Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Conceptualizing Cross-Cultural School Psychology Competencies
Conceptualizing Cross-Cultural School Psychology Competencies
net/publication/232478759
CITATIONS READS
43 291
2 authors, including:
Emilia C. Lopez
City University of New York - Queens College
24 PUBLICATIONS 304 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, 2nd Ed. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Emilia C. Lopez on 11 October 2016.
Emilia C. Lopez
Queens College, City University of New York
Margaret R. Rogers
University of Rhode Island
This Delphi study was designed to identify essential cross-cultural competencies for
school psychologists. The investigation extends the results of the Rogers and Lopez (in
press) Delphi study by using a distinct panel of experts, different instrumentation, and a
modified process to identify cross-cultural competencies for school psychologists. The
term cross-cultural is defined broadly and refers to racially, ethnically, culturally and lin-
guistically diverse clients from African American, Asian American, Hispanic, Native
American and Pacific Islander backgrounds in addition to individuals with diverse handi-
caps, sexual orientations, economic status, religious backgrounds, and gender. In this
study, the investigators used the Delphi technique to poll the opinions of 11 experts in
cross-cultural school psychology using an open-ended questionnaire. The panelists
reached high levels of agreement in identifying 89 essential cross-cultural competencies.
The competencies reflect a wide range of knowledge and skills for school psychologists
working in broad ranging capacities with students with cross-cultural backgrounds. Al-
though some essential cross-cultural competencies from the present study are similar to
those obtained in the Rogers and Lopez study and in the cross-cultural counseling compe-
tency literature, the essential competencies also reflect differences in the scope and types
of competencies identified.
A sincere thank you is extended to our panelists for all their hard work and contributions to this in-
vestigation. We would also like to thank J. Frederick West, John Houtz, Murray Turoff, and Jim
Yates for their assistance in the methodology and data interpretation sections of this article. Special
thanks to Jerry L. Cohen for his helpful advice in a portion of the data analysis.
Address correspondence to Emilia C. Lopez, Queens College, CUNY, Department of Educational
and Community Programs, 65-30 Kissena Blvd., Flushing, NY 11367; E-mail: lopez@cedx.com.
270
CONCEPTUALIZING CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCIES 271
Center for Bilingual Education, 1995). As these demographic changes are ex-
pected to continue, a greater demand will be placed on psychologists to develop
cross-cultural competencies (Jones, 1990).
Legal, sociopolitical, ethical, and professional forces all create powerful ratio-
nales that prompt psychologists to develop cross-cultural competencies. With re-
spect to the legal impetus, Figueroa, Sandoval, and Merino (1984) point out that
decisions rendered in major court cases, such as Diana vs. California State Board
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of Education (1970) and Lau vs. Nichols (1974), implied that psychologists
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Within American society and the profession of psychology, the role of school
psychologists is to provide appropriate psychological services that are viewed by
all children and their parents as sensitive to their struggles and to their diverse
backgrounds. To accomplish such a task, we must begin to define the cross-cul-
tural competencies reflecting the many roles and functions of school psycholo-
gists that lead to effective psychological services.
The current ethical standards for psychologists provide additional powerful
rationales for the need to develop cross-cultural competencies. The ethical re-
272 LOPEZ A N D ROGERS
continually for seeking additional training (NASP, 2000). For school psycholo-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
gists who have not had opportunities to develop cross-cultural competencies and
are not clear how the diverse backgrounds of their clients will influence their
service delivery, there is an ethical and professional responsibility to learn about
and develop cross-cultural competencies.
Within the school psychology profession, the concern that future school psy-
chologists need more intensive training in delivering services to diverse clients
exists today. In their survey of the multicultural training occurring in doctoral
and nondoctoral programs in the United States, Rogers, Ponterotto, Conoley, and
Wiese (1992) found that school psychology training programs were not consis-
tently integrating multicultural themes and courses into their curriculum. In par-
ticular, Rogers et al. found that 40% of the sampled programs did not offer
courses with a cross-cultural emphasis and did not infuse cross-cultural themes
into existing coursework. When cross-cultural issues were represented in the
curriculum, they tended to be offered in assessment courses but not in other core
curriculum courses (e.g., consultation, counseling, roles and functions) that ad-
dress the wide variety of services provided by school psychologists. These find-
ings imply that many future school psychologists may be developing cross-cul-
tural competencies in only a narrow domain of service delivery and may benefit
from added graduate preparation aimed specifically at developing cross-cultural
competencies in all the major domains of professional practice.
The concern that psychologists need more training in cross-cultural issues has
been voiced in other recent investigations within the fields of counseling and
clinical psychology. Pope-Davis, Reynolds, Dings, and Nielson (1995) con-
ducted a recent survey to examine the cross-cultural competencies of counseling
and clinical psychology graduate students. The results indicated that graduate
students in counseling and clinical programs need more exposure to multicul-
tural issues. The investigators concluded that increased contact with racially and
ethnically diverse clients during training was important in increasing multicul-
tural knowledge and awareness. Allison, Echemendia, Crawford, and Robinson
(1996) examined the cross-cultural competencies of a randomly derived sample
of clinical and counseling psychologists and found that the respondents reported
a wide range of competence in providing treatment to specific client groups (i.e.,
African Americans, Asian Americans, American Indians, Hispanics, European
Americans, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, women, sensory impaired, motor impaired,
and economically disadvantaged), ranging from minimal to advanced. The in-
vestigators found that " . . . a small, yet significant, number of individuals re-
ported that they did not feel competent to work with specific client groups" but
CONCEPTUALIZING CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCIES 273
did so anyway (Allison et al., 1996, p. 392). Also, treatment providers who had
experience with individuals from particular groups during their graduate training
and in their current caseloads tended to perceive themselves as more competent
to work with those groups. These results suggest that psychologists need to con-
tinue to work on accessing appropriate training to enhance their ability to work
competently with clients from diverse cultural backgrounds.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Conceptually and empirically, the counseling psychology field has taken the
lead in articulating and defining the cross-cultural competencies needed by
counselors to work with diverse clients. In an effort to explore cross-cultural
competencies for counseling psychologists, the Education and Training Com-
mittee of Division 17 of APA convened in 1980 to identify specific characteris-
tics of culturally skilled counselors (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Hernandez,
1991). The product of that committee was a position paper by Sue et al. (1982)
that was a pivotal turning point in counseling psychology. The article presented
a framework of 11 essential cross-cultural counseling competencies within three
major sets of domains that included cultural awareness and beliefs, cultural
knowledge, and skills. Ten years later, a second position paper written by Sue,
Arredondo, and McDavis (1992) expanded the original framework by incorpo-
rating additional cross-cultural competencies that reflected (a) the counselors'
awareness of their own assumptions, values, and biases; (b) their understanding
of the world view of the culturally different client; and (c) their ability to provide
appropriate intervention strategies and techniques.
The conceptual frameworks reported by Sue et al. (1982) and Sue et al. (1992)
have been used in several investigations to identify and measure cross-cultural
counseling competencies for psychologists. For example, several studies empiri-
cally identified counseling cross-cultural competencies and reported on the de-
velopment of inventories to self-measure counselors' competencies (LaFrom-
boise et al., 1991; Sodowsky et al., 1994). Other studies sought to develop
instruments designed to assess the cross-cultural competencies of graduate coun-
seling psychology students (D'Andrea, Daniels, & Heck, 1991; Pope-Davis et
al., 1995). Reviews of the multicultural counseling literature suggest that al-
though additional research is needed to establish further the instruments' valid-
ity, they all show promise in their ability to measure multicultural competence
for counselors (Ponterotto, Rieger, Barrett, & Sparks, 1994; Pope-Davis &
Dings, 1995). Their utility remains limited for school psychologists working
with children and youth because the measures are primarily appropriate for
counseling psychologists working with adult clients in private practice and men-
tal health clinic situations (Rogers & Ponterotto, 1997). These measures are also
limited because they do not tend to reflect the many functions and areas of ex-
pertise of psychologists working in school settings (e.g., assessment, consulta-
tion, working with parents, working with interpreters).
Although there is a professional and ethical impetus for school psychologists
274 LOPEZ AND ROGERS
edge of language development; (e) ability to work with interpreters; and (f)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This definition was adopted from definitions provided by Sue et al. (1992) and
Lynch and Hanson (1992, 1999). The definition assumes that cross-culturally
competent school psychologists are able to integrate cultural knowledge and in-
formation with the theoretical and practical aspects of delivering psychological
services in school settings (Pope-Davis & Dings, 1994).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The Delphi technique has been used in the fields of education and psychology
to (a) identify problems (Yell, Deno, & Marston, 1992); (b) investigate theoreti-
cal and practical issues (Fish & Piercy, 1987); (c) examine social concerns (Fish
& Osborn, 1992); (d) predict trends (Cramer, 1991; Heath, Neimeyer, & Peder-
sen, 1988; Putnam, Spiegel, & Bruininks, 1995; Yell et al., 1992); and (e) opera-
tionalize multicultural training (Speight, Thomas, Kennel, & Anderson, 1995).
The procedure provides researchers with a systematic way to build constructs
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and organize ideas that can be validated later and organized further into models
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
or theories (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). In the field of education, several investi-
gations have used Delphi procedures to identify essential competencies for spe-
cial educators working with inclusion students (Putnam et al., 1995), students
with learning disabilities (Graves et al., 1993), and students with hearing impair-
ments (Grissom & Cochran, 1986). Competencies relevant to general and special
educators were also identified by Cannon et al. (1992) and by West and Cannon
(1988). The technique lends itself to the process of identifying competencies be-
cause it relies on the collective opinions of experts to explore the skills needed
within specific areas of specialization.
Most recently, Rogers and Lopez (in press) used the Delphi technique to iden-
tify critical school psychology cross-cultural competencies. This study was a
first attempt to identify systematically critical cross-cultural competencies for
school psychologists across the major domains of psychological service deliv-
ery. In their study, Rogers and Lopez polled school psychologists who had ex-
pertise in cross-cultural issues to obtain their input on the importance of 185
cross-cultural competencies drawn from the extant empirical, practical, and the-
oretical literature. The experts also generated 75 cross-cultural competencies not
addressed in the extant literature. Of 260 cross-cultural school psychology com-
petencies compiled from this combination of literature-derived and expert-de-
rived procedures, 102 competencies were rated by the participants as critical for
school psychologists working with culturally and linguistically diverse clients.
Although the Rogers and Lopez investigation enhanced our understanding of
critical cross-cultural competencies for school psychologists, the study was lim-
ited by its primary reliance on the extant literature to define the range of cross-
cultural school psychology competencies. What is unknown is what experts
themselves consider to be essential cross-cultural competencies without the
framework provided by the competencies found in the literature. How do those
with expertise in cross-cultural school psychology define the most important
competencies for school psychologists? On the basis of their own experiences
and professional practices, what do experts in cross-cultural school psychology
say are the essential competencies for all school psychologists?
with clients from diverse cultural and language backgrounds. The term cross-
cultural is defined broadly and refers to racially, ethnically, culturally and lin-
guistically diverse clients from African American, Asian American, Hispanic,
Native American and Pacific Islander backgrounds in addition to individuals
with diverse handicaps, sexual orientations, economic status, religious back-
grounds, and gender. The use of the terms racially, ethnically, culturally and lin-
guistically diverse encompasses all these subgroups. The investigation involved
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
METHOD
Panelists
Selection of the Delphi panel. Five specific criteria were developed to guide
in the selection of the panelists (Linstone & Turoff, 1975; Murry & Hammons,
1995; Rowe, Wright, & Bolger, 1991; Weatherman & Swenson, 1974). Each
panelist was rated along each of the five criteria by the study's authors. Panelists
were chosen if they met two of the following five criteria.
(1) Author Criteria. Panelists needed to be a primary or secondary author of
two or more school psychology publications concerned with cross-cultural is-
sues and published between 1990 and 1995. The publications included journal
articles from the leading school psychology journals (e.g., Journal of School
Psychology, School Psychology Review, and School Psychology Quarterly) and
books (e.g., Thomas & Grimes, 1985, 1990, 1995) in the field of school psychol-
ogy. Two readers independently reviewed all relevant publications and identi-
fied the authors. Interrater reliability for identifying the authors was calculated
as the number of agreements divided by agreements plus disagreements. Inter-
rater reliability was .96.
(2) Presenter Criteria. A panelist needed to have made three or more relevant
presentations at NASP or APA conferences between the period of 1990 to 1995.
278 LOPEZ AND ROGERS
The convention programs for the conferences were examined for relevant pre-
senters and presentations by two independent reviewers. Interrater reliability
was .98.
(3) Faculty Criteria. To meet this criteria, faculty had to teach in school psy-
chology programs that emphasized multicultural or bilingual training. The fac-
ulty members were identified using the results of a study conducted by Rogers,
Martin, and Druckman (1994) to examine model multicultural training programs
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
in school psychology.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(4) Practicing School Psychologists Criteria. Individuals who met two criteria
for panel selection (e.g., authors, presenters, and faculty) were asked to nominate
practicing school psychologists they knew who had at least 5 years of experience
working with culturally and linguistically diverse clients. Nominated school psy-
chologists were contacted and asked to provide background information to deter-
mine if they met the criteria for this category.
(5) Supervising School Psychologists Criteria. To identify supervising school
psychologists with cross-cultural expertise, panelists who met either the author-
ship, presenter, or faculty criteria were asked to nominate supervisors who had 5
years of experience or more working with culturally and linguistically diverse
clients. Nominated supervisors were contacted and asked to provide background
information to determine if they met the criteria for this category.
Background characteristics of panelists. A total of 128 school psychologists
met the criteria as experts in cross-cultural school psychology. A final sample of
64 school psychologists was selected randomly to participate in the three rounds
of the Delphi questionnaire. Of the initial pool of invited panelists, (a) 25 (39%)
of the members responded to the first round; (b) 11 (44%) of the panelists in the
first round responded to the second round; and (c) the 11 (44%) panelists in the
second round responded to the third and final round (i.e., 100% of the panelists
in the second round responded to the third round).
The final pool of panelists included 9 (82%) females and 2 (18%) males. A
total of 6 (55%) were Caucasians, 3 (27%) were Hispanics, 1 (9%) was African
American, and 1 (9%) was Native American. The majority of the panelists held
specialists' degrees (n = 6, 55%), while the remaining panelists held doctoral de-
grees (n = 5, 45%). The majority of the panelists also indicated specializing in
school psychology (n = 9, 82%), whereas others reported specializations in bilin-
gual special education (n = 1, 9%) and school diagnostics (n = 1, 9%). A total of
64% (n = 7) of the panel indicated that they were practicing school psycholo-
gists, whereas 36% (n = 4) were faculty members from university training pro-
grams across the country. The majority of the panelists resided in the Midwest (n
= 3, 27%) and the Southwest (« = 3, 27%), whereas others resided in the West (n
= 2, 18%), the Southeast (n = 2, 18%), and the Northeast (« = 1, 9%).
The panelists reported a mean of 10 years of experience working with cultur-
ally and linguistically diverse populations, with a range of 4 to 21 years. Table 1
provides a summary of the professional characteristics of the panelists. The ma-
jority of the panelists indicated having cross-cultural professional experiences
that included assessing children and youth (73%), attending professional confer-
CONCEPTUALIZING CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCIES 279
Instrumentation
The Delphi questionnaire included two parts. The first part asked the panelists
questions about their backgrounds and was completed in the first round of the
study. The background questions asked the panelists to provide information
about their (a) personal characteristics (e.g., gender, race or ethnicity, and de-
gree); (b) primary professional positions; (c) professional activities; (d) contribu-
tions relevant to cross-cultural school psychology; (e) years of experience work-
ing with culturally and linguistically diverse clients; (f) professional activities
relevant to cross-cultural issues (e.g., research and courses); and (g) specific
areas of cross-cultural expertise.
280 LOPEZ AND ROGERS
The second part of the questionnaire asked participants to identify and to rate
cross-cultural competencies; this section was completed in the first, second, and
third rounds of the investigation. The section of the questionnaire designed to
identify essential cross-cultural competencies was modified following each
round of the investigation. In the first round, the panelists were asked to identify
essential cross-cultural competencies within 14 major categories representing
major domains of practice for school psychologists working with culturally and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PROCEDURE
ences cited in the sources identified by the computer search and the manual review
procedures. As each of the sources in the literature review were identified, two in-
dependent readers identified and coded sample competencies relevant to cross-
culturally competent school psychologists. These sample competencies were
identified by the investigators to aid in the process of creating the categories of
competencies. The categories emerged within the process of trying to organize the
sample competencies. A total of 14 major categories were identified after reach-
ing 100% agreement between the co-authors (see Instruments for the list of cate-
gories). The categories reflected major areas of service delivery for school psy-
chologists, primary populations of multicultural clients in school settings, and
issues relevant to working with multicultural populations.
resentativeness, the judges examined each item within an assigned category and
determined if the items were representative of competencies of school psycholo-
gists. The representativeness category was created after a preliminary review of
the items suggested that some items referred to competencies for individuals
other than school psychologists (e.g., teachers, parents, and children). Items
rated by the judges to be unrepresentative were excluded from further inclusion
in the study. All items were also rated for category relevancy (i.e., Does the item
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
belong to the category to which the panelists assigned it?). Items rated as irrele-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
vant to the category were reassigned to new categories and rerated for category
relevancy within the reassigned categories. In situations where judges felt that
items belonged in more than one category, the judges discussed the relevancy of
the items and came to 100% agreement on their category placement. Finally, the
items were rated for redundancy. Items that were redundant were eliminated.
Using these procedures, a total of 459 competencies emerged from the 518 com-
petencies examined by the judges.
al. (1992). The range of consensus was defined as the mean of each item ± 1.64
standard deviation units (e.g., for item number 2 in the Appendix, the range of
consensus was +.60 to 2.30). Item ratings within that range were considered to
be within the range of consensus.
Essential items were defined as items that had a mean rating of 1.49 or less and a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
level of agreement of 100% (i.e., percentage of mean ratings within the estab-
lished range of consensus of 1.64 ± SD). The cut off of 1.49 was chosen to in-
clude any mean ratings of 1.49 to 1.00 (i.e., rating of 1 [very important]) and to
delineate those items with ratings of 1 from items with ratings of 2 or higher
(i.e., items with ratings between 1.50 and 2 corresponded to a Likert rating of 2
[important]). Although previous Delphi investigations have used lower levels of
agreement to identify essential items (e.g., 75% cut off was used by Cannon et
al., 1992 and by West & Cannon, 1988), the investigators for this study decided
to apply a cutoff of 100% to identify those competency items that were rated as
most important and demonstrated the maximum level of agreement.
RESULTS
In Round 2 of the survey, the ratings for the 459 items ranged between 1.00 and
3.09, with a mean rating of 1.70 and a SD of .31. In Round 3, a total of 463 com-
petencies were rated by the panelists (i.e., 459 items from Round 2 plus 4 new
items submitted by the panelists in Round 3). The ratings for Round 3 ranged be-
tween 1.00 and 3.09, with a mean of 1.68 and a SD of .31.
Category Ratings
For the essential items (N = 89) identified in Round 3, the mean ratings for all
the categories ranged from 1.32 to 1.45, with a mean of 1.38 (SD - .05). The
Professional Characteristics and Culture categories had the largest percentage of
items that met the criteria as essential cross-cultural competencies for school
284 LOPEZ AND ROGERS
psychologists (i.e., 50% and 42%, respectively). In contrast, the Theoretical Par-
adigms (8.3%), Research (4.5%), and Working with Organizations (3%) cate-
gories had the lowest percentage of items that met the criteria for essential com-
petencies. The Academic Interventions (0%) category failed to retain any
essential items. The mean percentage of items meeting the criteria for essential
competencies for the 14 categories was 20.6%, with a range of 3% to 50%.
For the purposes of identifying essential competency categories, the mean rat-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ings were calculated for each of the categories in Round 3. When all the items (N
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
= 463) were included, mean ratings for the 14 categories in Round 3 ranged from
1.45 to 1.87. The overall mean for all the categories in Round 3 was 1.68 (SD =
.14). The categories were rated as follows from lowest (i.e., 1 [most important])
to highest (5 [very unimportant]): Professional Characteristics (M = 1.45); Cul-
ture (M= 1.45); Report Writing (M= 1.55); Language (M = 1.57); Counseling
(M — 1.58); Assessment (M— 1.60); Consultation (M = 1.63); Academic Inter-
ventions (M = 1.75); Laws and Regulations (M = 1.80); Working with Parents
(M= 1.80); Working with Organizations (M = 1.81); Working with Interpreters
(Af = 1.82); Research (M= 1.83); and Theoretical Paradigms (M= 1.87). Similar
to identifying the essential competencies, the cutoff of 1.49 was used to identify
essential cross-cultural categories. Although the mean ratings were very close
for all the categories, the results indicated that the Professional Characteristics
and Culture categories met the criterion for essential categories.
DISCUSSION
This study advances the research base by using a Delphi approach to identify es-
sential cross-cultural competencies for school psychologists. The competencies
reflect the opinions and views of panelists with expertise in cross-cultural school
psychology. The panelists demonstrated broad ranging backgrounds in working
with racially, ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse clients, as reflected
in their years of experience providing services, range of experiences, and areas
of expertise. Overall, the panelists in the final rounds of this Delphi investigation
demonstrated a high level of commitment because 100% of the Round 2 pan-
elists responded to Round 3. The panelists were also extremely prolific as they
initially identified a large number of cross-cultural competencies (N— 821) rele-
vant to school psychologists. The comprehensive list of cross-cultural competen-
cies identified by the expert panelists reflects the vast experience and knowledge
of the panelists and the breadth of the many competencies they view as essential
for school psychologists working with students from diverse cultural and lin-
guistic backgrounds.
After editing the items (see Procedure), the number of competencies was re-
duced from 821 to 463. Results of this Delphi investigation indicate that 89
cross-cultural competencies were identified as essential for school psychologists
providing services to racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse
clients. The final count of 89 cross-cultural competencies is a significant reduc-
CONCEPTUALIZING CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCIES 285
tion from the 463 competencies initially rated by the panelists. The reduction in
the number of competencies was accomplished after applying clear and multiple
criteria to identify the essential competency items within each of the categories.
Although the category means for the essential items were all very close (i.e.,
they ranged between 1.32 and 1.45), it was interesting to note that the Assess-
ment, Consultation, Language, Professional Characteristic, and Report Writing
categories were five of the categories that were rated as the most important. The
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
issues relevant to research and theoretical paradigms were viewed as more ab-
stract and less relevant to the majority of the psychologists on the panel. The sig-
nificant reduction of items within the Academic Interventions and Working with
Organizations categories may have also been a function of having a pool of pan-
elists that did not indicate having particular expertise in those areas. It is possible
that their lack of expertise in these areas may have led to more items being rated
as less essential within those categories.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Report Writing category that are not represented in this investigation. For ex-
ample, the skills "Incorporating information about family origin, family com-
position, parental attitudes about education and handicapping conditions, and
level of acculturation into report" and "Reporting the use of translations during
assessment" were critical competencies in the Rogers and Lopez study. Com-
petencies such as "Knowledge that different clinical (i.e., diagnostic) informa-
tion may be gained from clients when they use their first and second language
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and both types of information may be valuable" within the Counseling cate-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
gory, and "Knowledge of how our own (i.e., psychologists) theoretical para-
digms are influenced by our cultural background" within the Theoretical Para-
digms category, were reflected in this investigation but not in the Rogers and
Lopez findings.
Another major difference in the findings is that in the present investigation,
there were many categories that reflected competencies at the awareness level,
whereas the Rogers and Lopez (in press) categories contained items that re-
flected knowledge and skills. These findings were consistent within the Assess-
ment, Counseling, Culture, Language, Laws and Regulations, Professional Char-
acteristics, Theoretical Paradigms, Working with Organizations, and Working
with Parents categories. For example, in the Assessment category, the present in-
vestigation contained the awareness item "An awareness that variations in ad-
ministration have an effect on scores." In contrast, in the Rogers and Lopez
study, there were more competencies that reflected skills such as "Using instru-
ments sensitive to cultural and linguistic differences." These differences may be
because of several factors that include distinct panelists and differences in the
process by which the competencies were identified.
Although both investigations used the same criteria to identify expert pan-
elists, the panelists were not matched for every possible characteristic or areas of
expertise (e.g., as those listed in Table 1). As such, it is likely that having distinct
panel members resulted in variability within the types of competencies identified
in the two investigations.
The lack of skill types of competencies in several of the categories within this
investigation may also be related to the different processes used to identify the
competencies in each of the studies. For example, in Round 1 of the Rogers and
Lopez (in press) study, the investigators provided the panelists with a list of
competencies that were derived from the literature. In addition, the panelists in
that study were also asked to provide other competencies that they felt were im-
portant but were not reflected in the list provided by the investigators. The pres-
ent investigation used a different set of procedures that entailed an open-ended
questioning format to elicit all the competencies from the panelists themselves.
A systematic content analysis should be conducted to examine the items in the
two studies for similarities and differences. A variable that should be examined
are the characteristics of the items submitted by the panelists used in the Rogers
and Lopez (in press) investigation versus the items submitted by the panelists in
this investigation. For example, the investigators can ask the question: Were
288 LOPEZ A N D ROGERS
items submitted by the panelists in the Rogers and Lopez investigation more re-
flective of awareness versus skills issues? If the results indicate those items sys-
tematically reflect knowledge and skills, the investigators may conclude that the
differences in the structures of the questions and in how the panelists interpreted
the questions in the two studies influenced the types of competencies identified
by the two sets of panelists. If the results do indicate that the items submitted by
the Rogers and Lopez panelists also reflect more awareness items than skills
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and translate the cross-cultural knowledge they possess into concrete culturally
sensitive behaviors and interventions.
provide an important extension and linkage with school psychology. Among the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The findings are also consistent within the multicultural counseling competen-
cies inventories literature. Currently, there are four multicultural counseling in-
ventories designed to measure counselor's multicultural competencies. They are
the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised (CCCI-R; LaFromboise et al.,
1991); the Multicultural Awareness-Knowledge-and-Skills Survey (MAKSS;
D'Andrea et al., 1991); the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale (MCAS;
Ponterotto et al., 1994), and the Multicultural Counseling Inventory (MCI;
Sodowsky et al., 1994). In addition, Rogers and Ponterotto (1997) developed the
Multicultural School Psychology Counseling Competency Scale to measure the
multicultural counseling competencies of school psychologists. In general, those
instruments are based on the competencies identified by Sue et al. (1982) and re-
flect the domains of beliefs, knowledge, and skills (Ponterotto & Alexander,
1996; Ponterotto et al., 1994). Because each instrument was developed by using
distinct procedures for item identification, consumers of the inventories will note
290 LOPEZ A N D ROGERS
that although there are similarities in items among the inventories, there are also
differences in item content. For example, in a study designed to compare the
MCAS and the MCI, Pope-Davis and Dings (1994) noted that the MCAS tends
to phrase items in terms of beliefs, whereas the MCI phrases items in behavioral
terms.
An informal comparison of the major categories of cross-cultural competen-
cies identified in the present study and the cross-cultural counseling competency
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
scale items suggest some conceptual overlap in the areas of assessment, counsel-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
competencies. Preservice and inservice training programs can use the competen-
cies identified in this investigation to prioritize for training components. Many
of the essential competencies reflect the need for cross-cultural knowledge in
such areas as second language acquisition, acculturation, and assessment. Such a
knowledge base may be obtained through a systematic program of courses and
workshops offered to graduate students attending school psychology training
programs. Practica and internship experiences also need to be designed so that
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tencies that reflect the specific skills needed to provide services to students from
diverse racial, ethnic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds (e.g., conducting non-
biased assessment, working with interpreters). School psychology training pro-
grams may wish to use the cross-cultural competencies identified in this investi-
gation to reconstruct their program curriculum.
The fourth limitation is the high ceiling effects obtained in this investigation.
Overall, the majority of the items were rated between "very important" and "im-
portant" by the panelists. The implication is that the panelists felt that the major-
ity of the competency items identified were important for school psychologists
providing services to clients from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
Because the panelists were asked to identify the cross-cultural competencies
they viewed as important to work with multicultural populations and because
this panel demonstrated considerable expertise in working with a diverse popula-
tion, one can argue that it would be expected that the panelists' ratings would
generally be found in the higher end of the "very important" to "important"
range. The competencies identified by the panelists are also consistent with the
competencies identified by many experts in the field of cross-cultural school
psychology (Figueroa et al., 1984; Rogers et al., 1999; Rosenfield &
Esquivel, 1985).
The fifth limitation refers to the relationship between the level of agreement
and the wide range of consensus used in this investigation. The level of agree-
ment was defined as the percentage of panelists who rated items within a range
of ±1.64 SD from the mean. To illustrate, item 2 in the Appendix was chosen as
essential because all 11 panelists rated that item within the +.60 to +2.30 range
of consensus or ±1.64 SD from the mean of 1.45. Some would argue that, given
the high ceiling effect obtained in these results, such a wide range of consensus
would make it relatively easy for any item to be identified as essential. To offset
this limitation, the investigators used multiple criteria to identify essential cross-
cultural competencies. The multiple criteria included a mean rating cutoff of
1.49 or less and a 100% level of agreement. The product was an 81% reduction
in the number of competencies identified as important by the panelists (i.e., from
463 to 89 items).
Future Research
REFERENCES
Adams, R. A., Piercy, F. P., Jurich, J. A., & Lewis, R. A. (1992). Components of a model adolescent
AIDS/drug abuse prevention program: A Delphi study. Family Relations, 41, 312-317.
Allison, K. W., Echemendia, R. J., Crawford, I., & Robinson, W. (1996). Predicting cultural compe-
tence: Implications for practice and training. Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-
tice, 27, 386-393.
American Psychological Association. (1991). Guidelines for providers of psychological services to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and codes of con-
duct. Washington, DC: Author.
Cannon, G. S., Idol, L., & West, J. F. (1992). Educating students with mild handicaps in general
classrooms: Essential teaching practices for general and special educators. Journal of Learn-
ing Disabilities, 25, 300-317.
Casas, J. M., Furlong, M. J., Solberg, V. S., & Carranza, O. (1990). An examination of individual
factors associated with the academic success and failure of Mexican-American and Anglo
students. In A. Barona & E. E. Garcia (Eds.), Children at risk: Poverty, minority status, and
other issues in educational equity (pp. 103-118). Washington, DC: National Association of
School Psychologists.
Cooper, H. M. (1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Review of
Educational Research, 52, 291-302.
Cramer, R. H. (1991). The education of gifted children in the United States: A Delphi study. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 35, 84-91.
D'Andrea, M., Daniels, H., & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating the impact of multicultural counseling
training. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 143—150.
Diana vs. State Board of Education, C.A. No. C-70-37 (N.D. Cal. 1970).
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.
Edwards, P. (1990). Strategies and techniques for establishing home-school partnerships with minor-
ity parents. In A. Barona & E. E. Garcia (Eds.), Children at risk: Poverty, minority status,
and other issues in educational equity (pp. 237-256). Washington, DC: National Association
of School Psychologists.
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.
Fish, L. S., & Osborn, J. L. (1992). Therapists' views of family life: A Delphi study. Family Rela-
tions, 41, 409-416.
Fish, L. S., & Piercy, F. P. (1987). The theory and practice of structural family therapies: A Delphi
study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 113—125.
Fletcher, T. V., & Cardona-Morales, C. (1990). Implementing effective instructional interventions
for minority students. In A. Barona & E. E. Garcia (Eds.), Children at risk: Poverty, minority
status, and other issues in educational equity (pp. 151-170). Washington, DC: National As-
sociation of School Psychologists.
Gopaul-McNicol, S. (1997). A theoretical framework for training monolingual school psychologists
to work with multilingual/multicultural children: An exploration of the major competencies.
Psychology in the Schools, 34, 17-29.
Graves, A., Landers, M. F., Lokerson, J., Luchow, J., & Horvath, M. (1993). The development of a
competency list for teachers of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Re-
search and Practice, 8, 188-199.
Grissom, B. W., & Cochran, S. W. (1986). Critical competencies for teachers of hearing-impaired
students: The practitioners' view. American Annals of the Deaf 131, 267-270.
Gutkin, T. G., & Reynolds, C. R. (Eds.). (1990). Handbook of school psychology (2nd ed.). New
York: Wiley.
CONCEPTUALIZING CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCIES 295
Hakim, S., & Weinblatt, J. (1993). The Delphi process as a tool for decision making: The case of vo-
cational training of people with handicaps. Evaluation and Program Planning, 16, 245-238.
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, 27-30.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997, PL 105-17, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
Jones, J. M. (1990). Invited address: Who is training our ethnic minority psychologists and are they
doing it right? In G. Strieker, E. Davis-Russell, E. Bourg, E. Duran, W. R. Hammond, J.
McHolland, K. Polite, & B. E. Vaughn (Eds.), Toward ethnic diversification in psychology
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
education and training (pp. 17-34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ation.
LaFromboise, T. D., Coleman, H. L. K., & Hernandez, A. (1991). Development and factor structure
of the Cross-Cultural Competency Inventory-Revised. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 22, 380-388.
Lateer, A., & Curtis, M. J. (1991, March). Cross-cultural consultation: Responding to diversity.
Paper presented at the National Association of School Psychologists Conference, Dallas, TX.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
Levinson, E. M , Rafoth, M. A., & Sanders, P. (1994). Employment-related differences between
male and female school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 31, 201-207.
Lewis, D. (1984). Characteristics of selected Delphi studies and their perceived impact in higher ed-
ucation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lopez, E. C. (April, 1995). Competencies needed by school psychologists working with inter-
preters. Paper presented at symposium on "Identifying cross-cultural school psychology
competencies: Challenges and issues" (with M. Rogers, M. Henning-Stout, C. Robinson-
Zanartu, & G. Esquivel) at the National Association of School Psychologists Conference,
New York City.
Lynch, E. W. (1999). Developing cross-cultural competence. In E. W. Lynch & M. J. Hanson (Eds.),
Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with young children and their
families (2nd ed.) (pp. 47-89). Baltimore: Brookes.
Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (Eds.). (1992). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for
working with young children and their families. Baltimore: Brookes.
Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (Eds.). (1999). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for
working with young children and their families (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
Malley, P., Gallagher, R., & Brown, S. M. (1992). Ethical problems in university and college coun-
seling centers: A Delphi study. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 238-244.
Martino, J. P. (1972). Technological forecasting for decision making. New York: Elsevier.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murry, J. W., & Hammons, J. (1995). Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative re-
search. Review of Higher Education, 18, 423-436.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2000). Principles for professional ethics. Washing-
ton, DC: Author.
National Center for Bilingual Education. (1995, Fall). The changing face of America's schools,
Forum, 18, 1—7.
Ochoa, 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.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Alexander, C. M. (1996). Assessing the multicultural competence of counselors
and clinicians. In L. A. Suzuki, P. J., Meller, & J. G. Ponterotto (Eds.), Handbook of multi-
cultural assessment: Clinical, psychological, and educational applications (pp. 651—672).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
296 LOPEZ AND ROGERS
Ponterotto, J. G., Rieger, B. P., Barrett, A., & Sparks, R. (1994). Assessing multicultural counseling
competence: A review of instrumentation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72,
316-332.
Pope-Davis, D. B., & Dings, J. G. (1994). An empirical comparison of two self-report multicultural
counseling competency inventories. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Devel-
opment, 27, 93-102.
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 multi-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Pope-Davis, D. B., Reynolds, A. L., Dings, J. G., & Nielson, D. (1995). Examining multicultural
counseling competencies of graduate students in psychology. Professional Psychology: Re-
search and Practice, 26, 322-329.
Putnam, J. W., Spiegel, A. N., & Bruininks, R. H. (1995). Future directions in education and inclu-
sion of students with disabilities: A Delphi investigation. Exceptional Children, 61, 553-576.
Rogers, M. R., Ingraham, C. L., Bursztyn, A., Cajigas-Segredo, N., Esquivel, G., Hess, R., Nahari,
S., & Lopez, E. C. (1999). Providing psychological services to racially, ethnically, culturally,
and linguistically diverse individuals in the schools: Recommendations for practice. School
Psychology International, 20, 243—264.
Rogers, M. R., & Lopez, E. C. (in press). Identifying critical cross-cultural school psychology com-
petencies. Journal of School Psychology.
Rogers, M. R., Martin, J., & Druckman, L. (1994, March). Model multicultural training programs in
school psychology: An examination of program philosophies and characteristics. Paper pre-
sented at the National Association of School Psychologists Conference, Seattle, WA.
Rogers, M. R., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1997). Development of the Multicultural School Psychology
Counseling Competency Scale. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 211-217.
Rogers, M. R., Ponterotto, J. G., Conoley, J. C , & Wiese, M. J. (1992). Multicultural training in
school psychology: A national survey. School Psychology Review, 21, 603-616.
Rosenfield, S., & Esquivel, G. (1985). Educating school psychologists to work with bilingual/bicul-
tural populations. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 16, 190-208.
Rowe, G., Wright, G., & Bolger, F. (1991). Delphi: A reevaluation of research and theory. Techno-
logical Forecasting and Social Change, 39, 235-251.
Sodowsky, G. R., Taffe, R. C , Gutkin, T. B., & Wise, S. L. (1994). Development of the Multicul-
tural Counseling Inventory: A self-report measure of multicultural competencies. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 41, 137-148.
Somers, K., Baker, G., & Isbell, C. (1984, May). How to use the Delphi technique to forecast train-
ing needs. Performance and Instruction Journal, 26-28.
Speight, S. L., Thomas, A. J., Kennel, R. G., & Anderson, M. E. (1995). Operationalizing multicul-
tural training in doctoral programs and internships. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 26, 401^06.
Sue, D. W., Arrendondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and
standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,
20, 64-88.
Sue, D. W., Bernier, J. E., Duran, A., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P., Smith, E. J., & Vasquez-Nuttall, E.
(1982). Position paper: Cross-cultural counseling competencies. The Counseling Psycholo-
gist, 10, 45-52.
Thomas, A., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (1985). Best practices in school psychology. Kent, OH: National
Association 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.
Weatherman, R., & Swenson, K. (1974). Delphi technique. In S. P. Hencley & J. R. Yates (Eds.), Fu-
turism in education: Methodologies (pp. 97-114). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
CONCEPTUALIZING CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCIES 297
West, J. F., & Cannon, G. S. (1988). Essential collaborative consultation competencies for regular
and special educators. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 56-63.
Yell, M. L., Deno, S. L., & Marston, D. B. (1992). Barriers to implementing curriculum-based meas-
urement. Diagnostique, 18, 99-114.
Zayas, L. H., Torres, L. R., Malcolm, J., & DesRosiers, F. S. (1996). Clinicians' definitions of ethni-
cally sensitive therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 78—82.
APPENDIX
Round 2 Round 3
Competency Statements M SD M SD
The competencies that a cross-culturally skilled school psychologist should have
regarding assessment are:
1. Knowledge of cross-cultural variables influencing 1.00 .00 1.00 .00
performance, assessment results, and interpretation
2. Knowledge of the limitations and biases of standardized 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
tests and other available measures
3. Skill in interpreting assessment results in the context of 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
the client's cultural background
4. An awareness of the cross-cultural factors that affect 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
performance and interpretation
5. An awareness that variations in administration have an 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
effect on scores
6. Knowledge of research on assessing CLD children 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
7. Skill in using multi-source, multi-level, and 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
multi-strategy assessment
8. Skill in using appropriate, culturally sensitive assessment 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
resources
9. An ability to assess whether a test is used in a 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
discriminatory manner
10. Knowledge of instruments used in the assessment process 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
11. Knowledge of the factors that affect language assessment 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
scores (e.g., bilingual parents)
(cont.)
298 LOPEZ A N D ROGERS
Round 2 Round 3
Competency Statements M SD M SD
12. Knowledge of the major influence of language variables 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
in assessment (i.e., being sure we are assessing actual
deficits as opposed to mere language differences or lack
of vocabulary or language skill)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The competencies that a cross-culturally skilled school psychologist should have regard-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Round 2 Round 3
Competency Statements M SD M SD
The competencies that a cross-culturally skilled school psychologist should have regard-
ing culture are:
30. An understanding of cultural differences of groups 1.45 .52 1.36 .50
within the United States
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
31. Knowledge about a specific cultural groups'attitudes 1.36 .50 1.27 .47
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Round 2 Round 3
Competency Statements M SD M SD
50. Knowledge of how language influences the child's 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
ability to learn
51. Knowledge base about the culturally different child 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
regarding language acquisition (i.e., how long does it
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Round 2 Round 3
Competency Statements M SD M SD
61. Sensitivity to culturally and linguistically diverse 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
populations
62. Demonstrate personal qualities reflecting the absence 1.64 .67 1.30 .48
of overt and covert hostility to various culturally
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
different groups
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
63. Skill in behaving in a professionally appropriate and 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
culturally synchronous manner
64. An ability to engage in continued professional 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
development in this area
65. An ability to advocate for clients 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
66. Skill in recognizing the limits of their own knowledge 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
and skills so that they can seek consultation or referral
to other professionals, as needed
67. Demonstration of a willingness to work with culturally 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
diverse groups
68. Have a sense of values, strengths, and limitations of 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
one's own culture
69. Awareness that you need to distinguish between 1.55 .52 1.30 .48
cultural practices that may be harmful and those that
are culturally different
70. An ability to establish a professional and comfortable 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
relationship with client in a way that respects and is
congruent with the child's culture
71. Knowledge of when to refer the assessment to someone 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
with more experience with that culture
The competencies that a cross-culturally skilled school psychologist should have regard-
ing report writing are:
72. Skill in writing reports in language culturally diverse 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
individuals will understand (i.e., parents and children)
73. Skill in writing reports that include descriptions of (a) 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
language or languages spoken, and (b) other relevant
cultural characteristics such as reasons for immigration,
years since immigration, effect of immigration experience,
religious practices, adjustment to new culture, support
systems, level of acculturation
74. Skill in interpreting results when cultural or language 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
factors are an issue
75. An understanding of the culture of the child the school 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
psychologist is writing about
The competencies that a cross-culturally skilled school psychologist should have regard-
ing research are:
76. Working knowledge of the limits involved in 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
generalizing from samples to populations and from
sample to sample
(cont.)
302 LOPEZ A N D ROGERS
Round 2 Round 3
Competency Statements M SD M SD
The competencies that a cross-culturally skilled school psychologist should have regard-
ing theoretical paradigms are:
77. Knowledge of how our own (i.e., psychologists) 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
theoretical paradigms are influenced by our cultural
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
background
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
78. An awareness that poverty plays more of a role in a 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
child's functioning than does membership in a particular
minority group
The competencies that a cross-culturally skilled school psychologist should have when
working with interpreters are:
79. Skill in interviewing for discerning interpreter's (a) level 1.45 .69 1.36 .50
of experience with school-based and special education
situations; (b) extent of language skill in both languages;
(c) extent of cultural understanding for both cultures;
and (d) familiarity with the local and ethical conventions
surrounding assessment
80. Skill in finding an interpreter who speaks as closely as 1.55 .52 1.45 .52
possible the language or dialect of the test taker
81. Knowledge of the problems associated with using family 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
members as interpreters
82. Knowledge of special concerns related to confidentiality 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
when using interpreters
83. Skill in clearly communicating expectations about 1.50 .53 1.40 .52
respective roles . . . (it is best to be bilingual yourself)
84. Knowledge of methods and limitations of translation 1.45 .52 1.36 .50
The competencies that a cross-culturally skilled school psychologist should have when
working with organizations are:
85. An awareness of and sensitivity to the diversity of 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
employees in an organization and in the constituents
which they serve. These diversities imply differences in
values, interests, and goals in life
The competencies that a cross-culturally skilled school psychologist should have when
working with parents are:
86. An awareness of roles parents play in child's country 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
of origin
87. An understanding of differences in child rearing practices 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
due to cultural differences
88. Respect of other values that clash with dominant culture 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
89. An awareness of the value placed in education by the 1.27 .47 1.36 .50
client or by the parents of the client
Note. "Item 56 does not include Round 2 data because it was added by the panelists dur-
ing that round and was subsequently rated in Round 3.