, MAKSS, and CCCI-R), their items tend to 
assess counselors? perceived ability at the intermediate and general level rather than at 
the domain-specific level.  In other words, these items do not seem to assess specific 
counselor behaviors conducted in sessions with clients from a particular diversity group.  
20
Some of these items may also be confounded with items measuring knowledge and 
awareness.  The absence of domain-specificity in these measures may lead to their 
lessened predictive value in relation to particular multicultural training outcomes, such as 
counselors? interest in delivering services to certain multicultural subgroups and their 
effectiveness in carrying out culturally appropriate interventions.  Therefore, it is 
necessary to develop a new instrument that specifically taps the behavioral aspect of the 
Sue et al. (1992; 2001) model.
Theoretical Underpinnings of the Current Study
In the past decade, our profession has witnessed an explosion of the multicultural 
literature.  Critical reviews have been done on research, training, and conceptual models 
(see Ponterotto, Casas, Suzuki, & Alexander, 1995, 2001; Pope-Davis, & Coleman, 1997).  
Various theoretical models have been proposed to identify facets of multicultural 
counseling competency (Sue et al., 1992), describe the interactions between culturally
different counselors and clients (Helms & Cook, 1999), and decide on appropriate roles 
for counselors when working with racial/ethnic minorities (Atkinson, Thompson, & 
Grant, 1993).  For the current study, Sue?s (1992) model of multicultural counseling 
competence seems most relevant for the purpose of developing a self-efficacy measure 
for providing services to racially diverse clients.  Not only was it officially endorsed by 
two separate American Psychological Association divisions (17 and 45) and six divisions 
of the American Counseling Association, but this model also provides the theoretical 
framework for existing multicultural counseling competence measures.  This conceptual 
platform will allow the self-efficacy instrument developed in this project to compare with 
and compensate for the deficiencies of other scales.  This framework was recently revised 
21
by Sue (2001) into a 3 (components of cultural competence) ? 4 (foci of cultural
competence) ? 5 (specific racial/cultural attributes) multidimensional model of cultural
competence.  Specifically, the three components of cultural competence include 
awareness of attitude/beliefs, knowledge, and skills; the four foci consist of the individual, 
professional, organizational, and societal levels; and attributes of competence cover five 
racial groups (African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, Native 
Americans, and European Americans).  The new self-efficacy instrument, the 
Multicultural Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale ? Racial Diversity Form (MCSE-RD) will 
be designed exclusively to tap the skills component at the individual level across five 
racial groups based on Sue?s model.
The concept of efficacy beliefs from Bandura?s (1986; 1997) social cognitive 
theory provides another theoretical base for the current study.  The MCSE-RD will be 
developed on the basis of two types of counseling efficacy beliefs for working with 
racially diverse clients: (a) content-specific self-efficacy, and (b) coping efficacy (Lent et 
al., 1998).  Content-specific self-efficacy pertains to the counselor?s confidence in 
performing discrete helping skills relevant to different counseling stages under normative 
conditions.  On the other hand, coping efficacy concerns counselors? perceived ability in 
successfully managing multicultural impasses and dealing with difficult presenting issues.
One of the weaknesses in existing skills subscales of multicultural counseling 
competence measures is related to the narrow range of item sampling that falls short of 
covering the whole counseling process.  It is therefore important to review the literature 
on how counseling proceeds from the initial counselor-client contact through termination 
to lay out the structure for generating items for content-specific efficacy.  Several stage 
22
models have been proposed to depict different stages involved in the counseling process 
(Burke, 1989; Cormier & Hackney, 1987; Doyle, 1992; Egan, 1998; Hill & O?Brien, 
1999; Peterson & Nisenholz, 1991).  Waehler and Lenox (1994) concluded that most of 
these stage models include five general phases: (a) initial contact and relationship 
building; (b) assessment; (c) goals setting; (d) intervention; and (e) termination.  
Although criticized for their linear and hierarchical sequences that fail to explain the 
interactional nature of change processes (Steenbarger, 1991), these stage models 
represent important functions performed by counselors throughout the counseling process.  
Thus, this categorization of tasks will be used to develop the initial item pool of the 
Content-Specific Self-Efficacy scale of the MCSE-RD.
Another relevant concept from social cognitive theory is coping efficacy.  Coping 
efficacy refers to the counselor?s ?perceived capability of managing threatening situations 
should they arise? (Bandura, 1997, p.141).  Those who believe that potential threats or 
problems are unmanageable perceive many aspects of their environments as full of 
danger, amplify the severity of possible threats, and worry about things that rarely happen.  
This perceived inefficacy to cope with potential threats leads people to approach such 
situations anxiously, and the experience of disturbing physiological arousal may further 
lower their sense of efficacy that they will perform skillfully.  On the other hand, people 
who believe they can exercise control over potential problems are neither overly vigilant 
nor preoccupied by disturbing thoughts about them (Bandura, 1995a).  Within the 
counseling context, counselors? coping efficacy would influence how much stress they 
experience in difficult situations and their motivation to engage in providing mental 
health services despite encountering obstacles.  This concept is particularly applicable to 
23
the multicultural counseling setting.  Because of cultural differences, it is very likely that 
communicative misunderstanding and therapeutic impasses occur in the racially different 
counselor-client dyad.  It is therefore important for counselors who work with racially 
diverse clients to increase their coping efficacy to work through multicultural impasses. 
In summary, the MCSE- RD was developed as an efficacy beliefs measure tapping 
exclusively the skills component of Sue?s (2001) model of cultural competency.  Derived 
from Bandura?s social cognitive theory (1986, 1997), two types of efficacy beliefs --
content-specific self-efficacy and coping efficacy -- provided the structure for scale 
construction.
Research Questions and Hypotheses 
The current study was designed to develop and validate the MCSE-RD. Consisting 
of two scales (Content-Specific Self-Efficacy and Coping Efficacy), the MCSE-RD aims 
at assessing counselors? perceived ability to successfully work with racially diverse 
clients in the context of individual counseling. In terms of reliability, it was hypothesized 
that the internal consistency estimate for the entire scale should be above .90, that of each 
scale should be above .85, and that of each subscale should be above .80.  To initially 
validate the MCSE-RD, different methods were implemented including: (a) content 
validity; (b) structural validity; (c) convergent and discriminant validity; and (d) criterion 
validity.  Specifically for convergent and discriminant validity, the Counselor Activities 
Self-Efficacy Scales (CASES), Multicultural Counseling Inventory (MCI), and 
Multicultural Social Desirability Index (MCSD) were included to assess efficacy beliefs 
for general counseling, multicultural counseling competency, and self-presentation biases 
in multicultural counseling.  Because of the common emphasis on the behavioral aspect 
24
of counseling, the MCSE-RD scales were expected to relate to the CASES scales both 
highly and positively.  Also, due to the same focus on multicultural counseling, 
correlations between the MCSE-RD scales and the MCI subscales were expected to be 
significant with different magnitudes.  The Skills subscale of the MCI was hypothesized 
to correlate with the MCSE-RD scales more highly than the other three non-behavioral 
MCI subscales (Awareness, Relationship, and Knowledge).  Finally, low and 
nonsignificant associations between the MCSE-RD scales and the MCSD were expected 
to support the MCSE-RD?s discriminant validity.  More specific criteria for each type of 
validity were presented in the Results section.
25
Chapter III: Method
Participants
Participants were 181 graduate students (32 males, 149 females) who were either 
taking counseling practicum courses or at later stages of counselor training during the 
academic year of 2003-04.  Most of them were White Americans (59%); others were 
African American (13%), Asian Americans/Pacific Islander (9%), Latino/a American 
(7%), students with multiethnic backgrounds (6%), or international students (6%).  Fifty 
six percent of the sample had a bachelor?s degree as their highest degree, 41% of them 
had a mater?s degree, 2% had other degree, and 1% did not responded.  The majority 
(54%) were working toward a Ph.D. degree, 44% were in a master?s degree program, 
whereas the other 2% reported working toward other degrees.  Thirty-eight percent of 
participants were first-year students, 29% were second-year students, and 33% were in 
their third-year or above.  Most participants (40%) were in Counseling Psychology; other 
majors included School Counseling (13%), School Psychology (12%), College Student 
Personnel (8%), Community Counseling (8%), Rehabilitation Counseling (6%),
Counselor Education (3%), Clinical Psychology (2%), and other graduate programs (8%).
Participants were students from public universities on the West Coast (one school, n = 
13), in the Mid- West (six schools, n = 49), in the South (two schools, n = 40) and on the 
East Coast (one school, n = 79).  Students ranged in age from 20 to 56 years (M = 28.80, 
SD = 7.02).
Data from a second sample of 41 undergraduate psychology students (9 males, 32 
females) at a large eastern university were collected for test -retest reliabilities of the final 
version of the MCSE-RD (37 items, see Table 1).  Participants were enrolled in a Basic 
26
Helping Skills course.  The majority of the sample were White Americans (73%), 
followed by Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (12%), African Americans (12%), and 
participant with multiethnic backgrounds (3%).  Ninety-five percept of participants were 
seniors and the other 5% were juniors.  Their average age was 21.90 years with a 
standard deviation of 2.64.
Scale Construction of the MCSE-RD
The guidelines for developing a self-efficacy measure provided by Bandura (1995b, 
1997) were followed in the scale construction of the MCSE-RD.  These guidelines 
include: (a) scale construction must be domain-specific and contextualized; (b) the clear 
and comprehensive operationalization of the multicultural counseling self-efficacy must 
be specified; (c) the self-efficacy assessment should target a counselor?s perceived ability 
to perform a function (i.e., link a number of subskills) rather than subskills; (d) items of 
the MCSE-RD should be developed to assess counselors? current perceived ability to 
perform various tasks rather than their intention or future plans to complete those tasks; 
and (e) only one task should be assessed in an item.  According to these guidelines, 
multicultural counseling self-efficacy is defined in the current study as counselors?
perceived abilities to successfully perform a set of helping skills when working with 
racially diverse clients in the context of individual counseling; and the MCSE-RD?s 
instructions directed participants to respond to items based on their current confidence 
levels in performing various counseling tasks when working with racially diverse clients 
(see Appendix A).  Content of items covered tasks required in the entire counseling 
process and in difficult situations that counselors typically encounter with this population.  
27
Also, items of the MCSE-RD were positively stated and rated on a scale ranging from 0 
(no confidence at all) to 9 (complete confidence).
Item development was based on two types of efficacy beliefs, including content-
specific self-efficacy and coping efficacy (Bandura, 1997), with the former indicating 
one?s confidence in performing tasks related to the whole counseling process and the 
latter representing one?s confidence in handling difficult issues involved in multicultural
counseling.  The counseling stages/processes literature (Burke, 1992; Cormier & 
Hackney, 1987; Doyle, 1992; Egan, 1986; Hill & O?Brien, 1999; Peterson & Nisenholz, 
1991) was adopted to inform item development for the domain of content-specific self-
efficacy.  These models describe counseling as a process involving from covering three 
(e.g., Egan, 1986; Hill & O?Brien, 1999) to five stages (e.g., Cormier & Hackney, 1987; 
Doyle, 1992).  Moreover, writings on multicultural counseling competency (e.g., 
Roysircar, Arredondo, Fuertes, Ponterotto, & Toporek, 2003), multicultural issues in the 
therapeutic process (e.g., Mishne, 2002; Ponterotto, Cases, Suzuki, & Alexander, 2001), 
and multicultural assessment (e.g., Suzuki, Ponterotto, & Meller, 2001) were taken into 
account when developing items.  Based on this literature, an initial pool of 103 items was
generated to assess seven components of content-specific self-efficacy: initial contact (10 
items), therapeutic relationship (8 items), assessment and diagnosis (24 items), case 
conceptualization and goal-setting (11 items), intervention/ treatment (29 items), 
termination (11 items), and session management (10 items).  In addition to above sources, 
the literatures on multicultural counseling ruptures and impasses (e.g., Liu & Pope-Davis, 
in press) and culture-bound syndromes (DSM-IV) were sought out when developing the 
initial pool of 17 items for the coping efficacy domain.  These items tapped the 
28
counselor?s confidence regarding skills required to solve multicultural impasses and deal 
with difficult presenting problems.
In addition to conceptual analysis, Bandura (1997) suggested that development of 
efficacy scales must be derived from expert knowledge of what it takes to succeed in a 
given task.  Thus, the instructions of the MCSE- RD and initial pool of 120 items (103 for 
content-specific self-efficacy and 17 for coping efficacy) first went through a research 
team brainstorming process, in which feedback was sought from four of my graduate 
student peers in counseling psychology at the University of Maryland.  Then, ten experts 
in the fields of counseling psychology or multicultural counseling were invited to rate 
each item and comment on the entire draft of the MCSE-RD.  Among these experts were
five White Americans (2 males and 3 females), one African American male, three Asian 
American males, and one Native American female.  Seven of them were faculty in 
counseling psychology or counselor education programs, while the other three were 
licensed psychologists at university counseling centers.  All of them had either Ph.D. or 
Ed.D. degrees.  Using a 1-5 scale, these experts rated each item of the MCSE-RD for its 
clarity/readability and relevance of content to content-specific self-efficacy and coping 
efficacy in multicultural counseling.  Their open-ended feedback was also elicited.  Based 
on their ratings and suggestions as well as further review of the literature, the original
items were either deleted or revised, and new items were added.  Although classical 
stage-based counseling theories (e.g., Burke, 1992) were useful in generating initial items 
for the MCSE-RD to cover the entire counseling process, these theories have been 
criticized for their emphasis on linearity (Steenbarger, 1991).  Some consultants also 
pointed out that some skills were required throughout the course of counseling, which 
29
made it difficult to fit them into just one stage or category.  Thus, the original 
configuration for content-specific self-efficacy, which was based on counseling stage 
theories, was revised to focus on various functions an effective counselor is expected to 
fulfill in multicultural counseling.  Specifically, the final draft of the MCSE-RD 
contained 60 items assessing content-specific self-efficacy (46 items) and coping efficacy 
(14 items).  The domain of content-specific self-efficacy was further broken down to a
general factor (7 items for basic helping skills, 6 items for therapeutic relationship, 5 
items for session management skills, and 6 items for termination/referral) and the
culturally specific factor (6 items for multicultural assessment, 6 items for test 
interpretation/case conceptualization/goal-setting, and 10 items for intervention and 
treatment).  Items included in the general factor tapped skills that cover the counseling 
process and are important to all kinds of counseling, whereas the culturally specific factor 
included items that assess the counselor?s confidence in successfully delivering culturally
appropriate interventions and handling cross-cultural impasses.  The 14 items of the 
coping efficacy domain were culturally specific and were also further categorized into 
difficult issues (7 items) and cultural impasses and ruptures (7 items).  Finally, three 
Counseling Psychology doctoral students were invited to pilot the final draft of the 
MCSE-RD; based on their feedback, additional minor editing changes were made.
Criterion Measures
Multicultural Counseling Inventory (MCI).  Developed by Sodowsky et al. (1994), 
the MCI consists of 40 self-report items designed to assess multicultural counseling skills 
(11 items), multicultural counseling awareness (10 items), multicultural counseling 
relationship (8 items), and multicultural counseling knowledge (11 items).  Using a 4-
30
point Likert-type response mode (1 = very inaccurate; 4 = very accurate), scores on the 
MCI range from 40 to 160.  The content validity of the MCI was established by raters? 
classification of items into correct subscale categories and expert evaluation of item 
clarity.  Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses provided evidence supporting 
the oblique four-factor model underlying the MCI (Sodowsky et al., 1994; Sodowsky, 
1996).  To evaluate the use of the MCI in multicultural counseling training, the full scale 
and subscale posttest scores were found to be significantly higher than pretest scores after 
a multicultural counseling course.  In terms of convergent and divergent validity, the full 
scale score of the MCI correlated positively and significantly (from .61 to .73) with other 
multicultural counseling competency measures, such as the CCCI-R, MAKSS, and 
MCKAS.  With the exception of the Relationship subscale (r = .30, p < .01), the full scale 
and subscale scores of the MCI were found to have low, non-significant correlations 
(from .05 to .15) with social desirability (Constantine & Ladany, 2000). 
After reviewing several studies conducted before 1998, Constantine and Ladany 
(2001) indicated that the mean Cronbach?s 
 for the total MCI score is .87, and mean 
Cronbach?s 
 of .78, .77, .80, and .68, have been reported for the Awareness, Knowledge, 
Skills, and Relationship subscales, respectively.  A more recent study also provided 
similar evidence for the internal consistency reliability of the MCI (Worthington et al., 
2000).
Counselor Activity Self-Efficacy Scales (CASES).  The purpose of the CASES is 
to assess counselors? self-efficacy for performing helping skills, managing the counseling 
process, and handling difficult counseling situations, respectively, with the Helping Skills 
Self-Efficacy, Session Management Self-Efficacy, and Counseling Challenges Self-
31
Efficacy subscales (Lent et al., 2003).  The Helping Skill Self-Efficacy scale consists of 
15 items measuring skills involved in Hill and O?Brien?s (1999) three-stage model 
(exploration skills, insight skills, and action skills).  A three-factor solution accounted for 
60% of the total variance of scores from this scale.  A single-factor solution explained 
66% of the total variance of the Session Management Self-Efficacy scale, which includes 
10 items.  Finally, a two-factor structure, which accounted for 67% of the total variance, 
applied to the Counseling Challenges Self-Efficacy scale (10 items for the Relationship 
Conflict and 6 items for the Client Distress subscales).  In terms of convergent validity, 
the CASES? total score correlated highly with the total score of the Counseling Self-
Estimate Inventory (COSE) (r = .76).  Also, large correlations were observed between 
scales of the CASES and corresponding subscales of the COSE (Lent et al., 2003).  
Discriminant validity was demonstrated through small and nonsignificant correlations (r
ranging from -.02 to .22) between the CASES scales and Marlowe-Crowne Social 
Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; 1964).  Lastly, internal consistency 
reliability of the CASES total scores was .97 and that of the six CASES scales ranged 
from .79 to.94, while the 2-week test-retest reliability of the CASES total score was .79 
and that of the six CASES scales ranged from .59 to .76 (Lent et al., 2003).
Multicultural Social Desirability Index (MCSD).  The MCSD was designed to
assess the degree to which an individual claims favorable attitudes toward minorities all 
of the time on all personal, social, and institutional issues (Sodowsky, Kuo-Jackson, 
Richardson, & Corey, 1998).  The 26 items of the MCSD are rated with a forced-choice 
format of true or false.  Regarding internal consistency reliability, the average item-to-
total correlation of the MCSD was .35 while the Cronbach?s 
 was .80.  Validity 
32
evidence from two studies indicated interscale correlations of .32 (Sodowsky, 1996) 
and .48 (Sodowsky, O?Dell, Hagemoser, Kwan, & Tonemah, 1993) between the MCSD 
and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.  The moderate correlations between 
these two social desirability measures seem reasonable given that the Marlowe-Crowne 
Social Desirability Scale evaluates respondents? needs for approval in general while the 
MCSD assesses one?s tendency to claim favorable attitudes toward minorities.
Finally, a one-page demographic sheet was developed to collect information 
regarding participants? age, gender, racial/ethnic background, educational background, 
multicultural counseling training and experiences, future desire to get involved in 
multicultural counseling (caseload %), and interest in multicultural counseling (see 
Appendix B). 
Procedures
Data were collected from students in counseling-related graduate programs at ten 
different universities (one on the West Coast, six in the Mid-West, one on the East Coast, 
and two in the South).  Assistance was obtained from faculty members at these schools to 
distribute the survey either in classes or through mailboxes, except in the case of the East
Coast school, where participants were contacted directly by the researcher through 
mailboxes.  Email was used to follow up participants.  Three hundred and seven-five 
surveys were sent out and 181 were received, producing a return rate of 48%.  A prize 
drawing was used to promote participation.  Specifically, participants were informed that 
prize entry cards will be used later on to draw a lottery, in which four participants will 
each receive a cash prize of $25.
33
Included in the packet sent to each participant were the invitation letter, a 
demographic sheet, four instruments (MCSE-RD, CASES, MCI, and MCSD), a prize 
entry card, and two return envelopes.  In order to reduce the impact of motivation and 
fatigue, after the demographic sheet and the MCSE-RD, the CASES, MCI, and MCSD 
were presented in counterbalanced order. Participants gave their informed consent by 
returning the completed survey and prize entry card in two separate envelopes (which 
were used to maintain anonymity); and the surveys and cards were kept separately as 
soon as they were received to ensure confidentiality.
After the factor structure and items of the MCSE-RD were determined, data from 
the second sample were collected for the 2-week test-retest reliability of the final version 
of the MCSE-RD (see Table 1).  In addition to the MCSE-RD, demographic variables, 
such as sex, ethnicity, age, and year in school were also collected to describe 
characteristics of this sample.
Various statistical procedures performed in the study included exploratory factor 
analyses, correlation/regression analyses, and general linear models.  Significance levels 
of .05 or lower were reported for these tests.  Due to the relatively large numbers of 
hypothesis testing in the study, effect size indices were also presented, when relevant, to 
add to determination of practical meaning of these statistical tests.
34
Chapter IV: Results
To explore psychometric properties of the MCSE-RD, items were first factor 
analyzed, and then internal consistency estimates, test-retest reliabilities, and 
intercorrelations among the resulting scales were calculated. I next examined the MCSE-
RD?s convergent and discriminant validity in relation to general counseling self-efficacy 
(assessed by the CASES), multicultural counseling competency (assessed by the MCI), 
and multicultural social desirability (assessed by the MCSD). Finally, relationships 
between the MCSE-RD and several criterion variables, such as demographic information 
and counseling training background, were investigated.
Factor Analysis
Self-efficacy in conducting mental health services with racially/ethnically diverse 
populations is still a new territory for researchers to explore despite that the multicultural 
counseling competency literature has existed for two decades (Constantine & Ladany, 
2001). Nevertheless, the literature on general counseling self-efficacy (e.g., Lent et al.,
2003) suggests that different aspects of counseling self-efficacy, such as self- efficacy for 
basic helping skills and session management, might be correlated with each other. In 
other words, an oblique rotation solution might be more suitable for exploring the factor 
structure of the MCSE-RD. However, given that very little is known to guide the 
application of the self-efficacy construct in the field of multicultural counseling, the 60
MCSE-RD items were subjected to the Principal Axis Factoring procedure with both 
orthogonal and oblique solutions. The results of both rotation solutions were compared to 
determine the factor structure of the MCSE-RD.
35
The Kaiser-Guttman rule (i.e., eigenvalue  1) was applied to decide the number of 
factors extracted (Loehlin, 1998). Also, two criteria were used simultaneously to select and 
anchor items in a given factor. First, items that loaded most highly and beyond .50 on a 
given factor were retained (Gorsuch, 1997). Second, where cross-loadings became an issue, 
items with loadings above .50 were anchored in the factor on which they loaded most 
highly if their loadings showed a difference of >.10 between this factor and the next highest 
loading factor. These criteria were designed to clean up the factor structure of the MCSE-
RD scale and provide an appropriate framework for interpretation and prediction of 
criterion variables.
Using the aforementioned criteria for selecting and anchoring items, results of both
orthogonal and oblique rotation solutions suggested the same number of factors (i.e., 3 
factors) and similar factor structures for the MCSE-RD. For the first factor, 20 out of 23 
items retained by the oblique solution were also retained by the orthogonal solution. For 
the second and the third factors, items retained by the oblique solution were all covered by 
the orthogonal solution. However, the orthogonal solution included more items than the 
oblique solution for each factor (24 vs. 23 items, 6 vs. 4 items, and 7 vs. 4 items for the 1
st
, 
2
nd
, and 3
rd
 factors, respectively). Because the orthogonal solution retained more items, it 
also tended to produce higher internal consistency reliabilities than did the oblique 
solution (.98 vs. .98, .92 vs. .87, and .94 vs. .92 for the 1
st
, 2
nd
, and 3
rd
 factors, 
respectively). Given that construct underrepresentation is a threat to validity (AERA, APA, 
& NCME, 1999), the orthogonal solution was adopted as the basis for determining the 
factor structure of the MCSE-RD because the larger number of items retained by this 
solution would help to more adequately capture important aspects of the construct. For the 
36
MCSE-RD subscale and total scores, the self-efficacy indexes ranged from 0 to 9, with 
higher scores indicating stronger confidence in one?s multicultural counseling capabilities. 
The resulting factors, item content, and factor loadings are displayed in Tables 1.
Table 1
Items and Factor Loadings of the Multicultural Counseling Self-Efficacy ? Racial Diversity 
Form
Factor
Item
1 2 3
1. Multicultural Intervention
Remain flexible and accepting in resolving cross-cultural strains or impasses. .77 .33 .26
Manage your own racially or culturally based countertransference toward 
the client (e.g., overidentification with the client because of his or her 
race).
.75 .22 .34
Help the client to clarify how cultural factors (e.g., racism, acculturation, racial 
identity) may relate to her or his maladaptive beliefs and conflicted feelings.
.73 .43 .36
Admit and accept responsibility when you, as the counselor, have initiated the 
cross-cultural impasse.
.73 .22 .27
Encourage the client to express his or her negative feelings resulting from 
cross-cultural misunderstanding or impasses.
.72 .31 .30
Assess the salience and meaningfulness of culture/race in the client?s life. .71 .35 .35
Resolve misunderstanding with the client that stems from differences in 
culturally based style of communication (e.g., acquiescence versus 
confrontation).
.71 .38 .35
Help the client to identify how cultural factors (e.g., racism, acculturation, 
racial identity) may relate to his or her maladaptive relational patterns.
.70 .41 .34
Take into account multicultural constructs (e.g., acculturation, racial identity) 
when conceptualizing the client?s presenting problems.
.68 .41 .40
Manage your own anxiety due to cross-cultural impasses that arise in the 
session.
.67 .35 .30
Respond in a therapeutic way when the client challenges your multicultural 
counseling competency.
.67 .39 .33
37
Table 1 continued.
Factor
Item
1 2 3
Assess relevant cultural factors (e.g., the client?s acculturation level, racial 
identity, cultural values and beliefs).
.66 .43 .35
Help the client to set counseling goals that take into account expectations 
from her or his family.
.66 .42 .36
Openly discuss cultural differences and similarities between the client and 
yourself.
.65 .04 .28
Address issues of cultural mistrust in ways that can improve the 
therapeutic relationship.
.65 .13 .34
Help the client to develop culturally appropriate ways to deal with systems 
(e.g., school, community) that affect him or her.
.65 .45 .37
Help the client to develop new and more adaptive behaviors that are consistent 
with his or her cultural background.
.65 .48 .39
Repair cross-cultural impasses that arise due to problems in the use or 
timing of particular skills (e.g., introduce the topic of race into therapy 
when the client is not ready to discuss).
.64 .41 .38
Help the client to utilize family/community resources to reach her or his goals. .64 .36 .34
Deal with power-related disparities (i.e., counselor power versus client 
powerlessness) with a client who has experienced racism or discrimination.
.63 .41 .37
Take into account cultural explanations of the client?s presenting issues in 
case conceptualization.
.63 .38 .45
Where appropriate, help the client to explore racism or discrimination in 
relation to his or her presenting issues.
.61 .19 .45
Take into account the impact that family may have on the client in case 
conceptualization.
.59 .43 .41
Deliver treatment to a client who prefers a different counseling style (i.e., 
directive versus non-directive).
.59 .45 .31
2. Multicultural Assessment
Treat culture-bound syndromes (DSM-IV) for racially diverse clients (e.g., 
brain fag, neurasthenia, nervios, ghost sickness).
.24 .81 .06
Table 1 continued.
38
Factor
Item
1 2 3
Assess culture-bound syndromes (DSM-IV) for racially diverse clients (e.g., 
brain fag, neurasthenia, nervios, ghost sickness).
.25 .79 .11
Interpret standardized tests (e.g., MMPI-2, Strong Interest Inventory) in ways 
sensitive to cultural differences.
.18 .70 .30
Select culturally appropriate assessment tools according to the client?s cultural 
background.
.23 .67 .33
Use non-standardized methods or procedures (e.g., card sort, guided fantasy) 
to assess the client?s concerns in a culturally sensitive way.
.35 .67 .38
Conduct a mental status examination in a culturally sensitive way. .39 .64 .31
3. Multicultural Counseling Session Management
Encourage the client to take an active role in counseling. .37 .24 .79
Evaluate counseling progress in an on-going fashion. .40 .29 .76
Respond effectively to the client?s feelings related to termination (e.g., 
sadness, feeling of loss, pride, relief).
.40 .19 .69
Keep sessions on track and focused with a client who is not familiar with 
the counseling process.
.43 .25 .65
Assess the client?s readiness for termination. .47 .35 .64
Help the client to articulate what she or he has learned from counseling 
during the termination process.
.44 .29 .62
Identify and integrate the client?s culturally specific way of saying good-
bye in the termination process.
.45 .38 .55
Note. N = 181. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index = .97. The Multicultural Intervention, Multicultural 
Assessment, and Multicultural Counseling Session Management accounted for 34.08%, 
18.62%, and 17.88%, respectively, of the total variance. Factor loadings were obtained with the 
rotated factor matrix of the orthogonal solution.
Analysis of items of the MCSE-RD supported a three-factor solution; this solution 
retained 37 items and accounted for 71% of the total variance (see Table 1). The three 
factors were labeled (a) Multicultural Intervention (24 items), including such capabilities 
as remaining flexible and accepting in resolving cross-cultural strains or impasses; (b) 
39
Multicultural Assessment (6 items), consisting of such capabilities as selecting and 
interpreting culturally appropriate assessment tools; and (c) Multicultural Counseling 
Session Management (7 items), including such skills as encouraging the client to take an 
active role in counseling and evaluating counseling progress in an on-going fashion. All 
37 items loaded highly (above .50) on their corresponding factors.
To further explore the latent structure of the MCSE-RD, a second-order factor 
analysis of three subscale scores was performed. The purpose of this analysis was to 
assess whether these subscales reflected one or more higher order underlying dimensions 
of multicultural counseling self-efficacy. The results supported a single factor solution, 
which accounted for 76% of the total variance. All three MCSE-RD subscale scores 
loaded highly on this second-order factor: Multicultural Intervention (.96), Multicultural 
Assessment (.77), and Multicultural Counseling Session Management (.88). Therefore, in 
addition to three subscale scores (Multicultural Intervention, Multicultural Assessment, 
and Multicultural Counseling Session Management), a MCSE- RD total score, ranging 
from 0 to 9, was calculated by averaging all 37 items.
Reliability Estimates and Scale Intercorrelations
The intercorrelations, means, standard deviations, as well as internal consistencies 
(Cronbach?s ) and 2-week test-retest reliabilities (Pearson correlation coefficient) for each 
MCSE-RD scale, including the total scale score, are displayed in Table 2. Internal 
consistency reliabilities of the MCSE-RD subscale scores ranged from .92 (Multicultural 
Assessment) to .98 (Multicultural Intervention); and the reliability of the MCSE-RD total 
score was .98. On the other hand, at the individual item level, 2-week test-retest reliabilities 
of the 37 items ranged from .38 to .86, all of which were significant at the .05 level. Test-
40
retest reliabilities of the MCSE-RD subscale scores ranged from .69 (Multicultural 
Counseling Session Management) to .88 (Multicultural Assessment), whereas that of the 
MCSE-RD total score was .77.
As expected, these three subscales correlated with each other highly and significantly, 
ranging from .67 to .85. All MCSE-RD subscale scores also had high correlations (r ranged
from .83 to .98) with the total score. At the subscale level, participants tended to have 
lower confidence in conducting multicultural assessment (3.77) and higher confidence in 
managing multicultural counseling sessions (5.84). This finding suggested that selecting 
and interpreting multicultural assessment tools and results might be perceived by 
participants as more difficult tasks.
Table 2
Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistency Estimates, and Test-
Retest Reliabilities for the Multicultural Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale ? Racial 
Diversity Form
Scale 1 2 3 4 M SD  r 
a
1. MC Intervention - 5.66 1.63 .98 .73
2. MC Assessment .74 - 3.77 2.02 .92 .88
3. MC Session Mgmt. .85 .67 - 5.84 1.53 .94 .69
4. MCSE-RD .98 .83 .89 - 5.39 1.57 .98 .77
Note. N = 181. All correlations were significant (p < .001). MC Intervention = Multicultural 
Counseling Intervention; MC Assessment = Multicultural Assessment; MC Session Mgmt. = 
Multicultural Counseling Session Management; MCSE-RD = Multicultural Counseling Self-
Efficacy ? Racial Diversity Form.
a
 Two-week test-retest reliability (N = 41).
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
41
Evidence of convergent validity of the MCSE-RD scores was provided by significant 
and positive correlations between the MCSE-RD and CASES (general counseling self-
efficacy) as well as those between the MCSE-RD and MCI (self-reported multicultural
counseling competence) (see Table 3). In addition, the discriminant validity of the MCSE-
RD scores was supported by low and non-significant correlations between the MCSE-RD 
and social desirability (r ranged from .03 to .12).
Table 3
Correlations of the Multicultural Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale ? Racial Diversity Form
to the Criterion Variables (CASES, MCI, MCSD)
MCSE-RD scale
MC Intervention MC Assessment MC Session Mgmt. Total Score
CASES scale
Helping Skill .71 .55 .72 .72
Session Mgmt. .73 .55 .79 .76
Counsel. Chlg. .72 .58 .71 .73
CASES total .77 .60 .78 .79
MCI scale
Skills .62 .52 .58 .63
Awareness .56 .50 .43 .56
Relationship .41 .25 .37 .40
Knowledge .54 .45 .45 .54
MCI total .67 .55 .58 .68
MCSD total .12 .04 .03 .09
Note. N ranged from 176 to 178 because of missing values. MCSE-RD = Multicultural 
Counseling Self-Efficacy ? Racial Diversity Form: MC Intervention = Multicultural 
Intervention; MC Assessment = Multicultural Assessment; MC Session Mgmt. = Multicultural 
42
Counseling Session Management. CASES = Counselor Activity Self-Efficacy Scales: Session 
Mgmt. = Session Management; Counsel. Chlg. = Counseling Challenges. MCI = Multicultural 
Counseling Inventory. MCSD = Multicultural Social Desirability Scale.
Correlation coefficients below .20 were not significant at the .05 level. Correlation coefficient 
of .25 was significant (p = .001). Correlation coefficients above .30 were significant ( p
< .001).
Table 3 shows that the Multicultural Assessment subscale tended to have lower 
correlations with the Helping Skill, Session Management, and Counseling Challenges 
scales of the CASES (.55, .55, and .58, respectively). On the other hand, the Multicultural 
Intervention and Multicultural Counseling Session Management tended to have equally 
stronger associations with the Helping Skill, Session Management, and Counseling 
Challenges scales of the CASES (.71, .73, and .72 for Multicultural Intervention; .72, .79, 
and .71 for Multicultural Counseling Session Management). Finally, all three MCSE-RD 
subscale scores correlated highly with the CASES total score, ranging from .60 to .78; and 
the correlation between the MCSE-RD total score and the CASES total score was .79.
Next, the correlations between the MCSE-RD scores and the MCI scores were 
investigated to illuminate the relationship between multicultural counseling self-efficacy 
and multicultural counseling competency, which includes the three components of skills, 
awareness, and knowledge (Sue et al., 1992) (see Table 3). The high correlation (.68) 
between the MCSE-RD total score and the MCI total score indicated significant overlap 
(about 46%) between the behavior-oriented concept of multicultural counseling self-
efficacy and the broader concept of multicultural counseling competency. As expected, all 
MCSE-RD subscales correlated more highly and positively with the Multicultural 
Counseling Skills subscale (r ranged from .52 to .62) than with the Multicultural 
Awareness (r ranged from .43 to .56), Multicultural Counseling Relationship (r ranged 
43
from .25 to .41), or Multicultural Counseling Knowledge subscales (r ranged from .45
to .54) of the MCI. These higher correlations between the MCSE-RD subscales and the 
Skills subscale of the MCI provide initial evidence for the MCSE-RD?s convergent validity 
because they all measure the behavior component of the multicultural counseling 
competency model. On the other hand, the MCSE-RD?s lower, but still significant, 
correlations with the Awareness, Relationship, and Knowledge components of the MCI 
supported the MCSE-RD?s discriminant validity since they tap different aspects of the 
competency model. Finally, the correlation between the MCSE-RD total score and the 
CASES total score (.79) was somewhat higher than that between the MCSE-RD total score 
and the MCI total score (.68), suggesting that the concept of multicultural counseling self-
efficacy may be more closely associated with the construct of general counseling self-
efficacy given their common focus on the behavior that a counselor performs in-session.
MCSE-RD Scores and Demographic Variables
The relationships between the MCSE-RD and demographic variables were 
investigated with a series of General Linear Models because of unequal cell sample sizes. 
In addition to F values for statistical significance tests, the effect size index, 

2
, is also 
reported for determining practical meaning of these tests. According to Cohen (1988), 

2
larger than .0099 could be considered as a small effect size, 

2
larger than .0588 a medium 
effect size, and 

2
larger than .1379 a large effect size. As shown in Table 4, male 
participants seemed consistently more confident in providing multicultural counseling 
than females. Across three MCSE-RD subscales and the full scale, the gender differences 
not only were statistically significant but also had practical meaning with at least small 
effect sizes. The gender difference was most salient on the Multicultural Assessment
44
subscale (F = 14.87, 

2
= .077). In short, males reported higher scores than females did on 
Multicultural Intervention (6.47 vs. 5.49), Multicultural Assessment (4.97 vs. 3.51) and 
Multicultural Counseling Session Management (6.70 vs. 5.66) subscales as well as on the 
MCSE-RD full scale (6.27 vs. 5.20).
Table 4
Multicultural Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale ? Racial Diversity Form and Demographic 
Variables
MCSE-RD scale
MC Intervention MC Assessment MC Session Mgmt. Total Score
Sex
Males (N = 32) 6.47/1.28 4.97/1.75 6.70/1.19 6.27/1.26
Females (N = 149) 5.49/1.65 3.51/1.98 5.66/1.54 5.20/1.57
F 9.91** 14.87** 12.95** 12.96**


2
.052 .077 .067 .067
Ethnicity
White Americans
(N = 107)
5.32/1.65 3.42/1.95 5.55/1.54 5.06/1.58
Ethnic Minorities
(N = 74)
6.14/1.50 4.28/2.02 6.27/1.42 5.87/1.45
F 11.50** 8.17** 10.37** 12.15**


2
.060 .044 .055 .064
Note. For all F tests, degree of freedom = (1, 179). Those numbers before and after the slash 
are means and standard deviations of the corresponding scale. MCSE-RD = Multicultural 
Counseling Self-Efficacy ? Racial Diversity Form: MC Intervention = Multicultural 
Intervention; MC Assessment = Multicultural Assessment; MC Session Mgmt. = Multicultural 
Counseling Sessions Management. ** p < .01.
45
Ethnic differences were also both statistically significant and practically meaningful 
across three MCSE-RD subscales and the full scale. Specifically, ethnic minorities 
(including African Americans, Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders, Latino/a Americans, 
Native Americans/Alaskan Natives, international students from Asia, and participants 
with multiethnic backgrounds) had significantly higher perceived capabilities than their 
White American counterparts in conducting multicultural interventions (6.14 vs. 5.32) 
and multicultural assessment (4.28 vs. 3.42), as well as managing multicultural 
counseling sessions (6.27 vs. 5.55). Ethnic minorities (5.87) also had higher MCSE-RD 
total scores than White Americans (5.06). These ethnic differences represented small to 
medium effect sizes. Finally, except for the Multicultural Assessment subscale  (r = .12 
n.s.), the other two MCSE-RD subscales and the full scale were significantly and 
positively (but modestly) correlated with participants? age (r ranged from .20 to .21, 
< .01).
MCSE-RD Scores, Educational Background, and Multicultural Counseling Training
Table 5 showed that participants with a master?s degree had consistently higher 
confidence in delivering multicultural counseling than those with a bachelor?s degree
across three MCSE-RD subscales. These statistically significant differences were also 
practically meaningful with effect sizes (

2
) of .099 and above. Similarly, those 
participants who were in a doctoral program had higher self-efficacy than those in a 
master?s program on multicultural interventions (5.99 vs. 5.34), multicultural assessment 
(4.18 vs. 3.34), multicultural counseling session management (6.22 vs. 5.44), and the 
MCSE-RD total score (5.74 vs. 5.04). These statistically significant comparisons between 
46
doctoral and master?s students on MCSE-RD scores represented small to medium effect 
sizes.
Table 5
Multicultural Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale ? Racial Diversity Form and Educational 
Backgrounds
MCSE-RD scale
MC 
Intervention
MC 
Assessment
MC Session 
Mgmt.
Total Score
Highest Degree
Bachelor?s (N = 102) 5.19/1.53 3.12/1.76 5.37/1.45 4.89/1.42
Master?s (N = 75) 6.22/1.57 4.61/2.05 6.42/1.46 6.00/1.55
F 19.15 27.00 22.73 24.45


2
.099 .134 .115 .123
Specialty Area
Counseling Psychology
(N = 73)
6.23/1.31 4.34/1.96 6.38/1.28 5.95/1.30
Other Counseling Program
(N = 108)
5.28/1.72 3.39/1.98 5.48/1.59 5.01/1.63
F 16.15 10.04 12.33 17.07


2
.083 .053 .084 .087
Current Degree
Master?s (N = 79) 5.34/1.69 3.34/1.92 5.44/1.53 5.04/1.58
Doctoral (N = 97) 5.99/1.51 4.18/2.03 6.22/1.44 5.74/1.48
F 7.19 7.98 12.19 9.29


2
.040 .044 .065 .051
47
Table 5 continued.
MC 
Intervention
MC 
Assessment
MC Session 
Mgmt.
Total Score
Years in program
1
st
 year (N = 68) 5.39
a 
/1.71 3.27
a 
/2.04 5.45
a 
/1.65 5.05
a 
/1.63
2
nd
 year (N = 53) 5.07
a 
/1.59 3.16
a 
/1.78 5.49
a 
/1.49 4.84
a 
/1.50
 3
rd
 year (N = 60) 6.50
b 
/1.23 4.88
b 
/1.74 6.61
b 
/1.11 6.26
b 
/1.18
F 14.08 15.94 12.56 16.26


2
.137 .152 .124 .154
Note. Degrees of freedom for F tests on highest degree, specialty area, current degree, and year in 
program are (1, 175), (1, 179), (1, 174), and (2, 178), respectively. Those numbers before and after 
the slash are means and standard deviations of the corresponding scale. MCSE-RD = Multicultural 
Counseling Self-Efficacy ? Racial Diversity Form: MC Intervention = Multicultural Intervention; 
MC Assessment = Multicultural Assessment; MC Session Mgmt. = Multicultural Counseling 
Session Management.
All F values were significant (p < .001).
a, b
Results of Scheff? post-hoc comparisons: Mean scores with superscript 
b
 were significant higher 
than mean scores with superscript 
a
 (p < .001).
In terms of participants? specialty areas, participants in Counseling Psychology had 
significantly higher scores than those in other counseling-related areas (e.g., School 
Psychology, Student Personnel Services, School Counseling) on all MCSE-RD subscales. 
These differences in self-efficacy between Counseling Psychology and other students had 
at least a small effect size (.053 and above).
Participants? tenure in their graduate programs was also associated with their 
multicultural counseling self-efficacy (see Table 5). While MCSE-RD scores of first-year 
and second-year graduate students were close to each other, results of Scheff? post-hoc 
comparisons indicated that third-year and above students? MCSE-RD scores were 
significantly higher than those of first-year and second-year students on all MCSE-RD 
48
subscales. All of these comparisons were practically meaningful, with medium to large
effect sizes. These results indicated that advanced graduate students were more confident in 
providing counseling to racially diverse clients than were more junior graduate students.
Table 6
Correlations of Multicultural Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale ? Racial Diversity Form to 
Multicultural Counseling Training Backgrounds
MCSE-RD scale
MC Intervention MC Assessment MC Session Mgmt. Total Score
# of MC Courses .29** .28** .23** .29**
# of MC Workshops .35** .37** .30** .37**
Direct MC Hours .47** .44** .42** .48**
Supervision Hours .20** .26** .16* .22**
Interest in MC .34** .31** .24** .34**
Future MC Training .12 .20** .06 .13
Note. N ranges from 178 to 181 because of missing values. MCSE-RD = Multicultural 
Counseling Self-Efficacy ? Racial Diversity Form: MC Intervention = Multicultural 
Intervention; MC Assessment = Multicultural Assessment; MC Session Mgmt. = Multicultural 
Counseling Session Management. MC = Multicultural Counseling. Future MC Training = % of 
future clinical work devoted to see racially diverse clients.
* p < .05.  ** p < .01
In terms of the relationships between participants? multicultural counseling self-
efficacy and their specific training in multicultural counseling, Table 6 shows that all 
MCSE-RD scores had small and positive correlations with number of multicultural 
counseling courses (r ranged from .23 to .29) and supervision hours spent on racially
diverse clients (r ranged from .16 to .26); and all MCSE-RD scores had medium and 
49
positive correlations with number of multicultural workshops taken (r ranged from .30
to .37) and direct contact hours with racial diverse clients (r ranged from .42 to .48). 
Moreover, all MCSE-RD scores were associated weakly to moderately with interest in 
multicultural counseling (r ranged from .24 to .34). However, only the Multicultural 
Assessment subscale correlated significantly with intention for future multicultural 
counseling training (r = .20). The non-significant correlations involving intention in
future multicultural counseling training might be due to the limited score ranges of the 
criterion variable as it was measured by a single item.
Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) proposes four sources that contribute to 
self-efficacy appraisals: enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal 
persuasion, and physiological and affective states. Mastery experiences are seen as the 
most influential of the four sources of efficacy information. A hierarchical regression 
analysis (Table 7) was performed in order to examine the predictive utility of the various 
sources of multicultural counseling self-efficacy. Three blocks of predictors were entered 
at successive steps into the equation: (a) earned highest degree and year in the current 
program; (b) numbers of multicultural courses and multicultural workshops taken; and (c) 
direct contact hours with and supervision hours spent on racially different clients. It was 
assumed that the first block reflects a combination of efficacy source information, 
whereas the second and third blocks mostly represent vicarious and mastery experiences, 
respectively.
50
Table 7
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Self-Efficacy in Counseling 
Racially Diverse Clients (MCSE-RD total score)
Predictors R R
2
df F 

Step 1 Earned Highest Degree .39 .15 2, 171 14.92** .06
Year in the Current Program .11
Step 2 MC Courses Taken .46 .06 2, 169 6.90** .14
MC Workshops Taken .04
Step 3 Direct Client Contact Hours .54 .08 2, 167 9.87** .35**
Supervision Hours Received .03
Note. MCSE-RD = Multicultural Counseling Self-Efficacy ? Racial Diversity Form.
** p < .01.
Results of the hierarchical regression (see Table 7) indicated that each of the 
variable sets contributed significantly to predicting multicultural counseling self-efficacy, 
as measured by the MCSE- RD total score. Specifically, participants? earned highest 
degree and seniority together explained 15% of the variance; numbers of multicultural 
counseling courses and workshops taken by the participants accounted for an additional 
6% of the variance; and participants? direct counseling experiences with, and supervision 
hours spent on, racially different clients explained another 8% of the variance in the 
MCSE-RD total score. These findings provide support for the notion that training 
experiences, particularly those based on vicarious and mastery exposure, help to inform 
multicultural counseling self-efficacy. Among the six individual predictors, direct contact 
hours with racially different clients had the highest  weight (.35), supporting the 
hypothesized import of direct mastery experiences as a source of self-efficacy appraisals.
51
Chapter V: Discussion
The APA Multicultural Guidelines (APA, 2002) acknowledge the racial/ethnic 
diversity of the U.S. population and encourage mental health professionals to consider the 
role of cultural factors in their work.  Having existed for two decades, the multicultural
counseling competency literature has increased our awareness of the importance of 
training culturally competent professionals.  However, existing measurement tools, such 
as the MCI (Sodowsky et al., 1994) and the MCAS (Ponterotto et al., 2002), have focused 
primarily on multicultural knowledge and awareness while attending minimally to what a 
counselor actually does with racially diverse clients to bring about positive outcomes.  
The lack of an instrument to properly assess a counselor?s behaviors when working with 
racially/ethnically diverse clients may have slowed progress in providing better services 
to these populations and impeded the effectiveness of multicultural training.  The purpose 
of the current study was to develop the Multicultural Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale ?
Racial Diversity Form (MCSE-RD).  The MCSE- RD is intended to exclusively tap the 
behavioral aspect of counselors? work in the context of multicultural individual
counseling; in other words, it focuses on one?s self-perceived helping skills and
confidence in effectively handling difficult issues involved in the multicultural
counseling process.
Factor Structures of the MCSE-RD
Findings of the current study provided initial support for the validity and internal 
consistency and test-retest reliabilities of MCSE-RD scores.  The first subscale, 
Multicultural Intervention, covers counselor behaviors required to therapeutically handle 
cross-cultural impasses and bring about positive outcomes of multicultural counseling.  
52
These behaviors include remaining flexible and accepting in resolving cross-cultural 
strains, managing the counselor?s own anxiety or culturally based countertransference, 
helping the client clarify how cultural factors may relate to his or her presenting issues, 
and so on.  Neither of these issues are assessed extensively in multicultural counseling 
competency measures (e.g., the MCI, MAKSS, CCCI-R), nor are they included in 
instruments assessing efficacy beliefs in general counseling (e.g., the COSE, COSES) or 
in specialty areas such as career counseling (e.g., the CCSES).
The second subscale, Multicultural Assessment, focuses on counselors? perceived 
capabilities to properly select assessment tools, conduct mental status exams, interpret 
test results, and deal with culture-bound syndromes according to the client?s cultural
background.  These culturally sensitive assessment skills are not measured in most 
general counseling self-efficacy instruments (e.g., the COSE, CASES).  Compared with 
the single-item regarding assessment in most multicultural counseling competency 
measures (e.g., the MCI, MAKSS), the Multicultural Assessment subscale seems to have 
better content validity in this area and, thus, may more adequately sample one?s 
perceived capability in multicultural assessment.  The third subscale, Multicultural 
Counseling Session Management, consists of counselor behaviors required to facilitate 
the entire counseling process, from engaging the client in counseling to helping the client 
get ready for termination.  While overlapping somewhat with general counseling self-
efficacy instruments (e.g., the Session Management scale of the CASES and the Process 
subscale of the COSE), items of the Multicultural Counseling Session Management 
subscale are contextualized specifically in situations where counselors work with racially 
different clients.
53
Putting these three subscales together, it seems clear that the first and second 
subscales directly tap culturally-specific issues (e.g., multicultural interventions and 
assessment) while the third subscale focuses on routine session management tasks with 
culturally diverse clients.  Among the three subscales, participants scored lowest on the 
Multicultural Assessment subscale (3.77 on a 0-9 scale), followed by the Multicultural 
Intervention (5.66) and Multicultural Counseling Session Management (5.84) subscales.  
Since the training of psychological assessment may not be covered in master?s counseling 
programs or the beginning of doctoral programs, more research is warranted to clarify 
whether participants? perceived abilities in selecting, administering, and interpreting 
results of multicultural assessments are confounded by their lack of knowledge on this 
area.
Finally, both the single higher-order factor derived from exploratory factor analysis 
using the three subscale scores of the MCSE-RD and the high internal consistency (
= .98) of the total score suggested that all items of the MCSE-RD seemed related closely 
to one another and reflect a single overarching construct, multicultural counseling self-
efficacy.  In comparison with the Multicultural Counseling Skills subscale of the MCI 
and the Skills subscale of the MAKSS, the MCSE-RD seems to do a more thorough job 
of sampling what a counselor actually does when working with racially different clients.  
Also, the MCSE-RD is more domain-specific than are multicultural counseling 
competency measures, such as the MAKSS, that only use single-item assessments of 
one?s perceived  abilities to work with various multicultural subgroups (e.g., LGBT 
clients, people with disabilities, culturally different clients) and in different areas (e.g., 
counseling, research, consultation).  Because of its domain specificity and promising 
54
psychometric properties, the MCSE-RD may better assess counselors? perceived 
capabilities to counsel racially diverse clients and may better predict outcomes of cross-
racial counseling dyads.  However, these possibilities require empirical confirmation.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the MCSE-RD Scores
Convergent validity of the MCSE-RD scores was initially supported by their high 
correlations with the CASES scales and the Multicultural Counseling Skills subscale of 
the MCI.  The MCSE-RD might relate to these two instruments for different reasons.  
While high correlations between the MCSE-RD scores and the CASES scores might stem
from their common emphases on the behavioral aspect of a counselor?s work, the focus 
on the multicultural counseling domain might be the cause of the close relationship 
between the MCSE-RD and the Multicultural Counseling Skills subscale of the MCI.  
However, as opposed to the MCSE-RD?s focus on specific behaviors, the MCI tends to 
measure counselors? skills at a more general level.  This difference in domain specificity 
might explain the somewhat lower correlations between the MCSE-RD and the 
Multicultural Counseling Skills subscale of the MCI (median r  = .58, r ranged from .52 
to .62), compared with those between the MCSE-RD and the CASES (median r  = .71, r
ranged from .55 to .79). These high correlations might shed some light on the issue of 
whether general and multicultural counseling competencies are distinct competencies 
(Coleman, 1998).  Although Coleman?s literature review suggested that these two were 
separate sets of competencies, results of his analogue study showed no distinction 
between general and multicultural counseling competencies.  While more research is 
needed to answer this question, the high correlations between the MCSE-RD and the 
55
CASES in the current study seemed to suggest that perceived general and multicultural 
counseling abilities, if not the same construct, complement to each other.
Discriminant validity of the MCSE-RD scores was initially demonstrated by their 
nonsignificant and low correlations to social desirability ( r ranged from .03 to .12) as 
well as its differing correlations to the Multicultural Counseling Skills subscale and the 
other three non-behavior oriented subscales (Multicultural Awareness, Relationship, and 
Knowledge) of the MCI.  Whereas most of the correlations between the MCSE-RD and 
the Multicultural Awareness, Relationship, and Knowledge subscales were medium (i.e., 
between .3 to.5), those between the MCSE-RD and the Skills subscale were high (i.e., 
above .5).  These discriminant correlations not only initially supported the idea that the 
MCSE-RD was designed to measure counselors? perceived abilities, as opposed to 
knowledge and awareness, but also suggested that counselors? cultural awareness and 
knowledge about other cultures might be related to what they perceive they could do with 
racially diverse clients.
Criterion Validity of the MCSE-RD Scores
MCSE-RD scores were also found to be associated with several demographic and 
training background variables.  Gender differences on the MCSE-RD scores suggested 
that males were more confident than females in delivering counseling to racially diverse 
clients.  The literature on gender differences in multicultural counseling competence is 
not conclusive.  Studying students in counseling and clinical psychology programs and 
doctoral interns at university counseling centers, Pope-Davis and his colleagues (Pope-
Davis, Reynolds, Dings, & Nielson, 1995; Pope-Davis, Reynolds, Dings, & Ottavi, 1994) 
found no gender differences on the MCI subscale and total scores or on the MCAS 
56
(Ponterotto et al. 1996) subscale scores.  On the other hand, also using the MCI, Bellini 
(2002) found gender to be a significant predictor (
= .17) of multicultural counseling
competency, with female vocational rehabilitation counselors reporting higher 
multicultural counseling competence than their male counterparts.  Similarly, female 
counselors reported better multicultural knowledge and awareness as assessed by the 
MCAS (Constantine, 2000).
The social cognitive literature seems more conclusive on gender differences than 
the multicultural counseling competence literature.  Using Holland?s hexagon theory 
(1997) as the framework, researchers have developed several measures to assess self-
efficacy on each Holland theme.  In general, findings suggested that males were 
significantly more confident in the Realistic and Investigative areas while females 
reported significantly greater Social confidence (Betz, Harmon, & Borgen, 1996; Lapan, 
Boggs, & Morrill, 1989; Lenox & Subich, 1994).  The significant gender differences in 
favor of males on multicultural counseling self-efficacy found in the current study
seemed to contradict with the above findings because counseling is classified as a Social 
occupation according to Holland?s theory (Holland, 1996).  The reason for males
reporting higher multicultural counseling self-efficacy than females is unclear.  T his 
finding should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size for males (N
= 32), which could make the gender differences on multicultural counseling self-efficacy 
a sample-specific finding.   In addition, it is important for us to explore potential 
moderators or mediators for the observed gender differences.  For example, it deserves 
further empirical scrutiny to examine how personality variables (e.g., generalized self-
efficacy, positive and negative affectivity, introversion and extraversion) and cultural
57
factors (e.g., racial identity, universal-diverse orientation) interact with gender to affect 
counselors? confidence in providing multicultural counseling.
Ethnic minorities were found to report higher multicultural counseling self-efficacy 
than White Americans in the current study, which is consistent with findings in the 
multicultural counseling competency literature.  Racial/ethnic minority counselors have 
consistently been found to describe themselves as more multiculturally competent than 
do White Americans in several samples, including counseling/clinical psychology 
students (Pope-Davis et al., 1995; Vinson & Neimeyer, 2003), vocational rehabilitation 
counselors (Bellini, 2002), and APA-approved university counseling center staff 
members (Sodowsky, Kuo-Jackson, Richardson, & Corey, 1998).  This racial/ethnic 
difference was also cross-validated by the CCCI-R, an other-report multicultural
counseling instrument (Constantine, 2001c).  The current study added to the literature by 
demonstrating racial/ethnic differences using an exclusively skill-focused self-report 
measure, the MCSE-RD.
This racial difference in multicultural counseling self-efficacy may possibly be a 
function of differential experiences in counseling training.  Findings from prior research 
(e.g., Bellini, 2002; Vinson & Neimeyer, 2003) and the current study have suggested that 
racial/ethnic minority counseling students and professionals tend to receive more 
multicultural counseling training and have a higher proportion of minority clients on their 
caseloads, which may, in turn, lead to higher perceived abilities to perform multicultural
counseling (Pope-Davis et al., 1995; Pope-Davis et al., 1994).  In other words, the racial 
differences on multicultural counseling competency or self-efficacy may be due to how 
58
much multicultural counseling training and other relevant experience a counselor receives 
rather than being due to his or her race per se.
In addition, exploring how counselors identify themselves racially/ethnically may 
help to account for the observed racial differences in multicultural counseling self-
efficacy.  The concepts of ethnic and racial identity development (Helms & Cook, 1999; 
Phinney, 2003) and White racial identity development (Helms & Carter, 1990) are 
important in exploring the relationship between one?s sense of self as a member of an 
ethnic group and his or her confidence in delivering multicultural counseling.  
Researchers have conceptually argued and empirically demonstrated that White racial 
identity development is predictive of multicultural counseling competencies for White 
counseling students and counselors (Constantine, 2002; Constantine, Juby, & Liang, 2001; 
Ottavi, Pope-Davis, & Dings, 1994; Sabnani, Ponterotto, & Borodovsky, 1991).  The 
predictive and moderating effects of racial/ethnic identity relative to multicultural 
counseling self-efficacy merit empirical attention in future research.
In terms of educational background, Pope-Davis et al. (1995) found that neither 
highest degree held nor tenure in program were significant predictors of the MCI 
subscale scores for counseling psychology students.  By contrast, results of the current 
study suggested that participants? educational backgrounds, such as earned highest degree, 
specialty area, current degree, and tenure in their program, were associated with their 
perceived abilities to conduct multicultural counseling.  Specifically, participants, who 
had a master?s degree, were working toward a doctoral degree, had longer tenure in the 
program, and were in counseling psychology programs, tended to have higher self-
efficacy when working with racially diverse clients than those who held a bachelor?s 
59
degree, were working toward a master?s degree, had shorter tenure, and were in other
counseling-related programs.
Once again, a counselor?s multicultural counseling training might help to explain 
these relationships. As indicated in previous research (Bellini, 2002; Coleman, 1998; 
Constantine, 2001c; Pope-Davis et al., 1995), multicultural training experiences were 
found to be related to one?s perception of multicultural counseling competence.  Findings 
of the current study were consistent with the literature by evidencing significant and 
positive correlations of all MCSE-RD scores to numbers of multicultural courses and 
workshops taken and to direct contact hours with, and supervision hours spent on,
racially different clients.  Results of a hierarchical regression analysis further suggested 
that, above and beyond educational background (earned highest degree and tenure in the
program), participants? multicultural counseling training (multicultural counseling 
courses and workshops taken) and direct multicultural counseling and supervision 
experiences were significant predictors of their confidence in working with racially 
diverse clients.  This finding supported the social cognitive assumption that enactive 
mastery experiences and vicarious learning experiences are important sources of efficacy 
beliefs (Bandura, 1997) in the domain of multicultural counseling.
Finally, all MCSE-RD scores correlated significantly and positively with interests 
in multicultural counseling.  While this finding was consistent with the social cognitive 
assumptions (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994), the self-efficacy?interest association was 
likely to be underestimated in the current study because interests in multicultural 
counseling was measured with a single item and the issue of restricted range seemed 
present (mean = 4.27 with SD = .87 at a 5-point scale).  On the other hand, only the 
60
Multicultural Assessment subscale of the MCSE-RD was significantly related to 
participants? desire for future multicultural counseling training.  Once again, the
nonsignificant correlations between most MCSE-RD scores and intention for future 
training might be due to participants? restricted responses to the singe item for this 
criterion variable.  Researchers may be able to more reliably and thoroughly investigate 
the relationships between the MCSE-RD and interests in and preferences for 
multicultural counseling if dependent variable measures with better psychometric
properties, such as the Scientist-Practitioner Inventory (Leong & Zachar, 1991), are used 
in future research.
Overall, the MCSE-RD seems to be internally reliable and its construct validity was 
initially supported by clear factor structures and high factor loadings.  Convergent 
validity was evidenced by high correlations between the MCSE-RD and CASES scores.  
Moreover, the MCSE-RD scores showed discriminant validity by correlating more highly 
with the Multicultural Counseling Skills subscale than with the other (non-skill-focused) 
subscales of the MCI.  The low and nonsignificant correlations between the MCSE-RD 
scores and the multicultural social desirability measure (MCSD) might also suggest that 
perceived multicultural counseling capabilities were not substantially influenced by self-
presentation biases.  Finally, the MCSE-RD scores were associated with multicultural
counseling training in the direction suggested by the multicultural counseling literature
(i.e., greater relevant experiences promote stronger confidence in working with racially 
diverse clients).  Although these results seem promising, it is important to cross-validate 
these findings with different or larger samples, especially for males, to obtain more stable 
estimates of the MCSE- RD?s psychometric properties.
61
Chapter VI: Implications
Findings of the current study offer several implications for multicultural research, 
practice, and training.  First, the MCSE-RD presents the first tool to exclusively and 
thoroughly assess the Skills dimension of the multicultural counseling competency model 
(Sue et al., 1992).  It allows us to take a close look at what counselors believe they can do, 
as opposed to what they know, when working with racially diverse clients.  Because of its 
domain specificity, the MCSE-RD has the potential to add to multicultural process and 
outcome research by focusing on what counselors believe they bring to counseling at the 
behavioral level.
Second, the MCSE-RD?s potential utility in helping us better understand the 
interplay among multicultural skills, awareness, and knowledge is particularly important 
for multicultural counseling training.  As pointed out by McRae and Johnson (1991), 
most training in multicultural counseling competence has focused on the awareness and 
knowledge dimensions of competence rather than on the skill dimension.  An instrument 
with good psychometric properties and emphasis on the skill dimension, such as the 
MCSE-RD, can facilitate research on the relationships among these three dimensions.  
This body of knowledge may improve training programs? effectiveness at helping 
trainees translate their awareness and knowledge into what they believe they can do in 
multicultural counseling.  Results of the hierarchical regression analysis in the current 
study specifically suggests that direct clinical experiences with racially diverse clients are 
of particular importance in improving trainees? perceived multicultural counseling 
abilities.  Thus, instructors of multicultural counseling courses may want to emphasize 
62
direct contacts with racially diverse clients, in addition to lectures and classroom 
activities, to increase trainees? confidence in this area.
Third, it is important to point out the possible discrepancies between (a) 
counselors? efficacy beliefs and in-session behaviors, and (b) counselor self-efficacy and 
supervisor perceptions of the counselor?s current skill level.  Bandura (1997) described 
several sources of discordance between efficacy judgment and action, including the lack 
of knowledge of task demands, faulty assessments of self-efficacy or performance, lack 
of incentive, and performance constraints.  It is likely that beginning counselors may 
overestimate or underestimate their multicultural counseling self-efficacy because  of their
lack of experiences and training in this arena.  Similarly, the counselor?s self-perceived 
helping skills may differ from supervisor perceptions of his or her current skill level for 
the same reasons.  Since the MCSE-RD is a behavior-oriented instrument, supervisors 
and counselor educators may find it useful to adapt the MCSE-RD as an other-report 
assessment tool and provide feedback to trainees at the behavior level.  For example, 
trainees and supervisors could discuss discrepancies of their ratings on the MCSE-RD 
and also compare these ratings with trainees? in-session behaviors.  This performance 
information (i.e., self-observation and feedback from supervision) is crucial for trainees 
to achieve reasonably accurate efficacy judgments in multicultural counseling.  An 
accurate self-efficacy assessment not only can help counselors set proper goals for 
training but also can help them to make better clinical judgments regarding referrals and 
the types of clients/issues with which they are best prepared to work.
One caution in using the MCSE-RD in training involves how supervisors 
communicate their feedback to trainees.  According to Bandura (1997), persuasory 
63
efficacy information can be conveyed in ways that undermine a sense of efficacy or boost 
it.  Research on children with learning deficits suggested that evaluative feedback 
highlighting personal capabilities raises efficacy beliefs (Schunk & Cox, 1986).  
However, it is not clear how we can translate this finding into the area of counselor 
training; nor do we know much about how to improve trainees? performance in cross-
racial sessions by enhancing their multicultural counseling self-efficacy.  Although the 
MCSE-RD offers supervisors and counselor educators a tool to evaluate trainees?
capabilities in multicultural counseling, further research is needed to increase confidence 
in its practical utility.
Fourth, along with general counseling self-efficacy measures (e.g., CASES), the 
MCSE-RD could help to clarify the relationship between general and multicultural
counseling self-efficacy.  More understanding of whether general and multicultural 
counseling are one or two separate, but related, constructs not only has implications for 
how we train our students but can also help us identify those skills that are particularly 
important and effective with racial/ethnic minority clients. Finally, although the MCSE-
RD was developed to assess counselors? perceived capabilities to counsel racially diverse 
clients, researchers and educators could adapt the instructions and items for other 
multicultural subgroups (e.g., LGBT clients, people with disabilities).  By doing so, a 
training program could identify weaknesses in its curriculum and help trainees to explore 
areas for counseling skill improvement.
64
Chapter VII: Limitations and Future Directions
Although findings from the current study provide initial support for the validity and 
reliability of the MCSE-RD scores, there are several limitations and future directions that 
should be discussed.  First, the sample used in the study was relatively small (N = 181).  
A larger sample is preferred in future studies to provide more stable results.  Second, the 
factor structure of the MCSE-RD requires cross-validation using different samples and 
different statistical procedures.  It is important to investigate whether the same factor 
structure would hold up for counseling students with different professional interests (e.g., 
practice versus research) as well as for practicing psychologists.  Third, confirmatory
factor analysis not only can verify the factor structure of the MCSE-RD found in the
current study but also can further explore the relationship between the MCSE-RD and 
general counseling self-efficacy measures, such as the CASES.  One possibility to 
examine is that the relationship between, and latent structure of, general and multicultural 
counseling self-efficacy depends on counselor developmental or experiences level.  For 
instance, with increasing experiences, counselors may be better able to differentiate 
between their generic skills and how well they can perform specifically in multicultural 
counseling situations.
Fourth, participants reported lowest self-efficacy in multicultural assessment, 
which involves administering culturally sensitive assessment tools and interpreting their 
results as well as dealing with culture-bound syndromes.  Given that trainees may not be 
familiar with culture-specific mental issues and relevant assessment tools, training 
programs will benefit from research designed to explore how trainees? knowledge of 
culture-specific psychological  problems influences their perceived abilities in assessing 
65
and treating these illnesses.  Fifth, how the MCSE-RD scales relate to various self-report 
and other-report multicultural counseling competency instruments (e.g., the MCAS, 
CCCI-R) should be examined to provide more evidence for convergent and discriminant 
validity of the MCSE-RD scores. Sixth, the relationship between the MCSE-RD and 
multicultural counseling training was established in the current study by cross-sectional 
design.  This relationship should be examined longitudinally and experimentally by, for 
example, investigating the MCSE-RD?s sensitivity to actual practicum experiences that 
trainees receive.  Responses to the MCSE-RD before and after taking counseling 
practicum, or between experimental and control groups, will offer opportunities to 
explore the causal link between training experiences and multicultural counseling self-
efficacy.
Finally, trainees? personality variables (e.g., positive and  negative affect, 
extraversion and introversion) and cultural factors (e.g., racial/ethnic identity 
development, universal-diverse orientation) as well as the training program?s 
multicultural environment should be included in future research on the MCSE-RD in 
order to more completely understand the correlates of multicultural counseling self-
efficacy.  Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) provides a useful framework for 
organizing studies of the predictors and outcomes of multicultural counseling self-
efficacy.  Theory-guided research will help us to understand how personality and 
environmental factors contribute to multicultural counseling self-efficacy and how these 
efficacy beliefs relate to counselors? involvement and performance in multicultural
counseling.
66
Appendix A
Multicultural Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale ? Racial Diversity Form
(60 items before exploratory factor analysis)
Instructions: The following questionnaire consists of items asking about your perceived ability to 
perform different counselor behaviors in individual counseling with clients who are racially 
different from you.  Using the 0-9 scale, please indicate how much confidence you have in your 
ability to do each of these activities at the present time, rather than how you might perform in the 
future.  Please circle the number that best reflects your response to each item.
No Confidence
at all
Some 
Confidence
Complete 
Confidence
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
When working with a client who is racially different from yourself, how confident are you 
that you could do the following tasks effectively over the next week?
1. Explain the counseling process to a client who is 
not familiar with Western mental health services.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2. Develop a strong working alliance with the client. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3. When appropriate, adopt different helping roles 
other than counselor/therapist (e.g., mentor, 
consultant, advocate, coach).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4. Make culturally appropriate referrals (e.g., to 
indigenous healers in the community) when 
necessary.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5. Openly discuss cultural differences and similarities 
between the client and yourself.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
6. Address issues of cultural mistrust in ways that can 
improve the therapeutic relationship.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7. Make use of the client?s verbal and nonverbal 
communication to decide whether the session is 
going in the right direction.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8. Help the client to articulate what she or he has 
learned from counseling during the termination 
process.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9. Where appropriate, help the client to explore racism 
or discrimination in relation to his or her presenting 
issues.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10. Evaluate rapport to see where you and the client 
stand in the therapeutic relationship.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11. Keep sessions on track and focused with a client
who is not familiar with the counseling process.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
67
who is not familiar with the counseling process.
12. Help the client to anticipate both culturally and 
non-culturally specific barriers that may hinder him 
or her from achieving future goals.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
13. Convey an understanding of the client?s presenting 
issues in a way that is consistent with her or his
cultural background.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
14. Facilitate the client?s willingness to work with you 
as a team toward mutually-agreed goals.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15. Pay attention to cultural differences between 
yourself and the client that may be affecting 
counseling.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
16. Respond effectively to the client?s feelings related 
to termination (e.g., sadness, feeling of loss, pride, 
relief).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
17. Encourage the client to take an active role in 
counseling.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
18. Collaborate with the client in developing a 
therapeutic relationship compatible with his or her 
cultural background.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
19. Evaluate counseling progress in an on-going 
fashion.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
20. Identify and integrate the client?s culturally specific 
way of saying good-bye in the termination 
process.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
21. Help a client to deal with his or her fear of stigma 
about seeking counseling.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
22. Negotiate with the client regarding the tasks of 
counseling.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
23. Assess the client?s readiness for termination. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24. When relevant, introduce culture/race into 
counseling in a way the clients can easily 
understand and accept.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
25. Select culturally appropriate assessment tools 
according to the client?s cultural background.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
26. Interpret standardized tests (e.g., MMPI-2, Strong 
Interest Inventory) in ways sensitive to cultural
differences.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
27. Take into account cultural factors (e.g., the client?s
racial identity development, acculturation level, 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
68
racial identity development, acculturation level, 
cultural values) when delivering treatment.
28. Deal with power-related disparities (i.e., counselor 
power versus client powerlessness) with a client
who has experienced racism or discrimination.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
29. Respond effectively to the client?s resistant
behaviors (e.g., anger, withdrawal) resulting from 
cross-cultural misunderstandings or impasses.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
30. Use non-standardized methods or procedures 
(e.g., card sort, guided fantasy) to assess the
client?s concerns in a culturally sensitive way.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
31. Take into account the impact that family may have 
on the client in case conceptualization.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
32. Develop homework that is appropriate given the 
client?s cultural background.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
33. Manage language barriers with a client whose first 
language is not English.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
34. Address cross-cultural conflicts in a therapeutic 
way.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
35. Assess relevant cultural factors (e.g., the client?s 
acculturation level, racial identity, cultural values and 
beliefs).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
36. Take into account cultural explanations of the 
client?s presenting issues in case 
conceptualization.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
37. Adjust existing counseling techniques (e.g., empty 
chair) to make them appropriate to the client?s 
cultural background.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
38. Respond to the client?s transference in a culturally
sensitive way.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
39. Repair cross-cultural impasses that arise due to 
problems in the use or timing of particular skills (e.g., 
introduce the topic of race into therapy when the 
client is not ready to discuss).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
40. Conduct a mental status examination in a 
culturally sensitive way.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
41. Help the client to set counseling goals that are 
consistent with his or her cultural values.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
42. Help the client to develop culturally appropriate 
ways to deal with systems (e.g., school, 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
69
community) that affect him or her.
43. Manage your own anxiety due to cross-cultural 
impasses that arise in the session.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
44. Respond with the most appropriate counseling 
skill when therapy stalls as a result of culture.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
45. Assess culture-bound syndromes (DSM-IV) for 
racially diverse clients (e.g., brain fag, 
neurasthenia, nervios, ghost sickness).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
46. Help the client to set counseling goals that take 
into account expectations from her or his family.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
47. Help the client to identify how cultural factors (e.g., 
racism, acculturation, racial identity) may relate to 
his or her maladaptive relational patterns.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
48. Manage your own racially or culturally based 
countertransference toward the client (e.g., over-
identification with the client because of his or her 
race).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
49. Encourage the client to express his or her negative 
feelings resulting from cross-cultural 
misunderstanding or impasses.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
50. Assess the salience and meaningfulness of 
culture/race in the client?s life.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
51. Take into account multicultural constructs (e.g., 
acculturation, racial identity) when conceptualizing 
the client?s presenting problems.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
52. Help the client to clarify how cultural factors (e.g., 
racism, acculturation, racial identity) may relate to 
her or his maladaptive beliefs and conflicted 
feelings.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
53. Respond in a therapeutic way when the client 
challenges your multicultural counseling 
competency.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
54. Admit and accept responsibility when you, as the 
counselor, have initiated the cross-cultural 
impasse.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
55. Help the client to develop new and more adaptive 
behaviors that are consistent with his or her cultural
background.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
56. Resolve misunderstanding with the client that 
stems from differences in culturally based style of 
communication (e.g., acquiescence versus 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
70
confrontation).
57. Remain flexible and accepting in resolving cross-
cultural strains or impasses.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
58. Treat culture-bound syndromes (DSM-IV) for 
racially diverse clients (e.g., brain fag, 
neurasthenia, nervios, ghost sickness).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
59. Help the client to utilize family/community 
resources to reach her or his goals.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
60. Deliver treatment to a client who prefers a different 
counseling style (i.e., directive versus non-
directive).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
71
Appendix B
Demographic Sheet
This double-sided survey is designed to find out more about multicultural counseling 
experiences of graduate students. There are no right or wrong answers. Also, you and your 
program will not be identified at any time.
Please complete the demographic items listed below. Following the demographic section, 
you will find a list of statements related to multicultural counseling. Please read 
instructions and each statement carefully and do not skip any of them. Thank you for 
your participation!
1. Sex:  Male    Female
2. Ethnic 
background:
 White American                                   
 Asian American/Pacific Islander
 Native American/Alaskan Native
 International student from: 
 African American
 Latino/a American
 Multiethnic (specify):            
3. Age:               
4. Highest educational degree earned:  Bachelor?s   Master?s   Ph.D.   Other (specify): 
5. Currently in the specialty area of (check one):
 College Student Personnel
 Community Counseling
 School Counseling
 Rehabilitation Counseling
 Counselor Education
 School Psychology
 Counseling Psychology
 Clinical Psychology
 Other (specify):
6. Currently working toward which of the following degree:  Master?s   Ph.D.   Other 
(specify): 
7. Year in your current program:  1st year   2nd year   3rd year   4th year   beyond 4th
year (including internship) 
8. Number of multicultural counseling courses taken since undergraduate (include ones currently 
taking): 
9. Number of multicultural counseling workshops attended since undergraduate (include ones 
currently attending): 
10. Approximately how many supervision hours have you and your supervisor(s) spent on clients 
who are racially different from you:               hrs
11. In the future, what percentage of your clinical training would you ideally like to devote to 
seeing clients who are racially different from you:               %
72
12. Please indicate the appropriate number of direct contact hours that you have worked with 
clients from the following racial/ethnic groups in individual, couple/family, or group 
counseling by circling the appropriate numbers: 
1
(0 ? 8 hrs)
2
(9 ? 16 hrs)
3
(17 ? 24 hrs)
4
(25 ? 32 hrs)
5
(above 32 hrs)
African Americans: 1 2 3 4 5
Asian Americans/
Pacific Islanders:
1 2 3 4 5
Latino/a Americans: 1 2 3 4 5
Native Americans/
Alaskan Natives:
1 2 3 4 5
White Americans: 1 2 3 4 5
Clients with multiethnic 
backgrounds:
1 2 3 4 5
13. Please indicate your interest in delivering counseling to clients who are racially different from 
you in the near future by circling the appropriate number:
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all 
interested
Moderately 
interested
Very 
interested
73
References
Abreu, J. M., Chung, R. H. G., & Atkinson, D. R. (2000). Multicultural counseling 
training; Past, present, and future directions. The Counseling Psychologist, 28(5), 
641-656.
Allison, K. W., Crawford, I., Echemendia, R., Robinson, L., & Knepp, D. (1994). Human 
diversity and professional competence: Training in clinical and counseling 
psychology revisited. American Psychologist, 49, 792-796.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & 
National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational 
and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research 
Association.
American Psychological Association (2000). Professional practice guidelines for 
psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association (2002). Guidelines on multicultural education, 
training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. 
Washington, DC: Author.
Atkinson, D. R., Thompson, C. E., & Grant, S. K. (1993). A three-dimensional model for 
counseling racial/ethnic minorities. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 257-277.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 
Prentice-Hall.
74
Bandura, A. (1995a). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. 
In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1-145). New York: 
Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A (1995b). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Unpublished manuscript, 
Stanford University.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self- efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman 
and Company.
Bellini, J. (2002). Correlates of multicultural counseling competencies of vocational 
rehabilitation counselors. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45(2), 66-75.
Betz, N. E. (2001). Career self-efficacy. In F. T. L. Leong & A. Barak (Eds.), 
Contemporary models in vocational psychology: A volume in honor of Samuel H. 
Osipow (pp. 55-77). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Betz, N. E., Harmon, L. W., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). The relationships of self-efficacy 
for the Holland themes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational 
interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(1), 90-98.
Burke, J. F. (1989). Contemporary approaches to psychotherapy and counseling: The 
self-regulation and maturity model. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2
nd
 ed.). 
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coleman, H. L. K. (1996). Portfolio assessment of multicultural counseling competency. 
The Counseling Psychologist, 24(2), 216-229.
Coleman, H. L. K. (1998). General and multicultural counseling competency: Apples and 
oranges? Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 26, 147-156.
75
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.
Constantine, M. G. (2001a). Multiculturally-focused counseling supervision: Its 
relationship to trainees? multicultural counseling self-efficacy. Clinical Supervisor, 
20(1), 87-98.
Constantine, M. G. (2001b). The relationship between general counseling self-efficacy 
and self-perceived multicultural counseling competence in supervisees. Clinical 
Supervisor, 20(2), 81-90.
Constantine, M. G. (2001c). Predictors of observer ratings of multicultural counseling
competence in Black, Latino, and White American trainees. Journal of Counseling 
Psychology, 48(4), 456-462.
Constantine, M. G. (2002). Racism attitudes, White racial identity attitudes, and 
multicultural counseling competence in school counselor trainees. Counselor 
Education and Supervision, 41(3), 162-174.
Constantine, M. G., Juby, H. L., Liang, J. J. (2001). Examining multicultural counseling 
competence and race-related attitudes among White marital and family therapists. 
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27(3), 353-362.
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, 155-164.
Constantine, M. G., & Ladany, N. (2001). New visions for defining and assessing 
multicultural counseling competence. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, 
76
& C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2
nd
 ed., pp. 482-
498). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Constantine, M. G., & Ladany, N., Inman, A. G., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1996). Students?
perceptions of multicultural training in counseling psychology programs. Journal 
of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 24(4), 241-253.
Cormier, L. S., & Hackney, H. (1987). The professional counselor: A process guide to 
helping. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Council of National Psychological Associations for the Advancement of Ethnic Minority 
Issues (2000). Guidelines for research in ethnic minority communities. Washington, 
DC: American Psychological Association. 
Council of National Psychological Associations for the Advancement of Ethnic Minority 
Issues (2002). Guidelines for cultural competence in the treatment of ethnic 
minority populations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of 
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: Wiley.
D?Andrea, M., & Daniels, J. (2001). RESPECTFUL counseling: An integrative 
multidimensional model of counselors. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman 
(Eds.), The intersection of race, class, and gender in multicultural counseling (pp. 
417-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
D?Andrea, M., Daniels, J., & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating the impact of multicultural 
counseling training. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 143-150.
77
DiClemente, C. C., Fairhurst, S. K., & Piotrowski, N. A. (1995). Self-efficacy and 
addictive behaviors. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self- efficacy, adaptation, and 
adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 109-142). New York: Plenum.
Doyle, R. E. (1992). Essential skills and strategies in the helping process. Pacific Grove, 
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Egan, G. (1998). The skilled helper: A problem-management approach to helping (6
th
ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Essandoh, P. K. (1996). Multicultural counseling as the ?fourth force?: A call to arms. 
The Counseling Psychologist, 24(1), 126-137.
Friedlander, M. L., & Snyder, J. (1983). Trainees? expectations for the supervisory 
process: Testing a developmental model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 
22(4), 342-348.
Fuertes, J. N., & Gretchen, D. (2001). Emerging theories of multicultural counseling. In J. 
G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of 
multicultural counseling (2
nd
 ed., pp. 509-541). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis: Its role in item analysis. Journal of 
Personality Assessment, 68, 532-560.
Hackett, G. (1995). Self-efficacy in career choice and development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), 
Self- efficacy in changing societies (pp. 232-258). New York: Cambridge University 
Press.
Hall, C. C. I. (1997). Cultural malpractice: The growing obsolescence of psychology with
the changing U.S. population. American Psychologist, 52, 642-651.
78
Helms, J. E., & Carter, R. T. (1990). Development of the White racial identity inventory. 
In J. E. Helms (Ed.), Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and 
practice (pp. 67-80). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and 
psychotherapy: Theory and process. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hill, C. E., & O?Brien, K. M. (1999). Helping skills: Facilitating exploration, insight, 
and action. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Holland, J. L. (1996). Self-Directed Search: The Occupations Finder (Form R, 4
th
 ed.). 
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities 
and work environment s (3
rd
 ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Johnson, E., Baker, S. B., Kopala, M., Kiselica, M. S., & Thompson, E. C. (1989). 
Counseling self-efficacy and counseling competence in prepracticum training. 
Counselor Education and Supervision, 28, 205-218.
LaFramboise, 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.
Lapan, R. T., Boggs, K. R., & Morrill, W. H. (1989). Self-efficacy as a mediator of 
Investigative and Realistic general occupational themes on the Strong-Campbell 
Interest Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(2), 176-182.
Larson, L. M. (1998). The social cognitive model of counselor training. The Counseling 
Psychologist, 26(2), 219-273. 
79
Larson, L. M., & Daniels, J. A. (1998). Review of the counseling self-efficacy literature. 
The Counseling Psychologist, 26(2), 179-218.
Larson, L. M., Suzuki, L. A., Gillespie, K. N., Potenza, M. T., Bechtel, M. A. & 
Toulouse, A (1992). Development and validation of the Counseling Self-Estimate 
Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 105-120.
Lenox, R., & Subich, L. (1994). The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and 
inventoried vocational interests. Career Development Quarterly, 42, 302-313.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory 
of career and academic interest, choice, and performance [Monograph]. Journal of 
Vocational Behavior, 45, 79-122.. 
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory.  In D. 
Brown & associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4
th
 ed., pp. 255-311). 
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lent, R. W., Hackett, G., & Brown, S. D. (1998). Extending social cognitive theory to 
counselor training: Problems and prospects. The Counseling Psychologist, 26, 295-
306.
Lent, R. W., Hill, C. E., Hoffman, M. A. (2003). Development and validation of the 
Counselor Activity Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(1), 
97-108.
Leong, F. T. L., & Zachar, P. (1991). Development and validation of the Scientist-
Practitioner Inventory for Psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 331-
341.
80
Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and 
structural analysis (3
rd
 ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Liu, W. M., & Pope-Davis, D. B. (in press). The working alliance, therapy ruptures and 
impasses, and counseling competencies: Implications for counselor training and 
education. In R. T. Carter (Ed.), Handbook of racial-cultural psychology and 
counseling, vol. 1. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Maddux, J. E., & Meier, L. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and depression. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), 
Self- efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 
143-169). New York: Plenum.
Margolies, R., Wachtel, A. B., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1986). Perceived self-efficacy in 
psychiatry. Journal of Psychiatric Education, 10, 120-128.
McRae, M. B., & Johnson, S. D. (1991). Toward training for competence in multicultural
counselor education. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 131-135.
Melchert, T. P., Hays, V. L., Wiljanen, L. M., Kolocek, A. K. (1996). Testing models of 
counselor development with a measure of counseling self- efficacy. Journal of 
Counseling & Development, 74, 640-644.
Mishne, J. (2002). Multiculturalism and the therapeutic process. New York: The 
Guilford Press.
Munson, W. W., Stadulis, R. E., & Munson, D. G. (1986). Training potential therapeutic 
recreators for self-efficacy and competence in interpersonal skills. Therapeutic 
Recreation Journal, 20(4), 85-93.
81
Munson, W. W., Zoerink, D. A., & Stadulis, R. E. (1986). Training potential therapeutic 
recreators for self-efficacy and competence in interpersonal skills. Therapeutic 
Recreation Journal, 20(1), 53-62.
Neimeyer, G. J., & Diamond, A. K. (2001). The anticipated future of counseling
psychology in the United States: A Delphi poll. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 
14(1), 49-65.
Neville, H. A., & Mobley, M. (2001). Social identity in contexts: An ecological model of 
multicultural counseling psychology processes. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(4), 
471-486.
O?Brien, K. M., Heppner, M. J., Flores, L. Y., & Bikos, L. H. (1997). The career 
counseling self-efficacy scale: Instrument development and training applications. 
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44(1), 20-31.
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.
Peterson, J. V., & Nisenholz, B. N. (1991). Orientation to counseling (2
nd
 ed.). Needham 
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Phinney, J. S. (2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, 
& G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied 
research (pp. 63-81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ponterotto, J. G. (1998). Charting a course for research in multicultural counseling 
training. The Counseling Psychologist, 26(1), 43-68.
82
Ponterotto, J. G., Alexander, C. M., & Grieger, I. (1995). A multicultural competency 
checklist for counseling training programs. Journal of Multicultural Counseling 
and Development, 23, 11-20.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Casas, J. M. (1991). Handbook of racial/ethnic minority counseling 
research. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Ponterotto, J. G., Casas, J. M., Suzuki, L. A., & Alexander, C. M. (1995). Handbook of 
multicultural counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Ponterotto, J. G., Casas, J. M., Suzuki, L. A., & Alexander, C. M. (2001). Handbook of 
multicultural counseling (2
nd
 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ponterotto, J. G., Fuertes, J. N., & Chen, E. C. (2000). Models of multicultural counseling. 
In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3
rd
 ed., 
pp. 639-669). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
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.
Ponterotto, J. G., Rieger, B. P., Barrett, A., Harris, G., Sparks, R., Sanchez, C. M., & 
Magids, D. (1996). Development and initial validation of the Multicultural 
Counseling Awareness Scale. In C. R. Sodowsky & J. C. Impara (Eds.), 
Multicultural assessment in counseling and clinical psychology (pp. 247-282). 
Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. 
Ponterotto, J. G., Sanchez, C. M., & Magids, D. (1991). Initial development of the 
Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting 
of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
83
Pope-Davis, D. B., & Coleman, H. L. K. (1997). Multicultural counseling competencies: 
Assessment, education and training, and supervision. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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. 287-311). Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Sage.
Pope-Davis, D. B., Reynolds, A. L., Dings, J. G., & Nielson, D. (1995). Examining 
multicultural counseling competencies of graduate students in psychology. 
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26(3), 322-329.
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(4), 466-470.
Quintana, S. M., & Bernal, M. E. (1995). Ethnic minority training in counseling 
psychology: Comparisons with clinical psychology and proposed standards. The 
Counseling Psychologist, 23, 102-121.
Ridgway, I. R., & Sharpley, C. F. (1990). Multiple measures for the prediction of 
counselor trainee effectiveness. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 24, 156-177.
Ridley, C. R., Mendoza, D. W., Kanitz, B. E., Angermeier, L., & Zenk, R. (1994). 
Cultural sensitivity in multicultural counseling: A perceptual schema model. 
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 125-136.
Roysircar, G., Arredondo, P., Fuertes, J. N., Ponterotto, J. G., & Toporek, R. L. (2003). 
Multicultural counseling competencies 2003. Alexandria, VA: Association for 
Multicultural Counseling and Development.
84
Sabnani, H. B., Ponterotto, J. G., Borodovsky, L. G. (1991). White racial identity 
development and cross-cultural counselor training: A stage model. The Counseling 
Psychologist, 19, 72-102.
Schunk, D. H., & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback with 
learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 201-209.
Sipps, G. J., Sugden, G. J., Faiver, C. M. (1988). Counselor training level and verbal 
response type: Their relationship to efficacy and outcome expectations. Journal of 
Counseling Psychology, 35, 397-401.
Sodowsky, G. R. (1996). The Multicultural Counseling Inventory: Validity and 
applications in multicultural training. In G. R. Sodowsky & J. C. Impara (Eds.), 
Multicultural assessment in counseling and clinical psychology (pp. 283-324). 
Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.
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(3), 256-264.
Sodowsky, G. R ., O?Dell, J., Hagemoser, S., Kwan, K. L., Tonemah, D. (1993, August). 
Symposium: Investigating multicultural counseling competencies: Training and 
service relevance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 
Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Sodowsky, G. R., Taffe, R. C., Gutkim, T. B., & Wise, S. L. (1994). Development of the 
Multicultural Counseling Inventory: A self-report measure of multicultural
competencies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41(2), 137-148.
85
Steenbarger, B. N. (1991). All the world is not a stage: Emerging contextualist themes in 
counseling and development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 288-296.
Sue, D. W. (2001). Multidimensional facets of cultural competence. The Counseling 
Psychologist, 29(6), 790-821.
Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural competencies and 
standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and 
Development, 20, 64-88.
Sue, D. W., Bernier, J. E., Durran, A., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P., Smith, E. J., & 
Vasquez-Nuttall, E. (1982). Position paper, Cross-cultural counseling competencies. 
The Counseling Psychologist, 10, 45-52.
Sue, D. W. & Sue, D. (2003). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (4
th
ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sutton, J. M., & Fall, M. (1995). The relationship of school climate factors to counselor 
self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 331-336.
Suzuki, L. A., Ponterotto, J. G., & Meller, P. J. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of multicultural 
assessment: Clinical, psychological, and educational applications  (2
nd
 ed.). San 
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Vinson, T. S. & Neimeyer, G. J. (2003). The relationship between racial identity 
development and multicultural counseling competency: A second look. Journal of 
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31, 262-277.
Waehler, C. A., & Lenox, R. A. (1994). A concurrent (versus stage) model for 
conceptualizing and representing the counseling process. Journal of Counseling & 
Development, 73, 17-22.
86
Weinrach, S. G., & Thomas, K. R. (1996). The counseling profession?s commitment to 
diversity-sensitive counseling: A critical reassessment. Journal of Counseling & 
Development, 74, 472-477.
Williams, S. L. (1995). Self-efficacy, anxiety, and phobic disorders. In J. E. Maddux 
(Ed.), Self- efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application
(pp. 69-107). New York, Plenum.
Worthington, R. L. (2002, August). Researching multicultural knowledge, awareness, and 
skills: Populations, paradigms, and designs. In J. N. Fuertes & G. Sodowsky 
(chairs), Multicultural counseling competencies ? Future challenges in science, 
practice, and training. Symposium presented at the 110
th
 Annual Convention of 
American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
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(4), 460-468.