Student Affairs Professionals' Self-report of Multicultural Competence: Understanding Awareness,...

NASPA Journal, 2007, Vol. 44, no. 4

643

Student Affairs Professionals’ Self-report of Multicultural

Competence: UnderstandingAwareness, Knowledge, and Skills

Jeanett Castellanos*Alberta M. Gloria*Melissa MayorgaChristina Salas

vPope and Reynolds’ (1997) theoretical model of multicultural compe-tence for student affairs was empirically tested with 100 student affairsprofessionals. The domain subscales of awareness, knowledge, andskills revealed high internal consistency and intercorrelation. Malesreported significantly higher multicultural awareness in their interac-tions with students than females. No differences by sociorace wererevealed. Regression analyses indicated that knowledge predicted themajority of the variance (75%) of skills, while awareness accounted fora smaller portion (4%). Directions for future research and practicalimplications for increasing multicultural competence of student affairsprofessionals are discussed.

Jeanett Castellanos is the director of the Academic Resource Center for SocialSciences at the University of California-Irvine. Alberta M. Gloria is a professor ofCounseling Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Both MelissaMayorga and Christina Salas are graduates of the University of California-Irvine.

* Equal contributions made by authors, names in alphabetical order.

The authors thank Roberto Escobar for his assistance with data collection for thisproject.


Understanding Awareness, Knowledge, and SkillsWith the increasing diversity of students on college campuses(National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2002), developing acommon language for defining multicultural competence for studentaffairs professionals is critical (King & Howard-Hamilton, 2003).Despite university agendas and continued efforts to increase equityand access for individuals of diverse backgrounds (Conrad & Shrode,1990; Manning & Coleman-Boatwright, 1991; Pope, 1993), the con-cept of increasing the numerical representation of diversity is insuffi-cient to actualize substantive changes in the practice, policy, and evenattitude within university infrastructures (Gloria & Pope-Davis,2001). As a result, the central role of student affairs professionals increating multicultural environments is paramount (Manning &Coleman-Boatwright, 1991), yet their competence to provide thisleadership remains unclear (Mueller & Pope, 2003; Pope & Reynolds,1997; Pope, Reynolds, & Cheatham, 1997). Guided by the theoreticalmodel of Pope and Reynolds (1997), this study assessed the charac-teristics of self-reported multicultural competencies for student affairsprofessionals to understand the role of awareness, knowledge, andskills within their student interactions.

Although the roles of student affairs professionals have changed con-siderably over the past several decades (Canon, 1996), their missionof effectively and ethically attending to the development of college stu-dents as “whole persons” continues as a central emphasis. The focuson students’ personal, academic, and intellectual growth, however, hasgenerally taken an etic (culture-general) approach in emphasizing uni-versal or humanistic customs and interactions. As the undergraduatepopulation diversifies (NCES, 2002), student affairs professionalsmust integrate emic (culture-specific) approaches that include aware-ness, knowledge, and skills within and between various cultures,backgrounds, and perspectives. The challenge to incorporate a multi-cultural emphasis is particularly important as institutional efforts oftendo not develop an integrated strategy to foster multiculturalism (Stage& Hamrick, 1994), and past practices, institutionalized as “the waythings are done here,” promote oppression and the status quo of theuniversity environment (Manning & Coleman-Boatwright, 1991).

644


In restructuring current university culture, student affairs profession-als’ efforts are critical to creating inclusive learning environments forstudents. In particular, student affairs professionals “directly influencethe formation of a multicultural environment, build an inclusive cam-pus environment, and transform institutional structures” (Manning &Coleman-Boatwright, 1991, p. 367). Despite the degree to which theuniversity espouses the need for multicultural environments, move-ment and integration of multicultural practices often occur in individ-ual offices (Manning & Coleman-Boatwright, 1991). Although sys-temic and university-wide change and efforts is most beneficial, suchchange is often slow to occur (Pope & Reynolds, 1997) in spite ofcommitment and availability of diversity trainings for student affairsprofessionals.

In ensuring that student affairs professionals offer ethical and compe-tent student services, the American College Personnel Association(ACPA) provides guiding standards and principles. The guiding prin-ciples address professional responsibility and competence in enhanc-ing student learning and development (ACPA, 1993). In particular,Pope and Reynolds (1997) extended the work of previous authors(e.g., Barr, 1993; Creamer et al., 1992) in proposing student affairscompetencies. These competencies emphasize professional effective-ness in meeting student development within the context of increasedcultural diversity. The redress of competencies for student affairs pro-fessionals to include multicultural competence is cogently argued as aseminal direction for growth within the field (McEwen & Roper, 1994;Pope, 1993; Pope & Reynolds, 1997; Pope, Reynolds & Cheatham,1997).

As the field of student affairs changes to meet the needs of diverse stu-dents, it has integrated a multicultural competence framework definedby awareness, knowledge, and skills (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis,1992). Conceptualized as a tripartite model, Sue et al. proposed thateach of the competence domains is a prerequisite to work effectivelyand ethically with individuals of all backgrounds. More recently, Popeand Reynolds (1997) directly applied the three domains to studentaffairs professionals in defining characteristics of multicultural com-petence for productive and meaningful interactions with students. Increating multiculturally integrative and affirming campuses, sevencore competencies were proposed, including (1) helping and inter-

645


personal skills; (2) assessment and evaluation; (3) teaching and train-ing; (4) ethical and legal experience; (5) theory and translation; (6)administrative and management skills; and (7) multicultural aware-ness, knowledge, and skills. Following Sue et al.’s initial framework,specific characteristics of competent student affairs practitioners wereproposed. Although scholars have identified differing competencydomains based on conceptual, empirical, and practical considera-tion—i.e., knowledge and awareness (Ponterotto, Gretchen, Utsey,Rieger, & Austin, 2000); awareness, knowledge, and skills (D’Andrea,Daniels, & Heck, 1991); awareness, knowledge, skills, and relation-ship (Sodowsky, Taffe, Gutkin, & Wise, 1994)—it is evident that theassessment of competence is a necessary and relevant aspect of pro-viding services for students.

As the first to develop specific characteristics of multicultural compe-tence for student affairs professionals, Pope and Reynolds proposed astructural framework for diversity accountability. In a recent studythat assessed multicultural competence of diversity educators, studentaffairs professionals, and college student personnel master’s students,King and Howard-Hamilton (2003) found that all three groups scoredhighest in multicultural awareness and lowest in multicultural knowl-edge. The research suggested that race was a salient aspect of identityfor people of color and less so for White participants, a finding con-sistent with general research on personal awareness of race (e.g.,Helms, 1990) and ethnicity (e.g., Gloria, Hird, Navarro, 2003). Forexample, one-third of the White participants in King and Howard-Hamilton’s study reported thinking about their racial/ethnic back-ground relatively infrequently whereas 69% of the participants ofcolor did so daily. Although spending time thinking about one’srace/ethnicity does not necessarily equate to multicultural compe-tence, it is a necessary aspect to effectively interact with others(Mueller & Pope, 2003), and thus directly impacts the manner inwhich student affairs professionals interact with students who are ofsimilar or different race or ethnicity.

Another area that has received attention relative to competence is thatof gender. Given the “feminization of student affairs” (Hamrick &Carlisle, 1990) and universities’ continued espousal of mainly maleattitudes (Street & Kimmel, 1999) and characteristics (Manning &Coleman-Boatwright, 1991), the question of how multicultural com-

646


petencies differ by gender for student affairs professionals meritsattention. Although a review of the psychological literature hasrevealed equivocal differences in multicultural competence as a func-tion of gender (Gloria, Hird, & Tao, 2003), this question has yet to beposed for professionals in student affairs. It is evident that studiesinvestigating sociorace (i.e., White versus racial and ethnic minority;Helms & Richardson, 1997) and gender are warranted to assess andassure that all student affairs professionals are providing effective, eth-ical, and ultimately competent services in creating a culturally-inte-grative and inclusive university environment.

In light of the previous literature, the purpose of this study was toassess empirically Pope and Reynolds’ (1997) theoretical model ofmulticultural competence characteristics specifically for student affairsprofessionals. Internal consistency coefficients were conducted for thethree domains (i.e., awareness, knowledge, and skills) specified byPope and Reynolds. Next, the degree to which student affiairs profes-sionals held the ascribed values and behavioral practices in their inter-actions with students was reviewed. Differences by gender and socio-race (i.e., racial and ethnic minority and White) for student affairs pro-fessionals were also assessed for background characteristics and foreach of the competence domains. Finally, this study explored theinterrelationships of the variables and degree to which self-reportedmulticultural awareness and knowledge predicted skills.

Method

Student Affairs Personnel Participants

A total of 100 student affairs professionals participated in this study,with 81 females and 19 males responding. By race and ethnicity, therewere 47 Whites and 51 racial and ethnic minorities. Two participantsdid not report information on race/ethnicity. Of the racial and ethnicminority participants, there were 27 Asian Americans; 7 “Others;” 7Latina/os; 6 Black/African Americans; and 1 American Indian,International, and Multiracial/Biracial individual. Participants rangedin age from 21 to 69, with an average age of 37 years (M = 37.11, SD= 11.02). Fifteen participants did not provide their ages. Working atthe university for an average of 8.99 years (SD = 8.07, range = lessthan 1 year to 32 years), participants were in their current positions

647


for an average of 5.32 years (SD = 6.23, range = less than 1 year to 25years). One-quarter of the participants reported having supervisoryresponsibilities in which they oversaw approximately six individuals(M = 5.68, SD = 5.06, range = 1 to 18). See Table 1 for a full overviewof the descriptives by gender and sociorace. The study’s student affairsprofessionals came from different university units/offices, includingthe Library (n = 28), Financial Aid Office (n = 18), and Dean ofStudents (n = 11). A list of the different units represented in the studyis provided in Table 1.

Table 1Overview of Different Participant Units

648


Procedure and University Setting

After securing appropriate Institutional Review Board approval, sur-veys were distributed to different student services units/offices at aWest Coast research institution. Half of the participants completedsurveys during their staff meetings (100% response rate), whereas thesecond half of the surveys were distributed to student affairs profes-sionals (i.e., supervisors) who forwarded them to individuals in theirunit. Completed surveys were forwarded to the researchers via cam-pus mail in a return-addressed envelope provided to participants. Thismethod yielded a 60% response rate.

Comprised of approximately 24,000 students, the university at whichthis study was conducted has a large number of racial and ethnicminority students (i.e., 57% of the student population; Office ofAnalytical Studies Information Management). Specifically, the studentdemography included 44.5% Asian American, 2.0% Black/AfricanAmerican, 10.3% Chicano/Latino, less than .3% Native American, and26.0% White/Caucasian. The remaining percentage of studentsincluded 5.7% International students and 18.8% of whom their back-ground was unknown. Of the university’s students, 82% were under-graduate, 13% were graduate, and 5% were medical students.Approximately 4,500 campus staff were employed at the university atthe time of this study.

Survey Instrument

A paper-and-pencil survey, the questionnaire packet consisted of ademographic sheet and the researcher-developed scale. The surveytook approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete and no incentivewas provided.

Demographic SheetThe demographic sheet included 11 questions. Three questionsaddressed general personal information (i.e., gender, age, race/ethnic-ity) and the remaining questions were specific to the participants’career as a student affairs professional. The career-related questionsassessed the number of years at the current institution, years in cur-rent position, home department/unit, position title, and supervisionresponsibilities. Remaining questions addressed average direct studenthours provided daily, average number of minutes spent in a student

649


meeting, and average number of meeting time with each student peracademic quarter.

Multicultural Competence Characteristics of Student AffiairsProfessionals Inventory (MCCSAPI; reseracher-developed)The 32-item MCCSAPI measured student affairs professionals’ level ofself-reported multicultural competence in three theoretical domains—awareness (11 items), knowledge (11 items), and skills (10 items).Based on the work of Pope and Reynolds’ (1997) theoretical model ofmulticultural competence for students affairs personnel, each of theexisting defining characteristics of cultural competence were directlyused as the scale’s items. The original 43 items of characterisitics of amulticulturally competent student affairs professional were developedby Pope and Reynolds’ thorough review of the literature. Theyreviewed the statements for redundancy and clarity, deleting sevenitems. Pope and Reynolds took the remaining 36 items and indepen-dently sorted each item, which was divided into one of the threedomains (i.e., awareness, knowledge, and skills). They presented theitems to student affairs practitioners at several day-long workshops forvalidity. The workshop participants determined the items to be clearand well-worded, with the exception of three items. Finally, Pope andReynold faciliated a graduate student focus group to discuss the items’validity and clarity, after which three items were eliminated and sev-eral were reworded.

For this study, participants responded to the 32 items using the fol-lowing instructions, “In interactions with students, how important isit to hold the following beliefs or behaviors?” Items were rated on aLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (Extremely Important) to 5 (Not at allImportant). All items were recoded such that higher scores reflectedincreased levels of self-reported multicultural competence. Sampleitems include “Awareness of your own behavior and its impact on oth-ers” (awareness); “Knowledge about institutional barriers that limitaccess to and success in higher education for members of oppressedgroups” (knowledge); and “Ability to differentiate between individualdifferences, cultural differences, and universal similarities” (skills).

650


Results

Item Descriptives

Examination of individual items revealed that the majority of the itemswere skewed in the positive direction, with participants endorsing thestatements primarily as “Extremely Important” or “Very Important.”Means and standard deviations for each of the multicultural compe-tence statements are presented for the total sample and by gender andsociorace in Table 1.

Internal Consistency Coefficients

Internal consistency coefficients for the overall scale and each domainsubscale were high (.88 to .97). Similarly, the Cronbach’s alphas evi-denced strong relability by gender and sociorace. A complete overviewof the alphas by the total scale score and three subscales are providedin Table 2.

Table 2Mean, Standard Deviations, and Internal Consistency Coefficients of the

Total Scale and Subscales by Total Sample and Gender and Sociorace

651


Gender and Sociorace Differences

A short series of t tests were conducted for age, number of years atinstitution, number of years in position, and average time spent ina meeting with a student by gender and sociorace. A significant dif-ference was only indicated for number of years in position (t = -2.86,df = 91, p < .001), such that males had a higher mean score (M = 8.84,SD = 8.23) than did females (M = 4.42, SD = 5.31). Also, Whites(M = 41.21, SD = 11.71) were significantly older than racial and eth-nic minority (M = 33.63, SD = 9.17) student affairs professionals,t = -3.34, df = 83, p < .01.

To determine differences by gender and sociorace for the three multi-cultural subscales, a MANOVA was conducted. The main effect forgender was significant [l = 2.80, p < .05, eta2 = .09]; however, nosignificant differences were indicated for sociorace, l = 1.59, p > .05,eta2 = .05. The interaction was also nonsignificant, l = 1.03, p > .05,eta2 = .04. Analyses for gender revealed differences for CCA [F(1, 91)= 4.26, p < .05, eta2 = .05], with males reporting higher awareness(M = 1.93, SD = .72) than females (M = 1.69, SD = .57).

Table 3Means and Standard Deviations of the Scale’s Items by

Total Sample, Gender, and Sociorace

652


653

Table 3, continued


Relationship of Variables

A stepwise regression analysis examined the degree to which studentaffairs professionals characteristics (gender, sociorace, and age) andmulticultural aspects (awareness and knowledge) predict self-reportedmulticultural competence skills. The overall omnibus equation was

654

Table 3, continued


significant [F (5, 79) = 68.10, p < .001], accounting for 82% of thevariance. The first step of background characteristics was entered tostabilize the regression equation and accounted for 3% of the variance[DF (3, 76) = .83, p = .48]. Next, CCK (b = .88, t = 15.87, p < .001)uniquely accounted for almost 75% [.746; DF (1, 75) = 251.88,p < .001] of the variance and CCA (b = .33, t = 4.25, p < .001) unique-ly accounted for slightly more than 4% [.044; DF (1, 74) = 18.10,p < .001] of the variance of CCS.

Conducted as secondary and follow-up analyses to the regressionequation, correlations were conducted by gender and sociorace (seeTable 4). In general, correlations between age, number of years atinstitution, number of years in current position, and average timespent with students were not significant with CCA, CCK, and CCS.For females and racial and ethnic minority participants only, CCK andaverage meeting time spent with students was negatively and signifi-cantly related. The competency scales were highly correlated witheach other. Also, age was positively and significantly related to num-bers of years at institution and number of years in current position forall groups. Finally, for males only, age and average meeting time spentwith students was negatively and significantly related.

DiscussionAs higher education responds to the changing student demography(e.g., increase in racial and ethnic minority students, women, studentswith disabilities), the need to provide assessment and evaluations ofappropriate interventions and work with students is a growing area forstudent affairs professionals (NASPA, 2000). In meeting this heed,self-reported multicultural competence (i.e., awareness, knowledge,and skills) of 100 student affairs professionals were examined. Basedon the conceptualization of Pope and Reynolds (1997), males reportedsignificantly higher multicultural awareness in their interactions withstudents than did their females counterparts. No differences by socio-race were revealed. Multicultural awareness and knowledge togetherpredicted a large portion of the variance in multicultural skills (82%),however, knowledge accounted for the largest proportion.

655


Table 4Correlations of the Study’s Variables by Gender and Sociorace

Unfortunately, the inhospitable feelings of being unwelcomed and cul-turally-devalued are common educational experiences of many racialand ethnic minority college students (Castellanos & Jones, 2003;Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Ponterotto, 1990; Watson et al., 2002) andthus warrant student affairs personnel to have competent skills inorder to work with students of different races, ethnicities, and cultures(e.g., sexual orientation, gender, first-generation college students). Inunderstanding what determined multiculturally competent skills,knowledge was most predictive of skills. One’s age, gender, or socio-race did not significantly predict skills; and reported multiculturalawareness, despite its strong positive correlation with skills, only pre-

656


dicted a small percentage of the variance (4%). Instead, these studentaffairs professionals indicated that having specific knowledge (e.g.,about different cultures and theories by which to conceptualize theirwork with students) was most predictive of multicultural skills.

Although gender was not a predictive indicator of multicultural skills,several gender differences and relationships emerged. Males self-reported higher multicultural awareness than females; yet as theyincreased in age, they reported spending less time with students.Although males reported having been in their current positions sig-nificantly longer than females, their competencies of multiculturalknowledge or skills were not significantly different. Instead, forwomen and racial and ethnic minority student affairs professionals, anincreased self-report of multicultural knowledge was related to spend-ing less time in a student meeting. Interestingly, males identified ashaving greater awareness than did their female counterparts, yetawareness accounts for only a small percentage of multicultural skills.In that males had more time in their positions than did females, theymay by default espouse more confidence and feel more established intheir roles, thereby advocating that they have more knowledge of theirposition and subsequent awareness about themselves and how towork with students of diverse backgrounds.

Interestingly, age of the student affairs professional, number of years atuniversity, and number of years in the position were not correlatedwith self-reported multicultural awareness, knowledge, or skills. It islogical to assume that timing in one’s student affairs professional posi-tion or at their university would have some relationship to multicul-tural competence, such that increased time would reflect increasedcompetence. However, much like previous multicultural competenceresearch in counseling psychology, age and time in position (e.g.,mental health counselor) does not always equate to increased levels ofcompetence (Pope-Davis & Ottavi, 1994). Although additionalresearch is needed to delineate these findings, it raises the question ofthe institution’s commitment and accountability to enhance its studentaffairs professional’s multicultural competence. Accountability of theinstitution as well as the individual warrants consideration. That is, towhat extent are student affairs professionals taking personal and pro-fessional responsibility for using their student encounters as learningopportunities to expand their multicultural competence?

657


Because diversity promotes personal growth and a healthy society,strengthens communities and workplaces, and enriches the educa-tional experiences of students (Landrum, Dillinger, & Vandernoot,2003), consistent and timely evaluation and assessment of all studentaffairs professionals to maintain a minimum standard of multiculturalcompetence is needed. By returning to the historical roots of highereducation (see Komives, Woodard & Associates 1996), students affairsprofessionals should incorporate continuing education credits tomaintain minimum competencies and ensure yearly evaluations andpromotion consideration. As the field of student affairs works to berecognized as a career and not a job or position, emphasis on trainingand minimal standards of competencies are warranted (Burkard, Cole,Ott, & Stoflet, 2005). For example, establishing formal ACPA stan-dards and guidelines that would determine core training areas that areheld as accountable accreditation domains for graduate training pro-grams could be established. Similarly, ongoing programming atnational conferences (e.g., NASPA, NCORE, AERA, ASHE) and uni-versity training and workshops that link multicultural knowledge-based issues with specific skills and interventions could be a focuspoint for serving the needs of diverse student populations. Finally, ifstudent affairs professionals receive training (e.g., DiversityWorkshops), it does not ensure acquisition of the necessary under-standing to provide multiculturally competent student services (e.g., ahealthy, welcoming, and inclusive university climate and culture).Thus, yearly evaluations from units and ongoing assessment of ser-vices from students should be gathered and taken into considerationwhen extending contracts or awarding promotions.

Given the argument that student affairs professionals who are trainingfuture students affairs personnel need to educate students about mul-ticultural issues and clearly articulate minimal expectations regardingknowledge and skills (Burkard et al., 2005; King & Howard-Hamilton, 2003), the findings of this study support the need to infusecharacteristics into the training and curriculum of students in studentpersonnel programs. Rather than having student affairs professionalsfirst experience multicultural interactions and begin to consider stu-dents’ cultural context in initial meetings (i.e., on-the-job learning),developing a formalized classroom curriculum that addresses inter-personal, intrapersonal, and cultural dynamics, while focusing onawareness and knowledge to maximize skills development, could be

658


implemented. In particular, practicum or field studies classes in whichstudents are supervised to address personal and professional develop-ment issues related to their cultural being (Choi Pearson et al., 2004)is a necessary starting point for all students, regardless of race or eth-nicity (Ebbers & Henry, 1990).

Limitations and Future Research Directions of the Study

There are several limitations that warrant consideration. First, thenonrandom sampling methods used limit the findings’ generalizabili-ty and most likely introduced systematic bias (Heppner, Kivlighan, &Wampold, 1992). Future researchers could work with universityadministrators to systematically mail or email surveys to all studentaffairs professionals on campus, securing a more comprehensive andpotentially accurate perspective. Having key administrators (e.g., vicepresident of student affairs, dean of students, coordinators of studentdevelopment) endorse the survey would underscore the importance ofmulticultural competence for all student affairs professionals. Havinguniversity-wide support for such studies would also provide a venuefor accountability in maintaining minimal levels of competence forstudent services provision.

Next, student affairs professionals who completed the survey mayhave had a particular interest in the study’s topic. Similarly, in that theresearch involved self-report assessments, participants may haveresponded in a socially desirable or “politically-correct” manner, giventhe emphasis on culture and diversity that the university in which thisstudy was conducted endorses. Despite the confidentiality of the sur-vey, participants may have been concerned about their anonymity, asindividual identities could potentially be determined by linking demo-graphic characteristics, unit/office, and position title. As a result, themajority of participants did not provide their position title, and sub-sequently these researchers did not utilize the available information toassure that both confidentiality and anonymity were maintained.Future researchers should consider including a social desirability mea-sure as well as not assessing for participants’ position titles in attemptto increase the accuracy of responses.

Further, having direct service recipients (i.e., students) rate studentaffairs professionals’ multicultural competence could provide insight

659


into how services are being perceived and received, rather than rely onproviders’ perceptions of their services. Studies that audio- or video-tape student affairs professionals and student interactions (in vivoobservations) could directly assess multicultural competence, particu-larly skills, to meet goals and objectives for a yearly and 5-year plan.Also, differentiating student affairs professionals would be importantas this study aggregated participants who had different roles and func-tions with students (e.g., financial aid officers versus academic coun-selors). Using the newly developed scale, which needs further valida-tion, with measures of student college satisfaction or perceived sup-port from staff and administrators could also direct how student affairsprofessionals address multicultural competence. In particular, one ofthe questions for the background characteristics was poorly worded,and thus the study did not identify how many students per day wereseen by each student affairs professional, but how much time wasspent with each student. Finally, research that examines factors thatpredict awareness, knowledge, and skills are also needed such thatmulticultural competence development does not risk being haphazardor misdirected for student affairs professionals (King & Howard-Hamilton, 2003) given their direct and central role to studentdevelopment.

ReferencesAmerican College Personnel Association. (1993). Statement of ethical

and professional standards. Journal of College Student Personnel, 34,93–97.

Burkard, A. W., Cole, D. C., Ott, M., & Stoflet, T. (2005). Entry-levelcompetencies of new student affairs professionals: A delphi study.NASPA, 42(3), article 2. Retrieved from http://publication.naspa.org/naspajournal/vol42/iss3/art2.

Canon, H. J. (1996). Ethical standards and principles. In S. R.Komives, D. B. Woodard, Jr., & Associates, Student services: Ahandbook for the profession (3rd ed.) (pp. 106–125). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Choi Pearson, C., Castillo, L., & Maples, M. F. (2004). Reduction ofracial prejudice in student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal,42(1), 132–146.

660


D’Andrea, M., Daniels, J., & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating the impactof multicultural counseling training. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 143–150.

Ebbers, L. H., & Henry, S. L. (1990). Cultural competence: A newchallenge to student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 27(4),319–323.

Gloria, A. M., Hird, J. S., & Navarro, R. L. (2001). Relationships ofcultural congruity and perceptions of the university environmentto help-seeking attitudes by sociorace and gender. Journal ofCollege Student Development, 42, 545–562.

Gloria, A. M., Hird, J. S., & Tao, K. W. (2003). Assessing multicultur-al supervision: A nationwide survey of supervisors. Manuscript inreview.

Gloria, A. M., & Pope-Davis, D. B. (1997). Cultural ambience: Theimportance of a culturally aware environment in the training andeducation of counselors. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman(Eds.), Multicultural counseling competencies: Assessment, educationand training, and supervision (pp. 242–259). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Helms, J. E. (1990). A race is a nice thing to have: A guide to being aWhite person or understanding the White persons in your life. Topeka,KS: Content Communications.

Helms, J. E., & Richardson, T. Q. (1997). How “multiculturalism”obscures race and culture as differential aspects of counselingcompetency. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman (Eds.),Multicultural counseling competencies: Assessment, education andtraining, and supervision (pp. 60–79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heppner, P. P., Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Wampold, B. E. (1992).Research design in counseling. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

King, P. M., & Howard-Hamilton, M. (2003). Becoming a multicul-turally competent student affairs professional. NASPA Journal,40(2), 26–28.

Komives, D. B. Woodard, Jr., & Associates. Student services: A handbookfor the profession (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Landrum, R. E., Dillinger, R. J., & Vandernoot, E. A. (2003).Assessment of the cultural climate in a university setting. NASPAJournal, 40(2), 32–34.

Manning K., & Coleman-Boatwright, P. (1991). Student affairs initia-tives toward a multicultural university. Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 32, 367–374.

661


McEwen, M. K., & Roper, L. D. (1994). Incorporating multicultural-ism into student affairs preparations programs: Suggestions fromthe literature. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 46–53.

Mueller, J. A., & Pope, R. L. (2003). The relationship of demographicand experience variables to White racial consciousness amongstudent affairs practitioners. NASPA Journal, 40(4), 149–171.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). The condition of edu-cation 2002. NCES 2000–025. U.S. Department of Education.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Office of Analytical Studies Information Management. (2001). Studentcharacteristics summary. Retrieved from http://www.oas.uci.edu/scs.

Pope, R. L. (1993). Multicultural organization development in studentaffairs: An introduction. Journal of College Student Development, 34,201–205.

Pope, R. L. (1993). Multicultural organizational development:Implications and applications in student affair. In J. Fried (Ed.),Shifting paradigms in student affairs: A cultural perspective (pp.233–239). Washington, DC: ACPA Media.

Pope, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (1997). Student affairs core competen-cies: Integrating multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills.Journal of College Student Development, 38(3), 266–277.

Pope, R. L., Reynolds, A. L., & Cheatham, H. E. (1997). AmericanCollege Personnel Association strategic initiative on multicultural-ism: A report and proposal. Journal of College Student Development,38(1), 62–67.

Pope-Davis, D. P. & Ottavi, T. M. (1994). Examining the associationbetween self-reported multicultural competencies and demo-graphic variables among counselors. Journal of Counseling andDevelopment, 72, 651–654.

Ponterotto, J. G., Gretchen, D., Utsey, S. O., Rieger, B. P., & Austin, R.(2000). A construct validity study of the Multicultural CounselingAwareness Scale (MCAS). Unpublished manuscript.

Reynolds, A. L., & Pope, R. L. (1994). Perspectives on creating multi-cultural campuses. Journal of American College Health, 42,229–233.

Stage, F. K., & Hamrick, F. A. (1994). Diversity issues: Fostering cam-puswide development of multiculturalism. Journal of CollegeStudent Development, 35, 331–336.

662


Street, S., & Kimmel, E. (1999). Gender role preferences and percep-tions of university administrators. National Association of StudentPersonnel Administrators Journal, 36(3), 222–239.

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

Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multiculturalcounseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession.Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 477–486.

663 Copyright © 2007 by NASPA

Student Affairs Professionals' Self-report of Multicultural Competence: Understanding Awareness,...

Documents

Transcript of Student Affairs Professionals' Self-report of Multicultural Competence: Understanding Awareness,...