Identifying Critical Cross Cultural

8/8/2019 Identifying Critical Cross Cultural

1/27

Identifying Critical Cross-Cultural SchoolPsychology Competencies

Margaret R. RogersPsychology Department, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA

Emilia C. LopezQueens College of The City University of New York, Flushing, NY, USA

The purpose of this study was to identify critical cross-cultural competencies forschool psychologists. This study used a Delphi procedure to bring together theexpertise of a national sample of cross-cultural experts, including school psychologypractitioners, faculty, and supervisors/administrators of whom 62% represented aracial/ethnic minority group member. To identify the competencies, we conductedan extensive literature search about cross-cultural school psychology competenciesthen used a questionnaire to ask expert panelists to rate the importance of theliterature based competencies and to delineate additional competencies not re-

presented in the integrated literature but based on expert opinion. The literatureyielded 185 competencies and the panelists generated 75 additional competencies.Following the second questionnaire round, 102 competencies were identified ascritical cross-cultural competencies. The 102 competencies cover 14 major domainsof professional activities and practices for school psychologists (e.g., AcademicInterventions, Assessment, Consultation, Counseling, Culture, Language, Laws andRegulations, Organizational Skills, Professional Characteristics, Report Writing,Research Methods, Theoretical Paradigms, Working with Interpreters, and Working

with Parents). Implications for research and training are discussed.D 2002 Societyfor the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd

Keywords: Critical, Cross-cultural, School, Psychology, Competencies.

To meet the needs of an increasingly diverse clientele, school psychologistsmust develop cross-cultural competencies. In the revised and updated SchoolPsychology: A Blueprint for Training and Practice II (Blueprint II)(Ysseldyke et al.,1997), cross-cultural competence is identified as one of four principaldomains of expertise needed by all school psychologists. The importanceplaced on school psychologists developing cross-cultural competencies is

PII S0022-4405(02)00093-6

115

Accepted January 15, 2002.Address correspondence and reprint requests to Margaret R. Rogers, Psychology Depart-

ment, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, USA. Phone: (401) 874-7999; fax: (401)874-2157; E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 115 141, 2002CopyrightD 2002 Society for the Study of School Psychology

Printed in the USA0022-4405/02 $ see front matter


2/27

not surprising given the significant demographic changes currently takingplace in the U.S. Projected population estimates for the year 2020 suggestthat one out of three children attending our nations public schools will

represent a racially, ethnically, or culturally diverse group (Ponterotto &Casas, 1991). Studies also indicate that one out of every five school childrenin the U.S. speaks a language other than English (Waggoner, 1994) andconsequently, the need for bilingual school psychologists has grown rapidly(Ochoa, Rivera, & Ford, 1997).

For training of school psychologists to be maximally effective, compe-tencies essential to serving diverse populations must be clearly articulatedand validated. Other fields have initiated this procedure. Numerousresearchers within counseling psychology have proposed definitions of

cross-cultural counseling competence (e.g., DAndrea, Daniels, & Heck,1991; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Hernandez, 1991; Ponterotto, Sanchez, &Magids, 1991; Sodowsky, Taffe, Gutkin, & Wise, 1994; Sue, Arredondo, &McDavis, 1992; Sue et al., 1982) which have been operationalized intomeasures of cross-cultural counseling competence (see Ponterotto, Rieger,Barrett, & Sparks, 1994) but the focus of these measures appears to beworking with adult clients. In school psychology, a field that specializes inthe delivery of psychological services to children and youth, no clear con-sensus has emerged about what constitutes the full range of cross-cultural

school psychology competencies.One of the major reasons that we need to turn our attention to theidentification of cross-cultural competencies in school psychology practicesis the growing body of literature that establishes a relationship betweencross-cultural competence and intervention outcomes (e.g., Ridley, Men-doza, & Kanitz, 1994; Rogler, Malgady, Costantino, & Blumenthal, 1987; Yutrzenka, 1995; Zayas, Torres, Malcolm, & DesRosiers, 1996). Two con-tributions germane to school psychology illustrate this relationship. In thefirst, Tarver Behring and Ingraham (1998) describe the consequences of

providing consultation services with and without a cross-cultural approach. When the consultant is not cross-culturally competent, critical resourcesare not engaged, important changes to improve the cultural and linguisticrelevance of the instructional environment are not made, the teacherremains uninformed, the parents uninvolved, and the childs needs gounmet. In this scenario, the potential for a compromised outcome for thechild and all associated parties due to the use of a culturally uninformedapproach is significant. In the second contribution, Moecker (as cited inGersten & Woodward, 1994) found that English-as-a-Second-Language

students were frequently identified as learning disabled after the studentswere administered standardized assessment instruments in English ratherthan being assessed in their native language. The multidisciplinary teamdecision to identify the children as learning disabled then led to placementin special education, a form of intervention that may bear little to no

Journal of School Psychology116


3/27

relationship to the students true academic skill development needs. Thisfinding may account for the common observation that language minoritystudents are more likely than their English-speaking counterparts to be

overreferred and misplaced in special education (Figueroa, 1989). Becauseindividuals representing diverse racial/ethnic, linguistic, and culturalgroups may be especially at risk for irrelevant or inappropriate services,it is important that we identify the cross-cultural competencies that schoolpsychologists need to promote rather than hinder psychological well beingand academic excellence.

Best practices in training also demand the identification of cross-cultur-al school psychology competencies (American Psychological Association,2000). Although APA accreditation guidelines emphasize the need for

accredited programs to engage in cross-cultural training, more precisedefinition is needed regarding exact content or the range of cross-culturalcompetencies required for school psychologists. Given this situation, it isperhaps not unusual that many school psychology programs do not provide coverage of cross-cultural issues. A national survey of the multi-cultural training occurring in school psychology programs found that40% of the programs sampled did not offer specific minority issuescoursework and almost 30% of the students attending the sampledprograms received little to no exposure to racial/ethnic minority children

during practicum or internship (Rogers, Ponterotto, Conoley, & Wiese,1992). These results suggest that in many school psychology programs thereis a critical need to develop the features of the cross-culturally competentschool psychologist. One way to guide training efforts is to delineate thespecific cross-cultural skills and competencies essential to working withdiverse clients.

Two early articles discussed competencies needed by school psychologistswhen working with English Language Learner (ELL) students (Figueroa,Sandoval, & Merino, 1984) and bilingual/bicultural children (Rosenfield &

Esquivel, 1985). More recently, Gopaul-McNicol (1997) proposed compe-tencies for monolingual school psychologists who work with multilingualstudent populations. In each of these three articles, however, the compe-tencies were based on practical suggestions and were not identified usingempirical methods and procedures. In an attempt to establish an empiricalbase, Rogers et al. (1992) asked trainers of future school psychologists todefine cross-cultural competence. Rogers et al. report that most of thetraining directors sampled defined cross-cultural competence as thepsychologists knowledge, awareness, and sensitivity to differences in

culture,. . .

or the ability of the school psychologist to deliver nonbiasedservices (p. 610). Although this definition is important as a beginningexploration of the meaning of cross-cultural school psychology compe-tence, it may not fully capture the wide range of cross-cultural competen-cies needed by school psychologists when they carry out the complete

Rogers and Lopez 117


4/27

spectrum of professional functions and activities that characterizes theirday-to-day work.

The purpose of the present study was to identify the critical cross-cultural

competencies needed by school psychologists. To identify the competen-cies, we conducted an extensive literature search about cross-culturalcompetencies relevant to school psychology practice then asked expertsin cross-cultural school psychology to rate the importance of the literaturebased competencies and to delineate additional competencies not repre-sented in the integrated literature but based on expert opinion. The studyused a Delphi procedure (Linstone & Turoff, 1975) to establish the criticalcross-cultural school psychology competencies. This methodology has beenfound to be very useful when establishing a consensus of opinion about

complex issues or problems that have not yet been clearly articulated orexplored (Cookson, 1986; Weatherman & Swenson, 1974). The studyfocused on the cross-cultural psychology competencies (i.e., knowledgeand skills) that school psychologists should have in the delivery of psycho-logical services to diverse group members. For this study, diverse groupmembers referred to African-Americans/Blacks, Asian Americans, His-panics/Latinos, Native American Indians, Pacific Islanders, bilinguals,biracials, and ELLs. In addition, individuals representing other diversecultural groups (because of sexual orientation, economic status, and

gender) were also included in the present definition. Our conceptualiza-tion of cross-cultural competence embraces Lynch and Hansons (1992)perspective, which defines cross-cultural competence as a way of thinkingand behaving that enables members of one cultural, ethnic, or linguisticgroup to work effectively with members of another (p. 356). The study wasdesigned to answer two questions: First, What do the experts believe arethe critical research-, practice-, and theory-derived cross-cultural competen-cies that school psychologists should have? and second, What othercompetencies, not addressed in the literature but based on expert experi-

ence, are critical cross-cultural school psychology competencies?This study is important, given the need for research that identifies cross-cultural competencies across the major areas of school psychologicalpractice. Previous articles, book chapters, and books (e.g., Esquivel, 1985;Figueroa et al., 1984; Gopaul-McNicol, 1997; Rosenfield & Esquivel, 1985)concerned with cross-cultural competencies relevant to school psychologypractices have focused our attention on one client group or a single area ofprofessional competence (e.g., bilingual/bicultural individuals or assess-ment competencies essential with ELL youngsters) but have not synthe-

sized nor incorporated the findings from various literatures into onecomprehensive investigation. This dispersed approach does not provideus with an integrated understanding of the literature base nor a way toguide our professional behavior. By pooling together the competenciesfrom various sources of literature and incorporating competencies from



5/27

expert opinion, the aim was to obtain a comprehensive picture of the cross-cultural competencies most important to the successful delivery of a widespectrum of school psychological services.

METHOD

Participants

The national pool of potential Delphi panelists consisted of school psy-chologists identified for participation because of their active contributionsto and expertise within the field of cross-cultural school psychology (seeProcedure). Of the 65 Delphi panelists invited to participate, 34 (52%)responded to the first round of questionnaires and 24 (71%) of the firstround respondents completed the second round of the questionnaire. Thefinal pool of panelists included 12 (50%) males and 12 (50%) females.There were 9 (38%) Caucasian, 9 (38%) Hispanic/Latino, 2 (8%) African-American, 2 (8%) Asian American, and 2 (8%) Native American Indianpanelists. The majority (N=20, 83%) of panelists held a doctoral degree,1 (4%) panelist had completed post doctoral work, and 3 (13%) panelistsheld a specialist degree in school psychology. Most panelists (N=13, 54%)were faculty members, 9 (38%) were practicing school psychologists, 1 (4%)

was a supervisor and administrator of psychological services, and another1 (4%) was an administrator of school psychological services. The panelistscame from 14 different states in the U.S. and were geographically dispersed:9 (38%) were from the northeast, 6 (25%) were located in the midwest,4 (17%) from the west, 4 (17%) from the southwest, and 1 (4%) located inthe southeast. Further information regarding the participating panelistsexpertise is discussed in the Results section.

Instrumentation

In the present study, the format of the questionnaires and the statisticalanalysis employed were patterned after Delphi studies conducted byCannon, Idol, and West (1992) and West and Cannon (1988). A Delphiquestionnaire was designed and administered in two rounds. The question-naire used in Round 1 was comprised of two parts: a background sectionand the cross-cultural school psychology competency questionnaire. Thebackground section contained 12 questions about demographic character-

istics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity), primary professional position, relevantprofessional contributions and products (e.g., publications, presentations,committee work), total years of experience working with culturally andlinguistically diverse clients, professional activities involving cross-culturalpopulations, and self-perceived areas of cross-cultural expertise.



6/27

Development of the cross-cultural school psychology competency

questionnaire. The second part of the Delphi questionnaire used inRound 1 was the cross-cultural school psychology competency question-

naire and it was created based on an extensive literature review. Toperform the literature review, several key sources were consulted aboutthe science of conducting literature reviews (e.g., Cooper, 1982, 1989;Light & Pillemer, 1984). Cooper (1989) suggests that researchers usemultiple search methods to locate relevant literature to protect andenhance the validity of the review. We employed a combination of threeliterature search strategies: A computerized search involving an abstractdata base, a manual search of relevant journals, books, and professionaland regulatory standards, and an ancestry search approach. The ances-

try approach involved finding original sources cited in studies alreadyobtained (Cooper, 1989). The literature review was meant to be acomprehensive examination of the relevant literature and was designedto yield relevant articles, book chapters, books, and regulatory andprofessional standards. The primary goal of the process was to engagein a thorough review of the school psychology professional literatureabout cross-cultural competencies and draw from that literature base inconstructing the competency items. A secondary objective was to cullfrom other closely related specialties in psychology, namely clinical and

counseling psychology, and related disciplines including interpreters,multicultural education, measurement, and second language develop-ment to provide coverage of competencies most relevant to working witha racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse clientele. Thecross-cultural competencies drawn from the literature were based on theresults of empirical studies, and formulations from theoretical, position,and practice-oriented manuscripts. With the exception of four unpub-lished manuscripts located through the ancestry approach, all otherliterature sources were published. The literature review excluded disser-

tations, book reviews, and international articles.The literature review was conducted in two major phases. In the firstphase, literature within the field of school psychology was examined forcoverage of cross-cultural competency content. The first step of this phasewas to conduct a computerized literature search using Psychlit to identifyarticles published in 19751995 that specifically dealt with cross-culturalschool psychology competencies. The next step was to manually examinethe major school psychology journals (i.e., Journal of School Psychology,Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology Quarterly, School Psychology Review)

for all articles published in 19751995 that contained relevant content. Also, major professional texts in school psychology (e.g., Children at Risk:Poverty, Minority Status, and Other Issues in Educational Equity, Barona &Garcia, 1990; HomeSchool Collaboration: Enhancing Childrens Academic andSocial Competence, Christenson & Conoley, 1992; Handbook of School Psychology,



7/27

Gutkin & Reynolds, 1990; Assessment of Children, Sattler, 1988; Best Practices inSchool Psychology, Thomas & Grimes, 1985; Best Practices in School Psychology II,Thomas & Grimes, 1990; Best Practices in School Psychology III, Thomas &

Grimes, 1995; Best Practices in Assessment for School and Clinical Settings, Vance,1993) were located and chapters that contained relevant content wereidentified and reviewed. Finally, published regulatory standards and pro-fessional guidelines were also consulted (e.g., Standards for Educational andPsychological Testing, AERA, APA, & NCME, 1985; Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services to Ethnic, Linguistic, and Culturally Diverse Populations, APA, 1991; Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, APA, 1992;Principles for Professional Ethics, NASP, 1992).

The first phase of the literature review served as the basis for the second

phase of the literature review. Our examination of the school psychologyliterature led us to seek out and find original sources from clinical psy-chology, counseling psychology, interpreters, multicultural education,measurement, and second language development. The search for originalsources from these related disciplines was conducted to clarify and verifyinformation and concepts found in the school psychology literature. Forevery source examined in both phases of the literature review, there was100% agreement between the studys co-authors that the source addressedcompetencies relevant to racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically

diverse populations.

Content analysis of the identified literature and construction of theitems. The text from each identified source was read in its entirety bymultiple readers (the studys authors as well as two readers blind to thepurposes of the study). While reading the identified literature, the readersunderlined then transcribed concepts that described knowledge and skillrelevant to cross-cultural competencies in school psychological servicedelivery. Specifically, the readers extracted concepts and statements that

the authors identified as areas of expertise and skills important to theeffective delivery of school psychology services to racially, ethnically, lin-guistically, and culturally diverse individuals. The analysis of the literaturesuggested two spheres of competencies: knowledge and skills. Statements inthe literature that referred to content knowledge that psychologists shouldpossess in working with diverse populations were defined as knowledgecompetencies. Statements that communicated an action (e.g., statementsthat contained action verbs like assessing, delivering, planning) wereconsidered to be skill competencies. Two of the readers, uninformed of the

purposes of the study, independently identified and coded relevant con-cepts from the identified literature. Interrater agreement for identifyingthe knowledge and skill competency concepts from the literature was 0.88.Based on the concepts extracted from the literature, individual items wereconstructed so that each individual item represented a concept addressed



8/27

in the literature. Redundant items were eliminated from the final poolof items.

Fourteen major categories of cross-cultural competencies emerged from

the text from each article, chapter, and book. In defining the categories,the goal was to provide maximal coverage of the competencies delineatedin the literature. These major categories of competencies reflected notonly the major functions of school psychologists (i.e., assessment, consul-tation, interventions, research methods; Fagan & Sachs Wise, 1994) butalso addressed competencies suggested in the literature as being neededwhen working with specific groups (e.g., interpreters, parents, organiza-tions) or competencies regarding specific areas of professional expertise(e.g., culture, language, laws and regulations, professional characteristics,

report writing, theoretical paradigms). The 14 categories representing themajor domains of cross-cultural school psychology competencies included Academic Interventions, Assessment, Consultation, Counseling, Culture,Language, Laws and Regulations, Organizational Skills, Professional Char-acteristics, Report Writing, Research Methods, Theoretical Paradigms, Working with Interpreters, and Working with Parents. In defining thecategories it was not possible to create a classification scheme that wasentirely mutually exclusive as knowledge and skills relevant to one area ofexpertise and one category were sometimes also related to another area

(e.g., competencies about the need to be aware of the impact of languagedifferences may pertain to the Professional Characteristic domain as well asto the Language category). Therefore, in some instances, the content ofthe categories were similar. The individual items were assigned to one ofthe 14 competency categories. To determine the best fit between each itemand its corresponding category, two raters who were blind to the purposeof the study independently classified the competencies into the categories.Interrater agreement was calculated as number of agreements that an itemqualified as one of the categories divided by agreements plus disagree-

ments. Interrater agreement was 0.81. Using these procedures, 185 liter-ature-derived items representing the 14 major categories of competencieswere developed.

In responding to the cross-cultural school psychology competencyquestionnaire developed for Round 1, the panelists were instructed toconsider the critical knowledge and skills that a cross-culturally competentschool psychologistshouldhave and rate the importance of each of the 185competency items constructed from the literature. The 185 items werescaled using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from very important (1) to very

unimportant (5). In addition to the 185 items, the questionnaire providedadditional space within each major category so that panelists could addcompetencies that they considered to be critical that were not alreadyincluded in the existing items. That is, the questionnaire also included twoopen-ended items per category (one for knowledge and one for skills) that



9/27

asked panelists to describe the cross-cultural knowledge or skill compe-tencies that they thought school psychologists should have that were notalready presented in the literature based items. The open-ended items

accounted for an additional 28 open-ended items on the questionnaire.The resulting Round 1 cross-cultural school psychology competency ques-tionnaire contained a total of 185 literature-derived items and 28 open-ended items.

The Delphi questionnaire for Round 2 was an expanded version of thecross-cultural school psychology competency questionnaire administered inRound 1. In response to the open-ended items on Round 1, the panelistssubmitted an additional 75 competency items not already addressed in theliterature based items. Thus, the Round 2 cross-cultural school psychology

competency questionnaire contained a total of 260 items that included acombination of literature-derived items and expert-derived items.

Procedure

Identification and selection of panelists. Participants in the study wereschool psychologists who had expertise in the provision of psychologicalservices to racially, ethnically, culturally, and/or linguistically diverse pop-ulations. The expertise of the panelists was defined in terms of professional

accomplishments in multiple domains of professional functioning relevantto psychological service delivery with diverse clients. To qualify as a panelistusing this definition of expertise, each panelist met at least two of thefollowing five criteria: (a) was primary or secondary author of two or moreschool psychology publications concerning racially, ethnically, culturally,and linguistically diverse clients; (b) presented three or more presentationson relevant cross-cultural topics at national school psychology conferences(e.g., National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) and APA con- ventions); (c) was a member or chair of an APA Division 16 (School

Psychology) or NASP committee about delivering services to racially,ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse clients; (d) was employedas a practicing or supervising school psychologist with at least 5 yearsexperience working primarily with racially, ethnically, culturally and/orlinguistically diverse populations; and (e) was employed as a schoolpsychology faculty member at a school psychology program that empha-sized multicultural or bilingual training. Participants meeting at least two ofthese criteria were considered to have expertise in providing schoolpsychology services to diverse populations and cross-cultural competencies

because of their combined professional accomplishments (i.e., publica-tions, presentations, extended work experience, relevant committee work,relevant faculty experience) and therefore eligible as an expert panelist.

To qualify as a panelist using the author criteria, the author was aprimary or secondary author of two or more school psychology publications



10/27

(i.e., journal articles, books, book chapters) concerned with racially, ethni-cally, culturally, and linguistically diverse clients during the 1990 1995period. The publication outlets included major school psychology journals

(i.e., Journal of School Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, School PsychologyQuarterly, School Psychology Review), relevant book chapters in a major schoolpsychology text (e.g., Best Practices in School Psychology III, Thomas & Grimes,1995; Handbook of School Psychology, Gutkin & Reynolds, 1990), or relevantbooks. Authors were identified by two members of the research team whoindependently reviewed the contents of these publications for work in whichcross-cultural themes were the major focus or persons from diverse racial/ethnic, cultural, or linguistic groups within the U.S. were the major focus.Interrater agreement for identifying relevant publications/authors was

calculated as number of agreements divided by agreements plus disagree-ments. Interrater agreement for this analysis was 0.96.To qualify as a panelist using the presenter criteria, panelists made

three or more relevant presentations at NASP or APA conferencesduring the period 1990 1995. Two members of the research teamindependently examined all APA and NASP convention programs pub-lished 1990 1995 for relevant presentations sponsored by Division 16(APA) and NASP. Interrater agreement for identifying relevant presenta-tions/presenters was calculated as number of agreements divided by

agreements plus disagreements. Using this procedure, interrater agree-ment was 0.98.Potential panelists who were considered for participation in the study

because they were either practicing or supervising school psychologistswere identified through a nomination procedure. To identify the nomi-nators, individuals who met two criteria for panel selection (e.g., author oftwo or more relevant articles, book chapters or books, member of relevant APA Division 16 or NASP committee) were contacted in writing. Thenominators were asked to identify school psychology practitioners or

supervisors with at least 5 years of experience providing services to racially,ethnically, culturally, or linguistically diverse populations. Once the practi-tioners and supervisors were nominated, they were contacted and asked toprovide background information that they met at least two of the exper-tise criteria in order to qualify as a panelist. Those who met at least twocriteria were included in the pool of panelists.

The final criteria for membership as a panelist was faculty membership atschool psychology training programs that emphasized multicultural orbilingual training. To identify these faculty, we used the findings from

previous research about school psychology programs that representedexemplary models of multicultural training (Rogers, Martin, & Druckman,1994). The faculty members were nominated as experts in multiculturalresearch by the participants in the Rogers et al. (1994) study and wereemployed at the 17 doctoral and nondoctoral school psychology programs



11/27

examined in the Rogers et al. (1994) study. Using all of these proceduresfor identifying panelists, we identified 128 school psychologists who met atleast two of the pre-established criteria. Out of that pool, a national sample

of 65 school psychologists were randomly selected as panelists for thepresent study.

Questionnaire rounds. The Delphi procedure used in this study involvedtwo rounds of questionnaires. In Round 1, panelists were sent a packetcontaining a cover letter, the first round Delphi questionnaire containingthe background questions and the cross-cultural school psychology com-petency questionnaire, and a stamped pre-addressed return envelope. Thecover letter invited their participation, stated the criteria used to identify

them as panelists, and explained the Delphi procedure. Three weeks later,a follow-up postcard was sent to all nonrespondents urging their partic-ipation. Six weeks after the first mailing we sent a second reminder,including the entire packet sent in the first mailing, to all those who stillhad not responded. Out of the pool of 65 panelists, 34 (52%) responded tothe first round.

Once the Round 1 questionnaires were returned by the panelists, thesample mean, standard deviation, and the range of consensus werecomputed for each item. These statistics were calculated to gauge the

degree to which the panelists agreed about the importance of the com-petency items. The range of consensus refers to the range of agreement thegroup had about the rating for each item (West & Cannon, 1988). Asrecommended by West and Cannon (1988), F1.64 standard deviation unitswere added to the mean of each item to establish the range of consensusfor each item. Individual items rated within the range of consensus (meanof itemF1.64 S.D.) were considered to be inside the established range ofconsensus. Items outside the range of consensus were identified byexamining the panelists ratings for each individual item that fell outside

the established boundaries (i.e., outside of the meanF

1.64 S.D. for anitem). Once the Round 1 questionnaires were returned, we also transcribedand edited for clarity all additional items that were generated by theparticipating panelists. The panelists generated 75 additional items so thatthe total number of competency items fed back to the panelists in Round 2was 260.

The Round 2 Delphi questionnaire contained the 260 competency items, which included the 185 literature-derived items as well as the 75 itemssupplied by the expert panelists. The Round 2 questionnaire was sent to all

panelists who responded to the first round. In Round 2, the panelists wereasked to rate the importance of the new items that were generated inRound 1 and reconsider their initial ratings to each literature-derived item.Following the mailing of the Round 2 questionnaire, two follow-upreminders were sent approximately three weeks apart to non-responding



12/27

panelists. Using this procedure, 24 (71%) panelists from the first roundcompleted the second and final round of the questionnaire.

RESULTS

Panelists Expertise

The final pool of 24 panelists reported that the average number of yearsthey worked with diverse children, youth, and their families was 15.8.Panelists indicated that they had cross-cultural expertise in a number ofdifferent areas including cross-cultural interventions and counseling, bilin-

gual special education, cross-cultural assessment, and assessment of ELLstudents. Table 1 contains a breakdown of the professional activities thatpanelists reported being involved in about cross-cultural issues. Theactivities that panelists engaged in most frequently were providing psycho-logical services to diverse families or children/youth (100%), assessingdiverse children and youth (96%), delivering consultation services to adiverse clientele (88%), and attending relevant conference presentations(88%). The 24 panelists reported a range of involvement in cross-culturallyrelevant professional activities from 2 activities to all 14 activities. The mean

number of activities per panelist was 10. This suggests that in addition to

Table 1Panelists Professional Activities Involving Cross-Cultural School Psychology and Providing

Services to Racially, Ethnically, Culturally, and Linguistically Diverse Children

Activity N %

Providing psychological services todiverse families or children/youth

24 100

Assessing diverse children and youth 23 96Delivering consultation services 21 88

Attending relevant conferences 21 88Conducting relevant inservice training 20 83Supervising undergraduate and/or graduate

students in practicum and/or internship19 79

Teaching multicultural course 17 71Conducting relevant research 17 71Mentoring undergraduate and/or graduate students 16 67Providing counseling or therapeutic services 15 63Participating in relevant local professional organizations 14 58Publishing relevant work 13 54

Participating in departmental or university committees 11 46Other 3 13

Panelists who indicated Other included N= 1 led parent training classes in Spanish, N= 1belonged to Asian Psychological Association, N= 1 developed a bilingual school psychologytraining program.



13/27

meeting the criteria for selection as an expert panelist, the panelists onaverage also engaged in a high level of participation in various otherprofessional activities about cross-cultural issues and diverse populations.

Critical Cross-Cultural Competencies

To identify the critical competencies, panelists ratings for each of the 185items on the cross-cultural school psychology competency questionnaire were used to calculate means, standard deviations, and range of con-sensus following Round 1 and Round 2. Using West and Cannons (1988)conceptualization, the amount of consensus for each cross-cultural com-petency item was computed to be . . .the percentage of panelist ratings

that fell within the established range of consensus (F1.64S.D.) onRound 2 (p. 58). Out of the original 185 items, those that had a ratingbetween 1.00 and 1.49 on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very important,5 = very unimportant) and reached 96% or greater consensus wereidentified as critical cross-cultural school psychology competencies. Allitems not meeting these two criteria were excluded from further analysis.Using these criteria, 79 (43%) of the original 185 literature-derivedcompetency items were identified as critical and 106 (57%) items wereeliminated. Examples of eliminated items include Cross-culturally skilled

school psychologists should have knowledge about critical pedagogy,Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledgeabout general variables along which different languages vary (e.g., soundsystems, writing systems, syntax, vocabulary), and Cross-culturally skilledschool psychologists should have skills in accommodating to participationstructures in designing academic interventions. A common feature ofmany eliminated items appeared to be the degree the items reflecteddomains of knowledge that perhaps are not central to the core knowl-edge base of most school psychologists.

The means, standard deviations, and range of consensus were alsocalculated for the additional 75 items that were generated by the expertpanelists in response to the open-ended questions in Round 1. Out of theadditional 75 items, 23 (31%) had mean ratings between 1.00 and 1.49and achieved 96% consensus and were considered to be critical compe-tencies. Fifty-two (69%) of the items generated by the panelists did notattain mean ratings of less than 1.49 and reach 96% consensus and weretherefore excluded from further analysis. By combining the literature-derived competencies and expert-derived competencies that met the pre-

established criteria, a total of 102 knowledge and skill competencies wereidentified as critical cross-cultural school psychology competencies by thepanelists. The range of mean ratings for the critical cross-cultural com-petency statements was 1.041.47 with a median of 1.37, suggesting thatthe panelists rated the 102 items as most important relative to the other



14/27

competencies. The amount of consensus among panelists for the criticalcompetencies ranged from 96% to 100% with a median consensus of100%, indicating a high level of agreement among the panelists.

The mean rating for the critical cross-cultural competencies withineach competency category were also calculated. When only the criticalcompetencies (i.e., those rated as most important) were included in eachcategory, the Assessment category was the leader (M= 1.25), followed byReport Writing (M=1.30), Laws and Regulations (M= 1.35), Working withInterpreters (M= 1.37), Working with Parents (M= 1.37), TheoreticalParadigms (M= 1.37), Counseling (M= 1.38), Professional Characteristics(M= 1.39), Consultation (M= 1.39), Culture (M=1.39), Academic Inter- ventions (M= 1.40), Research Methods (M= 1.40), Working with Organiza-

tions (M=1.41), and Language (M= 1.42). The Assessment category alsocontained the two competencies rated as most important (M=1.04) thatstated School psychologists should have knowledge about nonbiasedassessment and the process of adapting available instruments to assesslinguistically and culturally diverse (LCD) students and School psycholo-gists should have skills using instruments sensitive to cultural and linguisticdifferences. Table 2 contains, in order from most to least important, thecategories of critical knowledge and skill competencies with sample itemsfor each category.

The Working with Interpreters, Professional Characteristics, and Coun-seling categories had the greatest number of critical competencies with 15,14, and 13, respectively. The Working with Organizations and TheoreticalParadigms categories had the fewest critical competencies with one each.Following Round 2, the categories that retained the greatest percentage ofcompetencies as critical included Counseling (N= 13; 76%), Working withInterpreters (N= 15; 65%), Consultation (N= 11; 65%), Culture (N= 9;64%), and Professional Characteristics (N=14; 47%). The categories thatretained the fewest percentage of competencies as critical included Lan-

guage (N= 1; 6%), Working with Organizations (N= 1; 8%), Research(N= 2; 8%), Theoretical Paradigms (N= 1; 10%), and Academic Interven-tions (N=7; 24%).

DISCUSSION

Previous examinations of cross-cultural school psychology competencieshave not provided a comprehensive understanding of the knowledge

and skills school psychologists need when working with racially, ethni-cally, culturally, and linguistically diverse individuals (Figueroa et al.,1984; Gopaul-McNicol, 1997; Rosenfield & Esquivel, 1985). This study isunique as the first to combine a qualitative methodology with empiricalprocedures to identify literature-derived and expert-derived critical cross-



15/27

(continued)

Table 2The Most Important to Least Important Categories of Critical Cross-Cultural School

Psychology Competencies, Item Means and Standard Deviations

Round 2Competency category, ranking, and sample items Mean S.D.

Assessment (ranked 1)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge about:1. nonbiased assessment and the process of adapting available instruments

to assess LCD students1.04 0.20

2. alternative assessment methods (e.g., dynamic, ecological).Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have skills about:

1.29 0.46

3. using instruments sensitive to cultural and linguistic differences 1.04 0.204. using assessment results to formulate recommendations that facilitate

language acquisition.1.29 0.46

Report Writing (ranked 2)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge about:5. the importance of integrating cultural and language background of the

family and child, language proficiency, and learning style informationinto the report.

1.20 0.50

Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have skills about:6. incorporating information about family origins, family composition,

parental attitudes about education and handicapping conditions, andlevel of acculturation into report (if relevant)

1.29 0.55

7. reporting the use of translations during assessment 1.20 0.658. reporting the use of an interpreter during the assessment process and

describing the scope of the interpreters involvement in the assessment.

1.25 0.67

Laws and regulations (ranked 3)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have skills about:9. applying laws and regulations to protect LCD children from sources

of bias and discrimination1.33 0.48

10. interpreting legal and regulatory decisions that are relevant to LCDchildren and their families.

1.37 0.49

Working with Interpreters (ranked 4)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge about:11. the dynamics of the translation procedure 1.33 0.48

12. the competencies needed by interpreters (e.g., language skills,knowledge of intercultural communication, translation techniques,professional conduct, school relevant knowledge).

1.29 0.46

Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have skills about:13. assessing students through interpreters 1.33 0.5614. interpreting information obtained through interpreters 1.33 0.5615. speaking directly to the parents, not the interpreter. 1.31 0.56

Working with Parents (ranked 5)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge about:16. differences in family structures across cultures (e.g., extended families) 1.37 0.5717. differences in authority, hierarchies, communication patterns, belief

systems, values, and gender roles.

1.33 0.56



16/27

Table 2Continued

Round 2

Competency category, ranking, and sample items Mean S.D.

Working with Parents (ranked 5)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge about:18. the attitudes of culturally diverse parents towards different forms of

interventions and types of interventions1.33 0.56

19. the attitudes that culturally diverse parents have toward educationalinstitutions and teachers.

1.37 0.49

Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have skills about:20. implementing home school collaboration programs and interventions. 1.33 0.48

Theoretical Paradigms (ranked 6)

Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge about:21. the strengths and limitations of the major theoretical paradigms thatoperate in school psychology and the appropriateness of theirapplications to LCD individuals/groups.

1.37 0.49

Counseling (ranked 7)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge about:22. differences that exist between counselor and client that can impact the

counseling relationship.1.33 0.48

Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have skills about:23. recognizing that helping styles and methods may be culture-bound 1.30 0.4724. assessing acculturation of the client and responding to the clients self-

presentation rather than the counselors inferred identity of the client.

1.29 0.46

Professional Characteristics (ranked 8)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge about:25. the clients culture, cultural context, values, worldview and social norms. 1.34 0.57Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have skills about:26. viewing clinical information within a contextual perspective

(i.e., depression among gay populations)1.29 0.55

27. engaging in ongoing efforts to reduce and eliminate biased beliefsand behaviors.

1.30 0.47

Consultation (ranked 9)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge about:28. cultural and linguistic factors that can influence the input, process,

and outcome of consultation.1.37 0.49

Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have skills about:29. working with LCD parents, children, and school staff 1.29 0.4630. using a variety of data collection techniques for problem identification

and clarification, and planning and implementing interventions that areculturally and linguistically sensitive

1.33 0.48

31. recognizing prejudice and prevalent obstacles that may effectconsultation (e.g., racism, sexism).

1.30 0.47

Culture (ranked 10)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge about:32. the cultural context of the client 1.37 0.4933. the interaction of culture and assessment. 1.30 0.47



17/27

cultural competencies that school psychologists should have. Our use ofthe Delphi technique brought together a geographically dispersed panelof experts who provided their perceptions of the most important cross-cultural school psychology competencies. This panel of experts, of whom62% represent a racial/ethnic minority group member, informed their

ratings about critical cross-cultural competencies through an average ofalmost 16 years experience per person working with diverse clients, andrepresented not just one but three of the major career paths taken byschool psychologists (i.e., practitioner, supervisor/administrator, and fac-ulty). In defining the scope and body of the competencies, we drew on

Round 2

Competency category, ranking, and sample items Mean S.D.

Culture (ranked 10)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have skills about:34. assessing the norms of the cultural group that they work with and

modifying behavior to become culturally congruent when appropriate

1.39 0.49

35. working with all the cultural groups served. 1.39 0.49

Academic Interventions (ranked 11)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge about:36. the most successful instructional strategies used with LCD students 1.29 0.4637. the factors linked to high dropout rates among diverse students and

techniques aimed at retention

1.38 0.48

38. second language acquisition and its impact on acquisition of academicskills.

1.37 0.49

Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have skills about:39. making curriculum and classroom management recommendations that

are culturally relevant.1.41 0.50

Research Methods (ranked 12)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge about:40. the need to consider sociocultural variables and perspectives that impact

data analysis and interpretation.1.45 0.58

Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have skills about:

41. translating traditional theoretical paradigms into relevant and sensitiveresearch that benefits LCD populations. 1.34 0.48

Working with Organizations (ranked 13)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have skills about:42. applying institutional intervention skills and working to eliminate biases,

prejudices, and discriminatory practices.1.41 0.50

Language (ranked 14)Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge about:43. second language acquisition process. 1.45 0.72Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have skills about:

44. using culturally sensitive verbal and nonverbal communication styleswhen communicating with LCD children and their families 1.33 0.48

45. the use of translators. 1.43 0.72

Table 2Continued



18/27

the expertise of the panelists to both rate the literature-derived com-petencies and define and describe competencies not presented in theempirical, practical, and theoretical literature but central to the services

delivered by school psychologists to diverse clients.The present study advances our understanding of cross-cultural schoolpsychology competencies in a number of ways. A major contribution isthat it helps to operationally and comprehensively define cross-culturalschool psychology competencies. Previous researchers have identifiedthe cross-cultural counseling competencies future school psychologistsneed when providing counseling services to a diverse clientele in theschools (e.g., Rogers & Ponterotto, 1997) but none have examined thecompetencies relevant to the full spectrum of psychological services (assess-

ment and intervention, consultation, counseling, report writing, research)nor the specific groups (e.g., working with interpreters, working withparents, working with organizations) or specific areas of professionalexpertise (culture, language, laws and regulations, theoretical paradigms,professional characteristics) that are vital to school psychologists workusing the present procedures. Thus, the 102 critical competencies identi-fied in the present study provide a clear picture of the specific knowledgeand skill competencies that experts believe are most important to deliver-ing effective, relevant, and sensitive services to multiethnic, multicultural,

and multilingual clients in the schools. The present study also adds to ourknowledge base by not focusing on a single minority group but by syn-thesizing competencies relevant to a range of minority group members(e.g., racial and ethnic minority, linguistic minority, etc.). Thus, the presentstudy not only subsumes the competencies addressed by Figueroa et al.(1984) and Rosenfield and Esquivel (1985) but also goes beyond them byarticulating competencies relevant to working with a much broader rangeof minority clients.

When considering the critical competencies, the three competency

categories with the lowest means (i.e., rated as most important) includedAssessment, Report Writing, and Laws and Regulations. Given that assess-ment practices employed with minority students has been one of themost hotly debated, legally contested, and readily identifiable issues aboutminorities in the history of the profession of school psychology, thesalience of assessment and legal competencies here is not surprising. Anexamination of the critical assessment competencies clarifies what thepanelists consider to be priorities for performing meaningful assessments with diverse clients. Included as critical competencies were the need to

be knowledgeable about current research regarding the use of stand-ardized and non-standardized measures used with diverse clients, how toadapt available measures, the availability of alternative assessment meth-ods such as dynamic and ecological approaches, and what constitutes anonbiased assessment. Critical assessment skills include using instruments



19/27

sensitive to linguistic and cultural differences, assessing language profi-ciency in the first and second languages, and using assessment results toformulate recommendations that facilitate language acquisition. Taken

together, these assessment competencies reflect a highly specializedknowledge base with special attention to the impact of bilingualismand English-as-a-Second-Language on the assessment process and knowl-edge of alternatives to norm-referenced assessment methods. As impor-tant as they are, it is quite possible that these competencies are absentfrom the repertoire of many school psychologists delivering assessmentservices to diverse clients today. For example, Ochoa et al. (1997)reported that 80% of their sample of practicing school psychologistshad not been trained to perform bilingual psychoeducational assessments

and 97% indicated that no such coursework was available within theirtraining programs. The present findings underscore the need to developcourses that teach these competencies and begin to illustrate what thosecompetencies could be.

Within the Laws and Regulations category, the panelists rated twocompetencies as critical. They include School psychologists should haveskills applying laws and regulations to protect LCD children from sources ofbias and discrimination and School psychologists should have skillsinterpreting legal and regulatory decisions that are relevant to LCD

children and their families. Interestingly, a common theme among the Assessment, Consultation, Culture, Laws and Regulations, ProfessionalCharacteristics, and Working with Organizations categories are competen-cies highlighting the importance of school psychologists developing exper-tise in identifying biasits sources and various expressionsas well asstrategies aimed at addressing it. The fact that competencies about biasrepeatedly met the criterion as critical points to the priority that should beplaced within training programs on preparing future school psychologiststo identify and address its ubiquitous manifestations.

The Report Writing category contained critical cross-cultural competen-cies that addressed a range of issues. Included in this category were skillsin reporting deviations from standardized test administrations (includingthe use of translations and bilingual instructions, an interpreter, and test-ing of limits), and in including information about language proficiency,language background, acculturation, and family composition in reports.Within this category, the focus of the critical competencies was twofold.First, the experts identified report-writing competencies that highlight theneed to clearly, explicitly, and fully document the assessment process and

services as provided. A second theme among the report writing compe-tencies was the need to include information collected during the assess-ment process important to understanding the cultural context of theclients experiences. This second theme about the importance of under-standing the clients cultural context was also common to the Assessment,



20/27

Consultation, Counseling, Culture, Professional Characteristics, andResearch Methods categories.

Implications for Training

The present investigation has implications for the cross-cultural training offuture and existing school psychologists. In terms of the training of futureschool psychologists, the training standards developed by APA (2000) andNASP (2000) state that programs must provide a curriculum in diversityissues that leads to the development of competencies relevant to a clientelediverse in race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, nationality, and socioeconomicstatus. Yet, a review of both the APA and the NASP training standards yields

little explicit information about the characteristics of the culturally com-petent school psychologist. Without a clearer understanding of the cross-cultural competencies that school psychologists should have, trainers willnot be able to fulfill the spirit of the training standards and will be limitedin their ability to design relevant and appropriate curricular and trainingexperiences. The present study enables trainers to have an explicit under-standing of specific cross-cultural competencies most relevant to thedelivery of school psychological services. Trainers may wish to use thepresent findings to identify and prioritize the knowledge and skill com-

petencies that they feel are most important and then develop trainingmodules and sequence training experiences that allow for the developmentof both kinds of expertise. As one example, in the present study severalcompetencies within the Working With Interpreters category were identi-fied as critical and may need to be addressed in the curriculum of schoolpsychology programs. Trainers wishing to develop a training module aboutworking with interpreters could use the identified competencies to developa didactic sequence that focuses on the dynamics of the translationprocedure, techniques of interpretation (e.g., simultaneous, consecutive),

the interpersonal aspects of the translation process, ethical issues whenworking with interpreters (e.g., confidentiality), the competencies neededby interpreters (e.g., language skills, knowledge of intercultural communi-cation, translation techniques, professional conduct, school relevant knowl-edge), and the potential liability of the psychologist for engaging inquestionable practices. Following the didactic module, a practicum todevelop applied skills in working with interpreters could be designed tofocus on learning to seek out bilingual clinicians, establish rapport throughinterpreters, interview parents through interpreters, assess students and

interpret information obtained through interpreters, and report (in writtenand verbal forms) test data obtained through interpreters. Using the com-petencies as the basis for a sequence of didactic and applied trainingexperiences is likely to enhance the quality of educational and psycholog-ical services delivered to children who speak English-as-a-Second-Language.



21/27

Another implication of the present findings concerns the cross-culturalcompetency training of existing school psychologists. Ethically, all schoolpsychologists have the dual responsibility of providing informed and

relevant psychological services to all those with whom they work, andunderstanding the limits of their own competencies. Although the presentstudy was not designed to assess the professional competencies or any per-ceived limits in competencies of current school psychologists, it is quitepossible that a careful examination of the cross-cultural competenciesidentified in the present investigation will help to more clearly define boun-daries of professional competence for many school psychologists. Once thisoccurs and gaps in skills are identified, trainers of school psychologists willlikely be faced with increased demands for preservice and inservice cross-

cultural competence training.The development and implementation of cross-cultural training ofschool psychologists requires careful planning. Some research (e.g., Carl-son, Brack, Laygo, Cohen, & Kirkscey, 1998; Neville et al., 1996; Sodowsky,Kuo-Jackson, Richardson, & Corey, 1998) suggest that enrollment in multi-cultural courses helps psychologists to develop multicultural competencies. Although a single course will help many to begin the skill developmentprocess, it is likely that a single course alone will not provide enoughcontent and practical supervision to develop the full spectrum of identified

cross-cultural school psychology competencies. In fact, a single courseapproach may be counter to the intent of the APA accreditation guidelines(2000) which state that accredited programs must employ a systematic andlong-term approach to incorporating diversity issues into students trainingexperiences. The accreditation guidelines are clear in the requirement thatprograms demonstrate how students cross-cultural competencies are beingdeveloped over time and assessed. Trainers interested in learning moreabout multicultural transformation efforts in psychology are referred to the work of Green (1998), Ponterotto, Alexander, and Grieger (1995), and

Rogers, Hoffman, and Wade (1998) for a more complete understanding ofthe various ways that multicultural training can be incorporated into thecurriculum, field experience, research activities, and training environmentof school psychology programs.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Despite its contributions, this study has limitations. One limitation concernsthe way we defined cross-cultural expertise. Although we employed a

systematic method involving multiple criteria to define expertness andidentify potential Delphi panelists, we recognize that using other criteria todefine expertness may have resulted in a different body of cross-culturalschool psychology experts who may have shared other perspectives on thecross-cultural competencies that school psychologists should have. Scholars



22/27

in cross-cultural counseling psychology (e.g., Parham, 1993) have beencritical of the ways that cross-cultural experts have been identified inprevious research. For example, in their Delphi study on the future of

cross-cultural counseling psychology, the sole criteria used by Heath,Neimeyer, and Pedersen (1988) to identify cross-cultural experts was toselect only those individuals who had published at least one relevantrefereed journal article or two book chapters during a specified timeperiod. Our study goes beyond the use of a single criteria in establishingthe expertise of the participating school psychologists by employing multi-ple rigorous criteria (e.g., multiple relevant publications, multiple relevantpresentations at national conferences, membership on relevant professio-nal organization committee, minimum of 5 years experience providing

services to diverse children, faculty member at training program thatemphasizes multicultural paradigms). By using a more stringent standardthan previous researchers, we hoped to improve the validity of the selectionprocess used to identify the participating experts.

A second limitation of the study concerns the task demands associated with completing the Delphi questionnaire. By using a questionnaire thatincluded mostly a priori composed literature based items, it is possiblethat we obtained different information than we would have if thequestionnaire was entirely open-ended and the panelists themselves

identified all of the critical cross-cultural competencies. Although open-ended items were incorporated into the questionnaire and panelistscontributed numerous competencies given the open-ended option, it isstill possible that the resulting list of competencies would have beenslightly different if based solely on panelists expertise. Future studiesshould employ other methods to identify cross-cultural school psychologycompetencies as a way of establishing the concurrent validity of thepresent results. Previous investigations in cross-cultural counseling com-petencies have produced variations in the way that counseling psycholo-

gists have operationalized cross-cultural counseling competencies (e.g.,DAndrea et al., 1991; LaFromboise et al., 1991; Ponterotto et al., 1991;Sodowsky et al., 1994). Therefore, it would not be surprising to observesome degree of variability in future attempts to define and operationalizecross-cultural school psychology competencies as well.

A third limitation concerns the ceiling effects observed in panelistsratings to the competency items on Round 1 and Round 2 of the Delphiquestionnaires. Several panelists rated virtually every individual compe-tency item as very important on the Likert scale ranging from very im-

portant to very unimportant. Subsequently, the data analysis yielded ahigh degree of equivalence in how the panelists were viewing the im-portance of the competencies. All of the competency categories also hadmean ratings that fell between the very important and important pointson the Likert scale. This pattern made it difficult to distinguish the



23/27

relative importance of one individual competency statement over anotheras well as one competency category over another. In an attempt to moreclearly distinguish the relative importance of the competencies, we em-

ployed a strict standard involving a measure of consensus (96% or above)to more clearly delineate the most important competencies. Using acombination of mean ratings and consensus, we found panelists to be very consistent in their judgments about the importance of the criticalcompetencies. Thus, out of the 260 literature-derived and expert-derivedcompetencies, 102 were identified as critical. Although the final group ofcritical competencies are large in number, they span 14 major domains ofservice delivery that do not easily lend themselves to simple or pat des-cription. In fact, when we consider all the skills and competencies

required for successful work in any one of the major areas identified inthe present study, it is not surprising that the present analysis should yieldnumerous competencies as critical. The successful delivery of cross-culturally competent school psychology services is a complex endeavornot easily distilled into a small number of generic prescriptions. The verynature of cross-culturally competent practice requires not only knowledgeand skill in the basic fundamentals of each of the major domains ofpsychological service delivery, but also understanding and skill in thecomplex ways those practices are influenced by the diverse backgrounds,

identities, and issues of the clientele served. To attempt to portray cross-culturally competent practice across 14 major domains as best repre-sented by a small number of competencies would deny the complexitiesand realities of comprehensive school psychological services. Therefore,while we acknowledge the presence of ceiling effects in the ratings of theexpert panel, we consider the possibility that those ceiling effects may bemore a reflection of the inherent difficulty in attempting to place im-portance on a broad and complex spectrum of competencies and less areflection of the panelists tendency to inflate their ratings of the com-

petencies. Future research may explore this issue to determine the re-lative merit of these possibilities.Future research is needed that examines the degree of correspondence

between the cross-cultural skills and knowledge base that future schoolpsychologists are developing during training and the critical competenciesidentified by the Delphi panelists. Observing significant gaps betweenacquired competencies and critical cross-cultural competencies can leadtrainers to identify cross-cultural training experiences that need to beincorporated into their program. On a programmatic level, the present

findings may also be used by programs to perform a self-study and programevaluation of the competencies that are and are not being addressed withinthe program. A top priority for school psychology training programs nation-wide should be ensuring that future school psychologists are well-preparedfor the realities of delivering school psychological services to diverse clients.



24/27

It is interesting to note that more literature-derived competencies (43%)than expert-derived (31%) competencies were retained in the final pool ofcritical competencies. Although beyond the scope of the present article,

future studies could examine the literature-derived and expert-derivedcompetencies to see if they differed in some systematic way. Future studiesmay also involve converting the competency statements into a self-reportmeasure for school psychologists interested in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of their own cross-cultural competencies. Performing a self-assessment using such a scale would help to identify skill development needsand help the professional to assess the limits of his/her own competencies.Similarly, it would be useful to develop a measure of cross-cultural schoolpsychology competencies that could be used by supervisors to assess their

supervisees skill development and areas of expertise at various phases oftraining. As professionals within school psychology improve their under-standing of the cross-cultural competencies that they should have and takeaction to develop them, it is likely that the services provided to diversechildren and youth will improve in relevance, sensitivity, and effectiveness.Although this study was not designed to assess the perceptions of those whoreceive services delivered by school psychologists, an important addition tothe literature would be an investigation that examines the cross-culturalcompetencies that diverse clients (e.g., children, youth, parents, teachers,

administrators) consider to be important to the effective delivery of psy-chological services in the schools. Not only is it important for us to under-stand how cross-cultural experts define and articulate cross-cultural schoolpsychology competencies but it is also critical that we understand whatskills and behaviors diverse clients find culturally congruent, acceptable,and relevant.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sincere appreciation and deepest gratitude are extended to the par-ticipating Delphi panelists for contributing their time and thoughtful ex-pertise during data collection. In addition, we would like to acknowledgeand extend a warm thanks to Harold Linstone, Murray Turoff, William E.Halal, Dennis C. Pirages, and J. Frederick West for their advice andthoughtful answers to questions about Delphi methodology. Finally, theother members of our research team, Sherrie Borowsky, Lorie Hirsch-field, and Paul Wilson, deserve heartfelt applause for their assistance with

this project.A complete reference list of the literature employed as the basis for theliterature-derived cross-cultural competencies is available upon request. Inaddition, the complete list of 102 critical cross-cultural school psychologycompetencies is available upon request from the first author.



25/27

REFERENCES

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, NationalCouncil on Measurement in Education. (1985). Testing linguistic minorities. In Standards for

educational and psychological testing (pp. 7375). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

American Psychological Association. (1991). Guidelines for providers of psychological servicesto ethnic, linguistic, and culturally diverse populations. Washington, DC: American Psycholog-ical Association.

American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

American Psychological Association. (2000). Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programsin professional psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Barona, A., & Garcia, E. E. (Eds.). (1990). Children at risk: Poverty, minority status, and other issuesin educational equity. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Cannon, G. S., Idol, L., & West, J. F. (1992). Educating students with mild handicaps in generalclassrooms: Essential teaching practices for general and special educators. Journal of Learn-ing Disabilities, 25, 300317.

Carlson, M. H., Brack, C. J., Laygo, R., Cohen, R., & Kirkscey, M. (1998). An exploratory studyof multicultural competence of counselors in training: Support for experiential skills build-ing. The Clinical Supervisor, 17, 75 87.

Christenson, S. L., & Conoley, J. C. (Eds.). (1992). Homeschool collaboration: Enhancing childrensacademic and social competence. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Cookson, P. S. (1986). Charting the unknown: Delphi and policy Delphi strategies for interna-tional co-operation. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 5, 3 13.

Cooper, H. M. (1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Reviewof Educational Research, 52, 291 302.Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews(2nd ed.). Newbury Park:

Sage.DAndrea, M., Daniels, J., & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating the impact of multicultural counseling

training. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 143 150.Esquivel, G. B. (1985). Best practices in the assessment of limited Englishproficient and bilingual

children. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology ( pp. 113 123).Kent, OH: National Association of School Psychologists.

Fagan, T. K., & Sachs Wise, P. (1994). School psychology: Past, present and future. New York:Longman.

Figueroa, R. A. (1989). Psychological testing of linguistic minority students: Knowledge gapsand regulations. Exceptional Children, 86, 111119.

Figueroa, R. A., Sandoval, J., & Merino, B. (1984). School psychology and limited-English-proficient (LEP) children: New competencies. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 131 143.

Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language-minority student and special education:Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60, 310 322.

Gopaul-McNicol, S. (1997). A theoretical framework for training monolingual school psychol-ogists to work with multilingual/multicultural children: An exploration of the major com-petencies. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 17 29.

Green, R. J. (1998). Training programs: Guidelines for multicultural transformation. In M.McGoldrick (Ed.), Re-visioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice

(pp. 111117). New York: Guilford.Gutkin, T. B., & Reynolds, C. R. (Eds.). (1990). Handbook of school psychology (2nd ed.). New

York: Wiley.Heath, A. E., Neimeyer, G. J., & Pedersen, P. B. (1988). The future of cross-cultural counseling:

A Delphi poll. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 2730.

&



26/27

LaFromboise, T. D., Coleman, H. L. K., & Hernandez, A. (1991). Development and factorstructure of the Cross-Cultural Competency InventoryRevised. Professional Psychology: Re-search and Practice, 22, 380 388.

Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University.Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley.Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (Eds.). (1992). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for

working with young children and their families. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.National Association of School Psychologists. (1992). Principles for professional ethics. Washington,

DC: National Association of School Psychologists.National Association of School Psychologists. (2000). Standards for training and field placement

programs in school psychology. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Neville, H. A., Heppner, M. J., Louie, C. E., Thompson, C. E., Brooks, L., & Baker, C. E. (1996).

The impact of multicultural training on White racial identity attitudes and therapy com-

petencies. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 8389.Ochoa, S. H., Rivera, B., & Ford, L. (1997). An investigation of school psychology training

pertaining to bilingual psycho-educational assessment of primarily Hispanic students:Twenty-five years after Diana v. California. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 329 349.

Parham, T. (1993). White researchers conducting multicultural counseling research: Can theirefforts be Mo better? The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 250 256.

Ponterotto, J. G., Alexander, C. M., & Grieger, I. (1995). A multicultural competency checklist forcounseling training programs. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 23, 1120.

Ponterotto, J. G., & Casas, J. M. (1991). Handbook of racial/ethnic minority counseling research.Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Ponterotto, J. G., Rieger, B. T., Barrett, A., & Sparks, R. (1994). Assessing multicultural coun-

seling competence: A review of instrumentation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72,316322.

Ponterotto, J. G., Sanchez, C. M., & Magids, D. M. (1991, August). Initial development andvalidation of the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale (MCAS). Paper presented at the

American Psychological Association conference, San Francisco, CA.Ridley, C. R., Mendoza, D. W., & Kanitz, B. E. (1994). Multicultural training: Reexamination,

operationalization, and integration. The Counseling Psychologist, 22, 227 289.Rogler, L. H., Malgady, R. G., Costantino, G., & Blumenthal, R. (1987). What do culturally sen-

sitive mental health services mean? The case of Hispanics. American Psychologist, 42, 3745.Rogers, M. R., Hoffman, M., & Wade, J. (1998). Notable multicultural training in APA--

approved counseling psychology and school psychology programs. Cultural Diversity andMental Health, 4, 212226.

Rogers, M. R., Martin, J., & Druckman, L. (1994, March). Model multicultural training in schoolpsychology programs: An examination of program philosophy and characteristics. Paper presented atthe National Association of School Psychologists conference, Seattle, WA.

Rogers, M. R., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1997). Development of the Multicultural School PsychologyCounseling Competency Scale. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 211 217.

Rogers, M. R., Ponterotto, J. G., Conoley, J. C., & Wiese, M. J. (1992). Multicultural training inschool psychology: A national survey. School Psychology Review, 21, 603616.

Rosenfield, S., & Esquivel, G. B. (1985). Educating school psychologists to work with bilingual/bicultural populations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 199 208.

Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego: Author.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, socialinadequacy, locus of control racial ideology, and multicultural training. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 45, 256 264.



27/27

Sodowsky, G. R., Taffe, R. C., Gutkin, T. B., & Wise, S. L. (1994). Development of the Multi-cultural Counseling Inventory: A self-report measure of multicultural competencies. Journalof Counseling Psychology, 41, 137 148.

Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and

standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 20,6488.

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 Psycholo-gist, 10, 4552.

Tarver Behring, S., & Ingraham, C. L. (1998). Culture as a central component of consultation:A call to the field. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 9, 57 72.

Thomas, A., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (1985). Best practices in school psychology. Kent, OH: NationalAssociation of School Psychologists.

Thomas, A., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (1990). Best practices in school psychology II. Washington, DC:National Association of School Psychologists.

Thomas, A., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (1995). Best practices in school psychology III. Washington, DC:National Association of School Psychologists.

Vance, B. (Ed.). (1993). Best practices in assessment for school and clinical settings. Brandon, VT:Clinical Psychology.

Waggoner, D. (1994). Language minority school-age population now totals 9.9 million. NationalAssociation for Bilingual Education, 18, 1.

Weatherman, R., & Swenson, K. (1974). Delphi technique. In S. P. Hencley & J. R. Yates (Eds.),Futurism in education: Methodologies (pp. 97114). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

West, J. F., & Cannon, G. S. (1988). Essential collaborative consultation competencies forregular and special educators. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 56 63.

Ysseldyke, J., Dawson, P., Lehr, C., Reschly, D., Reynolds, M., & Telzrow, C. (1997). School psychology: A blueprint for training and practice II. Bethesda, MD: National Association ofSchool Psychologists.

Yutrzenka, B. A. (1995). Making a case for training in ethnic and cultural diversity in increasingtreatment efficacy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 197 206.

Zayas, L. H., Torres, L. R., Malcolm, J., & DesRosiers, F. S. (1996). Clinicians definitions ofethnically sensitive therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 7882.


Identifying Critical Cross Cultural

Documents

Transcript of Identifying Critical Cross Cultural