Conceptualizing Cross-Cultural School Psychology Competencies

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/232478759
Conceptualizing cross-cultural school psychology

competencies
Article in School Psychology Quarterly · September 2001

DOI: 10.1521/scpq.16.3.270.19889
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:
School Psychology Quarterly View project
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.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

School Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2001, pp. 270-302
Conceptualizing Cross-Cultural School Psychology

Competencies
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.
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.
The call for psychologists to develop cross-cultural competencies is driven by

several long-standing and compelling movements in our society and profession.
Due to changes in our nation's demographics, many school psychologists are
currently providing psychological services to a significant number of racially,
ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse children and families (National
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
of Education (1970) and Lau vs. Nichols (1974), implied that psychologists
would have to develop cross-cultural competencies to provide appropriate

nondiscriminatory assessment methods and educational interventions for
racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse children. Similarly, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1997) specifies that psy-
chologists use nonbiased procedures, thus providing additional impetus for
school psychologists to develop appropriate competencies to work with handi-
capped minority students.
The legal impetus for the development of cross-cultural competence is rein-
forced by social, economic, and political forces within our societal structure that
directly impact the lives of culturally diverse children and their families. School
psychologists are often faced with the challenges of providing psychological
services to diverse children and families who encounter such obstacles as low
socioeconomic status, urban erosion, and biased attitudes (Edwards, 1990). In
schools, many minority students are described as low achievers and dropouts
(Casas, Furlong, Solberg, & Carranza, 1990). Their academic deficits often
translate into referrals and placements in special education programs. Sodowsky,
Taffe, Gutkin, and Wise (1994) argue that psychologists must be prepared to de-
liver mental health services to minority clients who confront social hardships
and who may view school and mental health professionals as instruments of an
oppressive society. Sodowsky et al. (1994) add that
. . . psychologists must . . . not allow their service to be perceived by mi-

norities as an arm of social service agencies and the justice system, in
which many minorities are reluctantly involved, or as an extension of or an
intervention used by a White American establishment, which either op-
presses or misunderstands people who are different from White American
society, (p. 137)
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
sponsibility to consider issues of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeco-

nomic status, language, religion, and national origin in delivering psychological
services are affirmed in the American Psychological Association's (APA) Ethi-
cal Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (1992) and in the National
Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Principles for Professional Ethics
(1997). The NASP principles clearly emphasize the need for school psycholo-
gists to recognize the strengths and limitations of their training and advocate
continually for seeking additional training (NASP, 2000). For school psycholo-
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
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.
THE CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY COMPETENCY LITERATURE

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
to become cross-culturally competent, there is a scarcity of literature in school

psychology designed to identify what those competencies should be. A number
of nonempirical pieces have identified a select group of cross-cultural competen-
cies for school psychologists. For example, Figueroa et al. (1984) articulated
competencies important for school psychologists working with limited English-
proficient (LEP) children. The competencies identified included (a) second lan-
guage proficiency; (b) cross-cultural awareness; (c) assessment skills; (d) knowl-
edge of language development; (e) ability to work with interpreters; and (f)
knowledge of bilingual education curriculum. Similarly, Rosenfield and Es-

quivel (1985) described school psychology competencies for psychological serv-
ice delivery to bilingual and bicultural children, including bilingual proficiency,
cross-cultural knowledge, and assessment competencies. Lynch (1999) identi-
fied self-awareness of one's own culture, culture-specific awareness and under-
standing, and cross-cultural communication skills as critical competencies for
interventionists working with young children and their families. More recently,
several sources have identified additional important competencies that include
academic interventions, cross-cultural assessment, cross-cultural consultation,
cross-cultural research, educational policy, ethical issues, and institutional advo-
cacy (Gopaul-McNicol, 1997; Ochoa, Rivera, & Ford, 1997; Rogers et al.,
1999).
One limitation of the previous contributions in school psychology is that the
methods used to identify those concepts have not been systematically nor scien-
tifically grounded. A recent empirical investigation designed to explore the
cross-cultural competencies of school psychologists was conducted by Rogers
and Ponterotto (1997). In that study, the investigators developed the Multicul-
tural School Psychology Counseling Competency Scale to identify and measure
the multicultural counseling competencies of graduating school psychology stu-
dents. The items explored trainees' cross-cultural competencies related to aware-
ness, knowledge, and skills. The 11 scale items were derived from the multicul-
tural counseling competencies generated by Sue et al. (1982). Rogers and
Ponterotto's study contributed to the competency literature because it was the
first competency scale designed for school psychologists. The scale's limitations
include its focus on competencies relevant to school psychology trainees provid-
ing counseling services. Currently, systematic investigations designed to identify
a wider range of cross-cultural school psychology competencies are needed to
plan and deliver training that can prepare school psychologists adequately to
provide services to students from diverse cultural backgrounds. The systematic
identification of essential cross-cultural competencies will also be instrumental
in helping school psychologists to evaluate their own skills to work with cultur-
ally diverse clients.
An initial step in this important process is defining what is meant by cross-cul-
tural competencies. In the present investigation, cross-cultural competence is de-
fined as the ability to demonstrate cross-cultural knowledge and engage in be-
haviors or skills that reflect an awareness and sensitivity to cross-cultural issues.
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).
Conceptualizing Professional Competencies Using the Delphi Technique

Given the lack of investigations designed to identify essential cross-cultural

competencies, a methodological technique was sought that would allow the pres-
ent investigators to take steps in defining cross-cultural competencies for school
psychologists. The Delphi technique has been found useful when investigating
areas that have not been articulated clearly or explored widely (Weatherman &
Swenson, 1974).
The technique provides investigators with the means to poll the opinions of a
group of experts to exchange information and arrive at a group consensus (Lin-
stone & Turoff, 1975). Multiple criteria are applied to choose a panel with mem-
bers who demonstrate expertise in the areas being explored. Delphi panel sizes
range from 15 to hundreds of members (Lewis, 1984; Martino, 1972), with
smaller panels preferred to reduce the complexity of data analysis (Somers,
Baker, & Isbell, 1984).
Panel members' opinions are polled through a series of rounds designed to
structure the communication process. In the first round, the qualitative or induc-
tive aspects of the Delphi method involve asking the panel of experts to provide
their opinions via open-ended questionnaires designed to build constructs and
tentative hypotheses (Merriam, 1998). The experts' responses are then systemat-
ically organized and categorized. On subsequent rounds, statistical data such as
means, medians, and standard deviations, are compiled and shared with panel
members to provide them with feedback regarding their collective opinions
(Cannon, Idol, & West, 1992; Graves, Landers, Lokerson, Luchow, & Horvath,
1993; Hakim & Weinblatt, 1993; Somers et al., 1984; West & Cannon, 1988).
Panel members are also given the opportunity to compare their responses to the
group consensus and can decide to maintain their responses or to revise them in
subsequent rounds. Delphi investigators typically conduct two to three rounds
and use the statistical group response (e.g., mean or median) on the final round
to represent group consensus (Grissom & Cochran, 1986).
The technique rests on the assumption that consensus of opinion represents a
high probability of an accurate forecast and that experts in specific areas are
good predictors of future practices (Weatherman & Swenson, 1974). Advantages
of the Delphi technique include allowing the participants to interact with a group
at their own convenience, providing structured opportunities for communication,
and allowing panel members with a greater freedom of expression while reduc-
ing the possibilities of peer pressure (Linstone & Turoff, 1975; Weatherman &
Swenson, 1974).
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
and organize ideas that can be validated later and organized further into models
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?
Purpose of the Investigation

The purpose of this investigation was to identify cross-cultural school psychol-
ogy competencies that expert school psychologists view as essential to work
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
a Delphi procedure to identify the competencies and to establish a consensus of

opinion about the essential competencies (Linstone & Turoff, 1975).

In terms of methodology, this investigation differs from the Rogers and Lopez
(in press) investigation in two important ways. First, the panels used in the two
investigations were composed of two distinct samples of school psychologists
with cross-cultural expertise. Second, this investigation used an open-ended
questionnaire to ask a panel of school psychologists with cross-cultural expertise
to identify essential cross-cultural competencies based on their own experiences
and knowledge base. In contrast, the Rogers and Lopez investigation first asked
their panel of school psychologists to rate a predetermined list of 185 cross-cul-
tural competencies that were derived from the literature and subsequently to in-
clude any competencies that they deemed to be critical but not reflected in the
literature-derived list. As such, this investigation expands on the work of Rogers
and Lopez by using a distinct set of Delphi panelists and procedures to identify
essential cross-cultural competencies for school psychologists.
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.
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
in school psychology.
(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-
TABLE 1. Professional Characteristics of Panel Members Who Participated in Delphi

Rounds ( N = 11)
Experts' Experiences Involving Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD)
Children or Cross-Cultural School Psychology Issues n %
Assessing CLD Children and Youth 8 73
Attending Conferences 8 73
Delivering Consultation Services 8 73
Mentoring Undergraduate/Graduate Students 6 55

Providing Services to Families or CLD Children/Youth 6 55

Participating in Relevant Local Professional Organizations 5 45
Supervising Undergraduate or Graduate Students in Internship or 5 45
Practicum Experiences
Conducting Research 4 36
Providing Counseling or Therapeutic Services 4 36
Conducting Relevant Inservice Training 3 27
Participating in Relevant University or Department Committees 3 27
Teaching Multicultural Courses 2 18
Publishing Relevant Scholarship 1 9
Areas of Expertise in Cross-Cultural School Psychology n %
Assessment of CLD Children 6 55
Working with Hispanic Children 4 36
Consultation 2 18
Working with Native American Children 2 18
Assessment of CLD Gifted Children 1 9
Classroom Interventions 1 9
Gender Issues 1 9
Inservice Training 1 9
Research 1 9
Working with Gay and Lesbian Youth 1 9
ences (73%), and delivering consultation services (73%). Most panelists (n = 6,

55%) reported assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse children as
their main area of expertise. The panelists also reported between one to six areas
of expertise (M= 1.8).
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.
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
linguistically diverse clients. The categories included Academic Interventions,

Assessment, Consultation, Counseling, Culture, Language, Laws and Regula-

tions, Professional Characteristics, Research, Report Writing, Theoretical Para-
digms, Working with Interpreters, Working with Organizations, and Working
with Parents. Each category provided the panelists with an opportunity to iden-
tify up to five essential cross-cultural competencies. For each category the pan-
elists were instructed to provide both knowledge and skills needed by cross-cul-
turally skilled school psychologists.
After Round 1, the panelists' responses were analyzed in terms of their con-
tent by a group of judges (see Procedure). In Round 2, the panelists were in-
formed of the process by which the items were content analyzed. In addition,
they were sent the synthesized list of expert-derived competency items and were
asked to rate each item in terms of its importance. The panelists rated the items
using a scale ranging from 1 (very important) to 5 (very unimportant). The
Round 2 questionnaire also provided space within each category for the panelists
to include additional new competencies. In the third and final round, the pan-
elists were provided with the list of expert-derived competencies along with sta-
tistical information regarding each competency item (i.e., mean, standard devia-
tion, and range of consensus) and were asked to provide further ratings and
comments.
PROCEDURE
Development of the Delphi Questionnaire

Two literature reviews were conducted to create the Delphi questionnaire for this
investigation. In the first review, the investigators examined Delphi investiga-
tions that had used an open-ended questionnaire format (e.g., Adams, Piercy, Ju-
rich, & Lewis, 1992; Cramer, 1991; Fish & Osborn, 1992; Fish & Piercy, 1987;
Hakim & Weinblatt, 1993; Malley, Gallagher, & Brown, 1992; Speight et al.,
1995; Yell et al., 1992). Open-ended Delphi questionnaires typically include a
series of general questions and category headings designed to help Delphi pan-
elists guide their responses (e.g., Cramer, 1991; Fish & Piercy, 1987; Putnam et
al., 1995).
The second review of the literature was conducted to assist in the process of cre-
ating and defining category headings for the Delphi questionnaire. The cross-cul-
tural competency literature in school psychology was reviewed to identify cross-
cultural competencies. The literature review involved the following procedures:

(a) a computer search (i.e., Psychlit) of major books and journal articles published
between 1975 and 1995; (b) a manual review of major school psychology journals
(e.g., Journal of School Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, School Psychol-
ogy Review, and School Psychology Quarterly), books (e.g., Gutkin & Reynolds,
1990; Thomas & Grimes, 1985, 1990, 1995), and professional standard sources
(e.g., APA, 1991, 1992; NASP, 1997); and (c) an ancestry approach search
(Cooper, 1982) that involved locating cross-cultural competency related refer-

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.
Round 1 of Data Collection and Data Analysis

In Round 1 panelists were sent a packet containing a cover letter explaining the
investigation and offering an invitation to participate, the Delphi questionnaire,
and a pre-addressed return envelope. Three weeks later, a follow-up postcard
was sent to all nonrespondents. A second reminder, in the form of a letter, was
sent 6 weeks after the first mailing.
Item Analysis. The 821 competency items identified by the panel members
during Round 1 were transcribed and edited for clarity by the two principal in-
vestigators. Items which contained two or more concepts were separated to im-
prove conceptual clarity. The principal investigators also eliminated redundant
items within each of the categories. A total of 518 competencies were identified
after reaching 100% agreement between the co-authors.
Assignment of Competencies to Categories. The resulting 518 competencies
were examined for representativeness, category relevancy, and redundancy by a
panel of judges composed of graduate students in a specialist school psychology
training program. The judges were blind to the purpose of the study. Working in
dyads, the judges were assigned to the 14 competency categories; 8 dyads were
assigned to individual categories and 3 dyads were assigned to 2 different cate-
gories. There were 22 judges in all.
The judges received a 1-hour training session to learn how to categorize and
rate sample items. After providing judges with definitions of each category and
samples of items for each category, the judges examined items within assigned
categories for representativeness, category relevancy, and redundancy. For rep-
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
belong to the category to which the panelists assigned it?). Items rated as irrele-
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.
Round 2 of Data Collection and Data Analysis

In Round 2, the panelists were sent a cover letter informing them of the content
analysis process and asking them to complete the second round of the question-
naire. Follow-up reminders were sent at 3 weeks and 6 weeks after the date of
the Round 2 mailing. A total of 11 panelists (44%) from Round 1 responded to
Round 2. In Round 2, the panelists were asked to rate the importance of each of
the 459 competencies. Space was provided within each category for panelists to
include additional new competencies.
When the Round 2 questionnaires were returned, the responses were analyzed
statistically by obtaining the means and standard deviations for the 459 items. In
Round 2, the panelists submitted 4 new items to the pool of 459 competencies,
resulting in a total of 463 competencies.
Round 3 of Data Collection

For the third and final round, the panelists were sent a cover letter with informa-
tion regarding the means and standard deviations for the 459 items rated during
Round 2. The panelists were instructed to examine their ratings for all the items
and to reconsider their ratings for all items. The panelists were also asked to rate
the four new items that were submitted during Round 2 of the study. Follow-up
reminders were sent 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the mailing date for Round 3. Re-
minder telephone calls were also made 18 weeks after the mailing date of Round
3.
Round 3 responses were analyzed by calculating means, standard deviations,
and ranges of consensus. An important data source in Delphi investigations is
the establishment of a range of consensus to identify items with ratings that have
high consensus among the panelists. This investigation adopted the definition
originally used by West and Cannon (1988) and subsequently used by Cannon et
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.
Identifying Essential Cross-Cultural Competencies

Essential items were defined as items that had a mean rating of 1.49 or less and a
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.
Essential Cross-Cultural Competencies for School Psychologists

The 463 items from Round 3 were examined to identify essential cross-cultural
school psychology competencies. Of the 463 items submitted by the panelists,
89 items met the established criteria as essential cross-cultural competencies
(i.e., mean rating of 1.49 or below and 100% level of agreement). The process of
identifying essential competencies eliminated a total of 374 cross-cultural com-
petencies. The Appendix displays the means and standard deviations for the 89
essential cross-cultural school psychology competencies. The mean ratings for
the essential competencies range from 1.00 to 1.45, with a mean of 1.36 and a
SDof.49.
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
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-
ings were calculated for each of the categories in Round 3. When all the items (N
= 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-
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
Assessment, Consultation, and Report Writing categories reflect professional

services frequently provided by psychologists in school settings (Levinson,

Rafoth, & Sanders, 1994).
The Assessment category had the competency item that was rated as most crit-
ical within all the essential items. The Assessment item rated as most critical was
"Knowledge of cross-cultural variables influencing performance, assessment re-
sults, and interpretation." Overall, the competencies identified as essential in the
Assessment category emphasized knowledge of cultural and language factors
that influence assessment results, skills in using a variety of assessment tools to
gather culturally sensitive data, and an awareness of the limitations of using
standardized tools. In the Consultation category, most of the competencies rated
as essential focused on demonstrating cultural sensitivity when engaging in con-
sultation activities.
The categories of Language, Professional Characteristics, and Report Writing
were also rated highly by the panelists, suggesting that they are viewed as impor-
tant for cross-culturally competent school psychologists. The essential Language
competencies highlighted (a) knowledge of first and second language develop-
ment; (b) skills in culturally sensitive communication; and (c) an awareness of
how being exposed to a second language influences learning. The Professional
Characteristics category contains competencies that stressed the need for school
psychologists to engage in a variety of professional and ethical behaviors reflect-
ing tolerance, sensitivity, respect, and awareness of cultural differences. The Re-
port Writing competencies identified as critical emphasized report writing skills
that reflect an awareness of language and cultural issues.
It is notable that the Professional Characteristics and Culture categories had
the largest percentage of items that met the criteria as essential cross-cultural
competencies (i.e., 50% and 42%, respectively). In these two categories, the pan-
elists agreed that knowledge of how culture influences behavior and perform-
ance, knowledge of specific cultural groups, and respect for diversity were all es-
sential competencies for cross-culturally skilled school psychologists.
The findings also indicated that the Academic Interventions, Research, Theo-
retical Paradigms, and Working with Organizations categories retained the low-
est percentage of items rated as essential by the panelists. Because the majority
of the panelists were practitioners (n = 7) and were not active researchers (i.e.,
10 of 11 panelists indicated having no research expertise in cross-cultural school
psychology; 7 of 11 indicated not being involved in conducting research relevant
to culturally and linguistically diverse children), it is possible that cross-cultural
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.
Relationship to the Rogers and Lopez Findings

The present findings support and extend the results reported by Rogers and
Lopez (in press). Although it is beyond the purpose of this article to present a
systematic content analysis of the items in these two investigations, a discussion
follows as to some general conclusions that can be made relevant to the similari-
ties and differences between the findings in the two investigations.
The first similarity is that although large numbers of items were initially rated
by distinct panelists in both studies (i.e., 459 items in the present study vs. 260
items in Rogers and Lopez [in press]), both investigations were able to reduce
significantly the number of essential cross-cultural competencies by applying
similar multiple identification criteria (i.e., 89 items were identified as essential
in this study vs. 102 in the Rogers and Lopez study). Second, the category mean
ratings for both investigations were within the "very important" to "important"
range, indicating the high level of agreement among panelists as to the impor-
tance of the competencies identified. Third, because both investigations used the
same 14 competency categories as a way to organize the competencies, the re-
sults provided two comprehensive lists of essential competencies that reflect the
full spectrum of psychological services provided by school psychologists. The
competencies also reflect the multiple levels of expertise of school psychologists
and the diverse range of students they service. The fourth and final similarity be-
tween the two sets of findings is that a brief examination of the items suggests
that some of the categories had very similar content. For example, the Assess-
ment categories in both investigations contained items that reflected the need for
school psychologists to be skilled in using culturally sensitive instruments, and
to have an understanding of the biases present in assessment. Within the Profes-
sional Characteristics category, several items in both studies focused on engag-
ing in active professional development efforts, working with diverse clients, and
understanding the cultural context of clients' behavior. In general, this last point
seems to suggest that there was clearly a pool of essential competencies that
were identified by each of the panels in both studies.
Although there were many similarities in findings between the present study
and the Rogers and Lopez (in press) investigation, there were also differences
that have important implications for the interpretations of these Delphi find-
ings. It was noted that each study identified unique essential competencies. The
Rogers and Lopez investigation identified important competencies within the
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
and both types of information may be valuable" within the Counseling cate-
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
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
items, as in this investigation, alternative hypotheses may be needed to account

for those findings.

One possible hypothesis may be that the types of competencies submitted by
the panelists reflect their own perceptions of their levels of competencies in
these areas or their perceptions of others' they work with (e.g., colleagues and
students in training programs). Another alternative hypothesis is provided by
the results of an investigation conducted by Zayas, Torres, Malcolm, and
DesRosiers (1996). Zayas et al. surveyed nonminority psychologists and social
workers and asked them how they defined ethnically sensitive therapy. The in-
vestigators reported that the definitions provided by the clinicians fell along a
continuum with four overlapping definitions that emphasized (a) awareness of
differences; (b) knowledge of clients' cultures; (c) distinguishing between cul-
ture and pathology; and (d) taking active steps in integrating cultural knowl-
edge into therapeutic interventions. The researchers hypothesized that how the
clinicians defined ethnically sensitive therapy was indicative of a developmen-
tal process in which the clinicians identified definitions that reflected their
standing within the developmental continuum, in addition to their efforts to op-
erationalize their definitions within the therapy process. Zayas and colleagues
(1996) hypothesized that the acquisition of cross-cultural knowledge and
awareness was one of the first steps toward more actively using intervention
approaches that were culturally sensitive. Although there are no data to support
the assumption that the definitions provided by the clinicians in the Zayas et al.
(1996) study reflect a developmental continuum, one can hypothesize that the
same assumption may apply to the present findings. If a comparative content
analysis of the competencies in this investigation and the Rogers and Lopez (in
press) investigation suggest that the items submitted by the panelists in both
studies are more reflective of awareness than they are of skills, one assumption
that could be made is that the panelists submitted competencies that reflected
their own standing within a developmental process that begins with the acqui-
sition of cross-cultural awareness and knowledge and eventually leads to more
active behaviors that reflect the actual demonstration of cross-cultural skills.
Such a hypothesis would be congruent with Weatherman and Swenson's
(1974) observation that "the statements which comprise the elements of a Del-
phi exercise inevitably reflect the cultural attitudes, subjective bias, and knowl-
edge of those who formulate them" (p. 104). Ultimately, what this Delphi in-
vestigation may reflect is that school psychologists who have considerable
knowledge of cross-cultural issues continue to struggle with how to integrate
and translate the cross-cultural knowledge they possess into concrete culturally
sensitive behaviors and interventions.
Relationship to Cross-Cultural Psychology Literature

The essential competencies identified in this Delphi investigation are consistent
with the competencies already represented in the cross-cultural literature but
provide an important extension and linkage with school psychology. Among the
categories of competencies identified in this study and in the school psychology

cross-cultural literature are:
(a) cross-cultural awareness

(b) cross-cultural assessment
(c) knowledge of language development
(d) ability to work with interpreters
(e) knowledge of bilingual education curriculum
(f) skills in using intervention techniques with culturally and linguistically
diverse clients
(g) professional competencies
(h) cross-cultural counseling competencies
(i) cross-cultural consultation skills
(j) knowledge of cross-cultural research
(k) skills in working with culturally and linguistically diverse families
(1) knowledge of legal and ethical issues
(m) skills relevant to working within organizations (APA, 1991; Figueroa et
al., 1984; Fletcher & Cardona-Morales, 1990; Gopaul-McNicol, 1997;
Lateer & Curtis, 1991; LaFromboise et al., 1991; Lynch, 1999; Rogers et
al., 1999; Rogers & Lopez, in press; Rosenfield & Esquivel, 1985; Sue et
al., 1992).
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
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
scale items suggest some conceptual overlap in the areas of assessment, counsel-
ing, consultation, professional characteristics, laws and regulations, and knowl-

edge of culture. However, the present competencies also represent a wider range
of professional functions and activities and focus exclusively on those most
needed by school psychologists. For example, absent from the cross-cultural
counseling scales are competencies needed when working with interpreters and
with parents, in addition to those dealing with theoretical paradigms, research,
and report writing. As such, the present findings have most relevance and direct
applicability to the work of school psychologists practicing in a variety of set-
tings.
Implications and Conclusions

These results have implications for practice, training, and research. Recent sur-
veys of school psychologists report a lack of knowledge and skills in such areas
as cross-cultural assessment (Ochoa et al., 1997) and working with interpreters
(Lopez, 1995). Surveys examining the status of multicultural training in school
psychology programs have also found that multicultural issues are often not ad-
dressed either adequately or consistently (Rogers et al., 1992). Professionally
and ethically, school psychologists have a responsibility to develop the cross-
cultural competencies that will allow them to provide appropriate psychological
services to culturally and linguistically diverse populations. The 89 competen-
cies identified in this investigation by panelists with expertise in working with
minority populations suggest that there is a great breadth and depth of cross-
cultural competencies that are needed for school psychologists to meet the legal,
social, professional, and ethical challenges of working with racially, ethnically,
culturally, and linguistically diverse populations.
The cross-cultural competencies identified in this investigation may be used
by current practicing school psychologists and trainers of school psychologists
to identify the cross-cultural competencies they would like to emphasize in their
continued quest for professional growth. Workshops, continuing education
courses, self-study opportunities, and supervision activities may be instrumental
in helping practicing school psychologists and trainers of school psychologists to
develop essential cross-cultural competencies in their areas of practice, teaching,
and research.
The data also suggest that graduate training is needed in a wide range of areas
to assist future school psychologists in the development of these cross-cultural
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
school psychology graduate students have opportunities to acquire the compe-

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.
Limitations of the Study

Several limitations should be considered in this investigation. One limitation is
the small sample of panelists used. A larger sample of panelists with a wider
range of cross-cultural experiences, professional backgrounds, and cultural
backgrounds may have resulted in a wider range of competency items. It should
be noted that previous Delphi researchers have emphasized the importance of
avoiding large expert panels because of the difficulties encountered when large
data sets are generated by many panelists (e.g., large number of items, lack of
validity in categorizing and integrating many items) (Lewis, 1984; Martino,
1972). Smaller panels are recommended because they serve to create a more
manageable data set and more valid results. Nonetheless, it is important to ac-
knowledge that the small panel used in this investigation is a potential threat to
external validity.
Another related limitation is that the quantity and quality of the competency
items generated is a reflection of the panelists used in this particular investiga-
tion. It can be argued that the use of a different set of panelists may have gener-
ated a different list of competencies. This is a limitation applicable to survey
techniques (Dillman, 1978) that can be addressed by comparing the results of
this study with the results of future investigations examining cross-cultural com-
petencies using different sets of panelists. For example, using panelists with
cross-cultural research and teaching experiences may result in higher ratings or a
larger pool of competencies for the Research and Theoretical Paradigms cate-
gories, which had fewer items and were rated as less essential in this investiga-
tion.
A third limitation is the large number of items generated by this Delphi study.
The 89 competencies identified by the panelists is a significant number that can
be viewed by some as trivializing cross-cultural competencies. It is possible that
the notable number of items and their discrete nature can lead to difficulties in
integrating, operationalizing, and measuring these cross-cultural competencies
within cross-cultural inservice and preservice training programs. Conversely, a

significant number of items were eliminated from the original list by using strict
criteria to identify essential cross-cultural competencies. The competencies gen-
erated in this study can be viewed as a comprehensive list of competencies that
reflect the diverse views of the panelists, in addition to the complexity of the
many cross-cultural competencies that are needed by school psychologists as
they provide a wide range of services to racially, ethnically, culturally, and lin-
guistically diverse clients.

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
Future investigations designed to examine, integrate, and prioritize the compe-

tencies identified in this Delphi study and the Rogers and Lopez (in press) study
would be helpful in attempting to identify a core set of cross-cultural competen-
cies that could be incorporated into inventories designed to help school psychol-
ogists to self-report their levels of competencies or to rate others' levels of com-
petencies (e.g., faculty or supervisors rating students, students rating faculty
members). Such a systematic analysis will also facilitate our understanding of

item development when different Delphi procedures (e.g., open-ended question-
ing vs. structured questioning; literature-derived competency items vs. expert-
derived items) and panelists (e.g., panelists with expertise in research vs. organi-
zations vs. assessment) are used to identify cross-cultural competencies.
Because this investigation and the Rogers and Lopez (in press) study are the
first studies to identify cross-cultural competencies for school psychologists sys-
tematically and scientifically, other investigations are needed to continue to con-

ceptualize essential competencies for school psychologists working with minor-

ity populations. Both of these investigations used Delphi techniques to identify
essential competencies by examining the extant literature in cross-cultural
school psychology and by asking panels of experts to identify the competencies
they viewed as most important. Panels composed of a variety of other profes-
sionals would also be helpful in validating these results and in incorporating the
perspectives of other professionals with cross-cultural expertise (e.g., general
education teachers, special education teachers, bilingual education teachers,
principals).
Future studies are needed to establish the validity of these cross-cultural com-
petencies. In other investigations, alternative methods may help to prioritize the
essential competencies and to define them further. For example, observing
school psychologists in vivo while providing services to culturally and linguisti-
cally diverse populations may be instrumental in identifying specific competen-
cies for practicing school psychologists. Portfolio and concept map techniques
(McClafferty & Artiles, 1998) encouraging school psychologists to examine the
knowledge and skills they use in their work with minority populations may also
be helpful in conceptualizing and validating cross-cultural competencies. Inves-
tigations focusing on specific subgroups of school psychologists (e.g., bilingual
vs. monolingual, psychologists working with specific groups of minority popula-
tions, and researchers vs. practitioners) will be valuable in the process of concep-
tualizing cross-cultural competencies that are essential for school psychologists
with diverse backgrounds, ranges of experiences, and areas of expertise.
Within the context of training, research could also be conducted to determine
how best to train graduate students and current school psychologists (e.g., spe-
cific cross-cultural courses vs. infused curriculum; courses vs. practica vs. in-
ternship; and workshops vs. case supervision) in the identified competencies. Fi-
nally, the competencies identified in this study can also be instrumental in
examining the effectiveness of various training components in developing cross-
cultural competencies for school psychologists.
The present investigation is the beginning toward the path of scientifically
identifying cross-cultural competencies and developing techniques to help
school psychologists provide services to students from diverse cultural back-
grounds. Future investigations are needed to continue to conceptualize essential
cross-cultural competencies for school psychologists and assess their impact on
service delivery.
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
ethnic, linguistically, and culturally diverse populations. Washington, DC: Author.

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.
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
education and training (pp. 17-34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-
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.
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-
cultural counseling (pp. 287-311). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pope-Davis, D. B., Reynolds, A. L., Dings, J. G., & Nielson, D. (1995). Examining multicultural
counseling competencies of graduate students in psychology. Professional Psychology: 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.
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.
Action Editor: Terry B. Gutkin

Acceptance Date: September 14, 2000

APPENDIX
Essential Cross-Cultural School Psychology Competencies, Means, and

Standard Deviations
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.)
Round 2 Round 3
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)
The competencies that a cross-culturally skilled school psychologist should have regard-
ing consultation are:

13. Skill in working with others (e.g., patience, good 1.45 .52 1.36 .50
judgement)
14. Skill in demonstrating sensitivity towards the culture of 1.18 .40 1.27 .47
school personnel involved in consultation
15. Skill in responding flexibly with a range of possible 1.36 .50 1.27 .47
solutions that reflect sensitivity to cross-cultural issues
16. Knowledge of the culturally related factors that may 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
affect accurate assessment of the "problem" in the
problem-solving sequence
ing counseling are:
17. An awareness of the cultural factors that might influence 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
counseling
18. Knowledge of norms, values, and attitudes of different 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
cultural groups (e.g., gender roles, interpersonal
interactions)
19. Skill in working with clients with culturally different 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
backgrounds
20. Knowledge of acculturation issues 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
21. An awareness of cultural differences in metaphors 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
and symbols
22. An ability to recognize cultural differences in perception, 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
acceptability, and limitations of counseling
23. Willingness to learn about different cultural beliefs as 1.45 .52 1.40 .52
they pertain to the education of children
24. An awareness of self and own culture 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
25. Sensitivity to cultural mores, especially gender issues 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
and role expectations
26. Knowledge that different clinical (i.e., diagnostic) 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
information may be gained from clients when they use
their first and second language and both types of
information may be valuable
27. An understanding of culturally based verbal and 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
nonverbal cues
28. Skill in establishing rapport with culturally diverse 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
students and parents
29. An ability to allow for difficulties linguistically diverse 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
students experience (i.e., "listen through" accents, allow
more "processing time" for them to respond to questions)
Round 2 Round 3
ing culture are:
30. An understanding of cultural differences of groups 1.45 .52 1.36 .50
within the United States
31. Knowledge about a specific cultural groups'attitudes 1.36 .50 1.27 .47
toward disabilities or exceptionalities

32. An awareness of what is considered important about 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
education by the members of a cultural group
33. Knowledge of how culture determines values and 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
behaviors
34. An understanding and appreciation of cultural 1.36 .50 1.45 .52
differences
35. Knowledge of the impact of culture on learning and 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
behavior
36. An understanding of the pervasive impact of culture on 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
individual and group behavior
37. An understanding of the need to retain one's cultural 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
identity
38. Respect for other cultures and peoples 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
39. An appreciation for the strengths brought to the American 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
culture by peoples from diverse cultural backgrounds
40. Sensitivity to verbal and non-verbal cues that differ 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
across cultures
41. Knowledge of survival skills and life demands that 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
accompany the culturally different child
42. An awareness that tolerance for diversity and acceptance 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
of differences need to be modeled all the time
ing language are:
43. Knowledge of the first and second language acquisition 1.45 .93 1.27 .47
process
44. Knowledge of information about variations in normal 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
language development across languages and cultures
45. Knowledge that these children may have conceptual gaps 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
in all languages
46. Knowledge of language dominance and language 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
proficiency
47. Knowledge of factors that influence the second language 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
acquisition process (e.g., exposure to language, languages
used at home, first language skills)
48. Skill in using verbal and nonverbal communication that 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
demonstrates respect for culturally different individuals
49. An awareness of the unique learning problems 1.45 .52 1.45 .52
experienced by bilingual s
(cont.)
Round 2 Round 3
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
take to develop mastery over a secondary language;

based upon what age; what of academic performance in

terms of comprehension in native language and in
secondary language; what does the research say about
"bilingual instruction" [instruction in native language
versus dominant language]; and what does research
say about best educational practice?)
ing laws and regulations are:
52. An awareness that assessment or eligibility issues may 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
be seriously impacted by cross-cultural issues (e.g., a
child may not be placed in special education just because
of linguistic or cultural differences)
53. An awareness of and knowledge about rules and 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
regulations as presented in IDEA and PL94-142 for
assessment of children whose first language is other than
English
54. Knowledge that school districts placing LEP (i.e., limited 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
English-proficient) children into special education are
aware of law cases that recognize that the way
standardized psychological tests are used can be
discriminatory
55. Knowledge of the need to have an interpreter at all 1.60 .70 1.45 .52
parent meetings as indicated by state and federal
law
56. An awareness of your own ethical standards and assume 1.45 .52
others have comparable ones"
ing professional characteristics are:
57. Skill in modeling tolerance 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
58. Same skills as those a well-trained, competent school 1.36 .50 1.36 .50
psychologist might have: (a) strong sense of responsibility
for a job well done for clients, patients, students,
community; and (b) interest in intellectual or cultural or
artistic manifestations of different cultures
59. Respect and appreciation for the socioeconomic and 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
cultural background of the child and his or her family
60. An ability to communicate and demonstrate an 1.27 .47 1.27 .47
understanding of the culture in question
Round 2 Round 3
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
different groups
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
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
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.)
Round 2 Round 3
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
background
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
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
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.
View publication stats

Conceptualizing Cross-Cultural School Psychology Competencies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conceptualizing Cross-Cultural School Psychology Competencies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Conceptualizing cross-cultural school psychology

Article in School Psychology Quarterly · September 2001

School Psychology Quarterly View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Conceptualizing Cross-Cultural School Psychology

The call for psychologists to develop cross-cultural competencies is driven by

would have to develop cross-cultural competencies to provide appropriate

. . . psychologists must . . . not allow their service to be perceived by mi-

sponsibility to consider issues of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeco-

THE CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY COMPETENCY LITERATURE

to become cross-culturally competent, there is a scarcity of literature in school

knowledge of bilingual education curriculum. Similarly, Rosenfield and Es-

Conceptualizing Professional Competencies Using the Delphi Technique

Given the lack of investigations designed to identify essential cross-cultural

Purpose of the Investigation

a Delphi procedure to identify the competencies and to establish a consensus of

opinion about the essential competencies (Linstone & Turoff, 1975).

TABLE 1. Professional Characteristics of Panel Members Who Participated in Delphi

Mentoring Undergraduate/Graduate Students 6 55

Providing Services to Families or CLD Children/Youth 6 55

ences (73%), and delivering consultation services (73%). Most panelists (n = 6,

linguistically diverse clients. The categories included Academic Interventions,

Assessment, Consultation, Counseling, Culture, Language, Laws and Regula-

Development of the Delphi Questionnaire

cultural competencies. The literature review involved the following procedures:

(Cooper, 1982) that involved locating cross-cultural competency related refer-

Round 1 of Data Collection and Data Analysis

Round 2 of Data Collection and Data Analysis

Round 3 of Data Collection

Identifying Essential Cross-Cultural Competencies

Essential Cross-Cultural Competencies for School Psychologists

Assessment, Consultation, and Report Writing categories reflect professional

services frequently provided by psychologists in school settings (Levinson,

Relationship to the Rogers and Lopez Findings

items, as in this investigation, alternative hypotheses may be needed to account

for those findings.

Relationship to Cross-Cultural Psychology Literature

categories of competencies identified in this study and in the school psychology

(a) cross-cultural awareness

ing, consultation, professional characteristics, laws and regulations, and knowl-

Implications and Conclusions

school psychology graduate students have opportunities to acquire the compe-

Limitations of the Study

within cross-cultural inservice and preservice training programs. Conversely, a

guistically diverse clients.

Future investigations designed to examine, integrate, and prioritize the compe-

members). Such a systematic analysis will also facilitate our understanding of

tematically and scientifically, other investigations are needed to continue to con-

ceptualize essential competencies for school psychologists working with minor-

ethnic, linguistically, and culturally diverse populations. Washington, DC: Author.

cultural counseling (pp. 287-311). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Action Editor: Terry B. Gutkin

Acceptance Date: September 14, 2000

Essential Cross-Cultural School Psychology Competencies, Means, and

ing consultation are:

toward disabilities or exceptionalities

take to develop mastery over a secondary language;

based upon what age; what of academic performance in

View publication stats

You might also like