UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Reconstructing multicultural counselling competency : construct explication approach Minami, Masahiro 2008

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
ubc_2008_spring_minami_masahiro.pdf [ 1.98MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0054156.json
JSON-LD: 1.0054156+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0054156.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0054156+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0054156+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0054156+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0054156 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0054156.txt
Citation
1.0054156.ris

Full Text

RECONSTRUCTING MULTICULTURAL COUNSELLING COMPETENCY: CONSTRUCT EXPLICATION APPROACH  by  Masahiro Minami B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2004  A THESIS SUBMITTED I1’ PARTTAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Counselling Psychology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  April, 2008  © Masahiro Minami, 2008  11  Abstract This conceptual study aimed at refining the conceptual rigor of D. W. Sue’s tricomponential model of multicultural counselling competency, and enhancing with an addition of new attitude component. This study anchored its theoretical basis on a concept of nomological network (Cronbach & Meehi, 1955). Construct explication approach (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1998) was taken to develop full explication of four componential model of MCC, containing attitude-awareness-knowledge-skills components. Comprehensive literature review was conducted in the area of multicultural counselling competency to develop working definitions of awareness-knowledge-skills component. Another review was conducted to develop a working definition and a conceptual model of attitude. Under the four-componential framework, a total of 284 characteristic descriptions previously developed under the tricomponential model were conceptually re-examined and re-categorized. Result of the analyses revealed a total of 13 subcategories under the four components. Full construct explication of the four componential model was developed. Research implications of the new model to MCC measurement studies and practical applications to training models will be discussed.  111  Table of Contents Abstract Table of Contents List of Tables Acknowledgements Dedication Chapter 1: THEORY Introduction Section 1: History and Evolution of the Tri-Componential Model of Multicultural Counselling Competency Section 2: Conceptual Problems and Limitations of the Tri-Componential Model Section 3: Six Frames of Reference and the Scope of Paper and the Presenting Model Section 4: Conceptual Analysis of Attitude and Other Related Constructs Section 5: Review and Examinations of Existing Awareness, Knowledge, Skills Component Definitions Section 6: Construct Explication of MCC via Conceptual Re-Analyses and ReCategorization of Existing Characteristic Descriptions and Explanatory Statements Chapter 2: DISCUSSIONS OF RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS/PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Research Implications of the Four-Componential Model of MCC Practical Applications of the Four-Componential Model of MCC CONCLUSION References Appendices Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Appendix 7 Appendix 8 Appendix 9 Appendix 10 Appendix 11 Appendix 12  ii iii iv v vi 1 1 4 17 34 54 69  79 96 96 107 117 122 139 139 140 141 142 144 145 146 147 148 149 151 153  iv List of Tables Table 1  Number of Competency Statements Categorized under Components and Subcomponents at the End of Procedure 11  Table 2  120  Number of Competency Statements Categorized under Components and Subcomponents at the End of Procedure 12  121  V  Acknowledgements I would like to thank my research supervisor Dr. Ishu Ishiyama for his academic as well as personal support throughout my journey at the UBC. I learned and continue to learn so much from who you are and your way of being. You have generously and patiently guided me to cultivate self-honour and unbreakable pride of being who I am. I thank you for believing in me, my intellectual capability and my passion for my work. I feel gifted to have you as my supervisor and a life mentor. I would like to thank Dr. Soma Ganesan for his mentorship and support for my work. I feel privileged to know you and to have the opportunity to think with you how practice of healing can be so culturally diverse and amazingly exciting! I thank you for your trust, faith and hope in me. I would like to thank Dr. Mary Westwood and Dr. Bruno Zumbo for your sincere engagements and support for my research as well as clinical works. I thank you for your guidance and advices. I would like to thank counselling psychology instructors from UBC who taught me so much about how to be and be with others. I thank you for your contributions for my perspectives and way of being. I would like to thank psychology professors from the Simon Fraser University, especially Dr. Robert Ley, Dr. Anand Paranjpe, and Dr. David Cox who passionately taught me how to sincerely and critically examine psychological theories and constructs. I would like to thank my colleagues from VGH Cross-Cultural Clinic, VAST, UBC Life and Career Centre, SVYC, whose clinical frontline work have stimulated and continue to inspire my theoretical conception of counselling/psychotherapy, ideas for empirical investigation, and clinical practices.  vi Dedication  To Ojiichan, Obaachan, Papa, Mama, Uckn, Yuko, Akiyo, Yuto, and Rio.  1 CHAPTER 1: THEORY  Introduction What makes a counsellor cross-culturally/multiculturally competent? This question has been the focal point of discussion in the area of multicultural counselling for the past thirty years (Sue, 1998; Fuertes, Bartolomeo & Nicols, 2001). While there are several models of multicultural counselling competency (MCC) (e.g., Constantine & Ladany, 2001; Constantine, Melincoff, Barakett, Torino & Warren, 2004; Christensen, 1985; Fischer, Jome & Atkinson, 1998; Fuertes & Gretchen, 2001; Mollen, Ridley & Hill, 2003; Toporek & Reza, 2001; Wehrly, 1995), the most wellknown one is the tri-componential model, originally developed by Derald Wing Sue and his colleagues in 1982 (Sue, Bernier, Durran, Feinberg, Pedersen, Smith & Vasquez Nuttall, 1982). This model was subsequently revised by Sue himself and others (D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 1990, Sue, Arredondo & McDavis, 1992; Arredondo, Toporek, Brown, Jones, Locke, Sanchez & Stadler, 1996; Sue, Carter, Casas, Fouad, Ivey, Jensen, et al., 1998; Sue, 2001a; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2003; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2008). D. W. Sue’s model contained three components of MCC and the each contained characteristic descriptions (CDs) of culturally/multiculturally competent counsellor. CDs  elaborate on each competency component, literally describing characteristics of a culturally/multiculturally competent counsellor. The CDs have been utilized as bases in item development for a wide variety of MCC measures (e.g., LaFromboise, Coleman & Hernandez, 1991; D’Andrea, Daniels & Heck, 1991; Sodowsky, Taffe, Gutkin & Wise, 1994; Ponterotto, Rieger, Barrett & Sparks, 1994; Ponterotto, Gretchen, Utsey, Rieger &  2 Austin, 2002; Kim, Cartwright, Asay & D’Andrea, 2003). Currently, this awarenessknowledge-skills tricomponential model of MCC is widely accepted as the most dominant theoretical model in the area of MCC theory, research and practice (Sue et al., 1998; Sue, 2001a; Toporek & Reza, 2001; Sue, 2003). However, studies of MCC measures have been consistently showing low construct validity and a lack of evidence supporting tri-componential factor structure (LaFromboise et al., 1991; D’Andrea et al., 1991; Sodowsky et al., 1994; Ponterotto et aL, 1994; Ponterotto et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2003; Constantine, Gloria & Ladany, 2002; Constantine & Ladany, 2000; Kocarek, Talbot, Batka & Anderson, 2001). Some (e.g., Ridley, Mendoza, Kanitz, Angermeier & Zenk, 1994; Ridley, Baker and Hill, 2001; Weinrach & Thomas, 2002; Thomas & Weinrach, 2004; Weinrach & Thomas, 2004) raised a concern that this model lacks sound conceptual rigor, while others (e.g., Constantine & Ladany, 2000; Constantine, Gloria & Ladany, 2002; Constantine & Ladany, 2001; Constantine, Melincoff, Barakett, Torino & Warren, 2004) suggested the potential existence of other components. It is suspected that these unresolved problems of the model have resulted in the lack of evidence supporting the construct validity of the MCC measures. The purpose of this paper is to refine the conceptual rigor of the existing tn componential model, and to enhance it into four-componential model by adding a new component of attitude. The following procedures will be taken to achieve this goal: (a) conducting a historical review of the evolution of D. W. Sue’s MCC model, (b) identifying and analyzing conceptual problems and limitations of the model, (c) developing and discussing various conceptual “frames of reference” to limit the scope of  3 the presenting new model, (d) conducting a comprehensive conceptual analysis of attitude to be added as a new fourth component, (e) conducting a conceptual re-analyses and developing working definitions for the existing awareness, knowledge, and skills components, (f) conducting conceptual re-analyses and re-categorizations of the existing CDs under newly developed four components (attitude, awareness, knowledge, skills), and (g) developing a full construct explication of the new four-componential model of MCC. Research implications of the new model to MCC measurement studies and practical applications to MCC training model will follow.  4 Section 1: History and Evolution of the Tri-Componential Model of Multicultural Counselling Competency  Historical Review of the Evolution ofD. W Sue ‘s MCC Model D. W. Sue et al., (1982): Beliefs/Attitudes  —  Knowledge  —  Skills Model  Tn 1982, a group of researchers led by Derald Wing Sue released a position paper outlining three components of cross-cultural counseling competencies, namely belief7attitude, knowledge, and skills. Proposed components contained a total of eleven CDs organized under each component. Beliefs/attitudes, knowledge, and skills components each contained four, four, and three CDs respectively. The CDs are descriptions of a “culturally skilled psychologist.” For example, one of the CDs under beliefs/attitudes component of the model stated that “the culturally skilled counselling psychologist is one who has moved from being culturally unaware to being aware and sensitive to his/her own cultural heritage and to valuing and respecting differences” (Sue, et al., p. 49). The position paper was developed in reaction to the growing needs for the identification and assessment of cultural competency in psychologists to better suit the needs of culturally diverse clients in the United Stated. Their intention was to suggest that these CDs be incorporated by mental health training programs as training objectives. They also hoped that their general guideline would “aid in the development of more concrete and sophisticated competencies for working with culturally different clients” (Sue, et al., p. 49). This position paper was considered a hallmark which embarked the beginning of the MCC research. The model with its subsequent revisions is the most  5 widely accepted and researched model in the area of multicultural counselling competency (Mollen et al., 2003; Pedersen, 2000).  D. W. Sue andD. Sue (]990). Awareness  —  Knowledge  —  Skills Model  In 1990, D.W. Sue and David Sue (1990) published the second edition of Counseling the Culturally Dfferent. Its subsequent editions have been one of the most widely cited textbooks in the field of multicultural counselling. The 1990 edition of this textbook contained MCC model which contained three components: (a) counsellor awareness of own assumptions, values, and biases, (b) understanding the world view of the culturally different client, and (c) developing appropriate intervention strategies and techniques. Each of the three (awareness, knowledge, and skills) components contained five, four, and four CDs respectively. There were several notable revisions made in this 1990 model. First, it was in this publication that the belief/attitude component of the original 1982 model was relabelled to awareness of belief/attitude. Conceptual differences between beliefs/attitude and awareness were not clarified. Furthermore, CDs listed under the belief/attitude component of the 1982 model were NOT changed and the CDs illustrating the awareness component of the 1990 model were identical to the ones for the belief/attitude component of 1982 model. This change of component label and the lack of reflection of the change on CDs had various implications to the theoretical rigor of the MCC model and to subsequent MCC scale/measurement studies. Secondly, a careful examination of this publication has revealed that the components and CDs described by the model were viewed as three goals for a counsellor.  6 Furthermore, counsellors were encouraged to work towards achieving these goals with its pathway being considered as an active ongoing process which never reaches the end point. This goal as well as process aspects of the MCC model has many useful theoretical, research implications and practical applications. Theoretically, it would have been possible to derive two types of MCC: (a) “goal” or end-characteristics of a culturally competent counsellor with three competency components, and (b) “process” competency providing step-by-step guidance to become a culturally competent counsellor. Goal characteristics would have been useful aids in developing a measure to assess the training outcome, while process characteristics would have aided the development of training curricula. Unfortunately, such aspects of MCC have been de-emphasized from the subsequent revisions in the model. Finally, it is in this publication that they first described (but not defined) each component of cultural competencies. D.W. Sue and D. Sue (1990) described the awareness component by using the phrase, “Counsellor, know thyself’ (p. 166) which highlighted the importance of counsellor self-awareness. It was considered that the awareness prevents him/her from “allowing our [his/her] own biases, values, or “hang up” to interfere with our ability to work with clients” (p. 166). It must be noted that, according to them, the awareness component referred exclusively to counsellor selfawareness (cultural self-awareness), which may exclude characteristics of counsellor awareness of others (cultural other-awareness). This distinction between cultural self versus other awareness has various research implications. This point will be examined later.  7 D.W. Sue and D. Sue (1990) described the knowledge component by stating “it is crucial that counselors understand and can share the woridview of their culturally different clients” (p. 168). They stressed the importance of accepting a client’s woridview in a nonjudgmental manner. This is a very similar concept to empathy. Within this knowledge component, they also stressed the importance of cognitive empathy that “represents cultural role taking where the counselor acquires practical knowledge concerning the scope and nature of the client’s cultural background, daily living experience, hopes, fears, and aspirations” (p. 169). Interpreting from this statement, it is emphasized that a culturally competent counsellor not only possesses the ability to understand culturally different clients’ experience, but also to become knowledgeable in various themes in multicultural counselling to better approach common issues and challenges with which culturally diverse clients are confronted with. D.W. Sue and D. Sue (1990) described skills by stating “cross-cultural counselling effectiveness is most likely enhanced when the counselor uses counseling modalities and defines goals consistent with the life experience/cultural values of the client” (p. 170). With this skills component, they highlighted the importance of counsellor acquisitions of (a) counselling microskills (Ivey, D ‘Andrea, Ivey & Simek Morgan, 2007), (b) ability/skills to tailor such counselling skills to better suit the needs and expectations of culturally different clients, (c) institutional/organization/systemic intervention skills, and (d) awareness of own helping style and how it impacts on culturally different clients. These descriptions of each components of cultural competency provided conceptual bases for the subsequent revisions of the model.  8 D. W. Sue, Arredondo, and McDavis, (1992): Awareness Belief/Attitude  —  Knowledge  —  —  Knowledge  —  Skills x  Skills Matrix Model  In 1992, Sue et al. (1992) released another hallmark paper outlining standards for multicultural counselling competencies. Development of the model was based heavily on the previous two models by Sue et al. (1982) and D.W. Sue and D. Sue (1990), yet the 1992 model expanded them to a more complex conceptual framework. There were several notable features to this model. First, this was a hybrid model combining the 1982 and 1990 model. Sue et al. (1992) reiterated the three “goals” (termed “characteristics” in 1992 publication) of cultural competency developed in 1990 by D. W. Sue and D. Sue. They are as follows. (a) Counselor awareness ofown assumptions, values, and biases: “a culturally skilled counselor is one who is actively in the process of becoming aware of his or her own assumptions about human behavior, values, biases, preconceived notions, personal limitations, and so forth” and (b) Understanding the worldview of the culturally dfferent client: “a culturally skilled counselor is one who actively attempts to understand the worldview of his or her culturally different client without negative judgments” and (c) Developing appropriate intervention strategies and techniques: “a culturally skilled counselor is one who is in the process of actively developing and practicing appropriate, relevant, and sensitive intervention strategies and skills in working with his or her culturally different clients” (p. 481). They also re-introduced the following three components (termed “dimensions” in 1992 publication) of MCC, originally introduced in the 1982 article. (a) Beliefs and attitudes: “deal[s] with counselors’ attitudes and beliefs about racial and ethnic minorities, the need to check biases and stereotypes, development of a positive orientation toward multiculturalism, and the way counselors’ values and biases may hinder effective cross-cultural counseling” (b) Knowledge: “recognizes that the culturally skilled counselor has good knowledge and understanding of his or her own woridview, has specific knowledge of the cultural groups he or she works with, and understands sociopolitical influences”  9 (c) Skills: “The last deals with specific skills (intervention techniques and strategies) needed in working with minority groups (it includes both individual and institutional competencies)” (p. 481). They combined the above three characteristics from the 1990 model and dimensions from the 1982 model to develop three-by-three (3x3) matrix model (See Appendix 1). They suggested this model with a total of nine cells as the conceptual framework to which most of the cultural competency can be organized and developed. Secondly, each of the nine cells contained CDs and a total of 31 CDs were developed and categorized under this matrix model. 12 original CDs from the 1982 model were increased to 31 in this 1992 model. Each CD contained in cells of the matrix was considered to elaborate on each cell of the competency matrix. Finally, they have acknowledged abstract and unrefined nature of their work. Sue et al. (1992) stated that At this time, attempts to add to or refine them [Italics added] would require massive investment of time and energy. Because of time constraints, we have chosen to (a) provide a conceptual framework from which these competencies can be organized and developed and (b) leave the task of tangible translations for future urgent work (p. 481). They stressed an urgent need and called for (a) concrete behavioural translations (operationalization) of the CDs and (b) conceptual extension and refinement of the model. The first task was accomplished by Arredondo et al. later in 1996. This paper aimed at accomplishing the second task.  Arredondo et al., (1996): Development of Operational Definitions Four years later in 1996, Arredondo et al. (1996) released a paper operationalizing each of the CDs originally articulated in the 1992 model. They developed an operational  10 definition of CDs by adding “explanatory statements” per each CD. Explanatory statements (ES5) were translations of CDs into concrete and measurable behavioural descriptions. A total of 31 CDs introduced in 1992 were operationally defined into 119 ESs. For example, a CD from the 1992 awareness component of MCC was translated into following ESs. CD: (an excerpt from Arredondo et al, 1996, pp. 57) Culturally skilled counselors believe that cultural self-awareness and sensitivity to one’s own cultural heritage is essential Explanatory statements: (examples) Can identify the culture(s) to which they belong and the significance of that membership including the relationship of individuals in that group with individuals from other groups institutionally, historically, educationally, and so forth. -  -  Careful observations of these ESs showed their attempts to translate otherwise abstract and ambiguous CDs into more concrete, observable, and measurable descriptions (through behavioural observations or self-report measures), and to make them transferable to training outcome descriptions. There were two notable features of this article relevant to the evolution of MCC model. First, this was the first and the only attempt to operationalize CDs. Prior to 1996, there had been no other attempt to operationalize the MCC. Secondly, since their ESs were concrete and measurable, their work had greatly stimulated and contributed to the development of various MCC measures. Secondly, another unique contribution made by the authors of this article was an integration of the MCC model with Arredondo & Glauner’s Personal Dimensions of Identity (PDI) model. The PDI model is an illustration of the complexity of elements which exists in one’s identity and views all individual as a multicultural being. The PDI model assumes several characteristics:  11 a) we are all multicultural individuals, b) we all possess a personal, political, and historical culture, c) we are affected by sociocultural, political, environmental, and historical events, and d) multiculturalism also intersects with multiple factors of individual diversity (p. 45). The significance of this model lies in the following three points. First, PDI attempted to view an individual as a multicultural being; this view is applicable to both minority and majority individuals. Secondly, PDI added a complexity to the term “multicultural” by including variables beyond race and ethnicity, therefore added complexity and breadth to the MCC model. Finally, PDI viewed multicultural nature as a normal part of human being, thus considered anyone of any race and ethnicity to be on an equal platform. The operationalization together with the PDI model added complexity, breadth, concreteness, and utility (from measurement perspective) to the existing model of MCC (Sue, et al., 1982; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 1990; Sue et al., 1992; Arredondo et al., 1996; Sue et al., 1998; Sue, 2001; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2003; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2008).  D. W. Sue et al., (1998): Addition of Three New CDs In 1998, Derald Wing Sue and his colleagues (1998) published a book entitled Multicultural Counseling Competencies: Individual and Organizational Development. In this book, they recited the 1992 matrix model and added the following three new CDs. •  The culturally skilled psychologist or counselor has knowledge of models of minority and majority identity, and understands how these models relate to the counseling relationship and the counseling process. added under Knowledge The culturally skilled psychologist or counselor can tailor his or her relationship building strategies, intervention plans, and referral considerations to the particular stage of identity development of the client, while taking into account his or her own level of racial identity development. added under Skills Culturally skilled counselors are able to engage in psychoeducational or systems intervention roles, in addition to their clinical ones. Although the conventional counseling and clinical roles are valuable, other roles such as the —  •  —  •  12 consultant, advocate, advisor, teacher, facilitator of indigenous healing, and so on may prove more culturally appropriate. added under Skills —  Additions of these three CDs made the model equipped with a total of 34 CDs. The newly added CDs were not operationally defined as these additions were conducted after the publication of Arredondo et al.’s operationalization work in 1996.  D. W. Sue, (200]a): Multiple Dimensions of Cultural Competence” (MDCC) Model In 2001, D.W. Sue published an article extending his model of MCC to a multidimensional model. It was an attempt to capture MCC at an individual, as well as professional, organizational, and societal levels. Almost after twenty years since the publication of his first model (Sue et al. 1982), the construct of MCC was expanded to add multiple layers. In this article, Sue (2001a) identified various challenges in MCC research including (a) lack of consensus among researchers in the definition of MCC, and (b) lack of a conceptual framework which helps us to organize the multidimensional facets and nature of MCC. Considering these challenges, Sue (2001a) offered a definition of MCC as well as a conceptual framework for MCC. He defined the MCC as... [Cultural competence is] the ability to engage in actions or create conditions that maximize the optimal development of client and client systems. Multicultural counseling competence is defined as the counselor’s acquisition of awareness, knowledge, and skills needed to function effectively in a pluralistic democratic society (ability to communicate, interact, negotiate, and intervene on behalf of clients from diverse backgrounds), and on an organizational/societal level, advocating effectively to develop new theories, practices, policies, and organizational structures that are more responsive to all groups (p. 802). This definition was developed based on his belief that to be culturally competent is to be an agent of social justice at an individual, as well as at professional, organizational, and societal levels. Individual level of competency was represented by three components of  13 awareness, knowledge and skills. Multidimensionality of MCC was also incorporated in this definition itself, which is conceptually visualized in his illustration of the “Multiple Dimensions of Cultural Competence” (MDCC) model (See Sue, 2001a). Theoretically, many features were notable in the MDCC model. First, this was a cube model enabling it to capture multiple dimensions of MCC for the first time. It consisted of 3 (components of cultural competence) x 4 (foci of cultural competence) x 5 (specific racial/cultural group perspectives) dimensions. The first dimension consisted of three components of individual cultural competence, namely (a) awareness of beliefs/attitudes, (b) knowledge, and (c) skills. These three components resembled ones suggested by previous 1982 and 1992 models EXCEPT two notable changes. First, beliefs/attitude component from 1982 model was re-labelled in the cube model as the awareness of beliefs/attitude, yet CDs under this component remained the same. Conceptual difference between beliefs/attitude and awareness was not clarified, thus still remained unclear. Secondly, three characteristics from the 1990 model by three dimensions from the 1982 model (3x3) matrix of MCC suggested by the 1992 model was ignored and not incorporated into this model. No rationale for this exclusion, conceptual re-examinations, and re-analyses of each component were provided in any of his writings (D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 1990; Sue et al., 1992; Arredondo et al., 1996; Sue et aL, 1998; Sue, 2001; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2003; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2008). The second dimension consisted of four differentfoci of MCC. As it was clearly indicated in his definition of MCC, it can and must be applied not only to an individual level, but also to all other levels of practice. Sue (2001a) asserted that MCC must (a) be incorporated in the level psychology as a profession and in the definition of psychology,  14 standard of practice, and ethical codes of conduct, (b) be reflected in the organizational level, challenging the monocultural policies, programs, structures, and practices, and c) be applied and reflected in a societal level of practice to stand against the ethnocentric monoculturalism, mainstream power to define reality, and Euro-American historical bias. The four foci of the MDCC help us organize barriers to achieving each level of MCC. This model also guides us to transcend the individual level of MCC to higher and broader areas of practice. The final dimension consisted of five different racial/cultural group perspectives on MCC. Sue (2001a) stated that... Accepting the premise that race, ethnicity, and culture are powerful variables in influencing how people think, make decisions, behave, and define events, it is not far-fetched to conclude that such forces may also affect how different groups define a “helping relationship” (p. 795). This dimension attempted to incorporate different perspectives which each racial/cultural group brings in viewing MCC. What is construed as “competent” in one racial/cultural group may not be the same among other groups. Sue utilized various examples to illustrate differences in viewing MCC that exist among different racial/cultural groups, such as differences in client expectations, physical settings, methods, modes of communications, degree of personal sharing, and role expectations in “helping relationship.” Sue raised a simple yet important question: “Do different racial/ethnic minority groups define cultural competence differently from one another?” This dimension of his model was an attempt to capture such differences in therapeutic/helping relationship styles. It highlighted the need to be sensitive to, aware of, and responsible for accommodating such differences to be culturally competent. Together with the other two  15 dimensions, the MDCC model consists of three dimensions and offers implications to a broader range of practice. The second notable theoretical feature of this model is that it did not incorporate the 1992 theoretical model. Evaluation of a theory can be made based on its capability to “entrench” or “encompass” as many phenomena and previous similar theories as possible (Kuhn, 1962). If the 2001 MDCC model was to be superior to the model suggested by Sue himself in 1992, he must have examined and incorporated the 1992 model into the MDCC model. Unfortunately, it was not attempted. Instead, the hybrid matrix model disappeared in the subsequent revisions. Finally, what constitutes the awareness of attitude/belief was not clearly defined, and the CDs under each component remained unchallenged. Again, there are many problematic conceptual consequences in changing the label of a component without reflecting the change in the CDs, which will be discussed in detail in Section 2.  D. W. Sue and D. Sue, (2003; 2008): The Latest Model One of the most often cited textbooks in the area of multicultural counselling and psychotherapy is Counseling the Culturally Diverse, now in its fifth edition written by D.W. Sue and D. Sue (2008). Its first edition was published by D.W. Sue alone in 1981, and the subsequent revisions in 1990 (2’’ edition), 1999 (3 edition), and 2003  (4th  edition) has been taking the leadership role in multicultural counselling theory, research and practice. The newest edition of the book contained a model of MCC which consists of the three components of awareness, knowledge and skills with CDs subsumed under each component. These 2003 & 2008 models were almost identical to the 1990 model,  16 except one new CD was added under the skills component. This textbook also made reference to the 2001 MDCC model. The model presented in the 2008 edition of the textbook is also identical to the 2003 edition.  Section Conclusion: Summary ofthe Models The theoretical/conceptual frameworks offered by D. W. Sue (Sue et al., 1982; D.W. Sue & D. Sue, 1990; Sue et al., 1992; Sue et al., 1998; Sue, 2001a; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2003; 2008), together with its components, CDs, and ESs (Arredondo et al., 1996) have stimulated subsequent development of MCC scales (e.g., LaFromboise et al., 1991; D’Andrea et al., 1991; Sodowsky et al., 1994; Ponterotto et al., 1994; Ponterotto et al., 2002; Kim et a!., 2003), numerous researches (e.g., Arthur & Januszkowski, 2001; Cates, Schaefle, Smaby, Maddux & LeBeauf, 2007; Coleman, 1998; Constantine, 2001; Constantine et al., 2002; Constantine & Ladany, 2000; Constantine et a!., 2004; Damell & Kuperminic, 2006; Fuertes et a!., 2001; Fuertes, 2002; Glockshuber, 2005; Goh, 2005; Holcomb-McCoy, 2000; Kocarek et al., 2001; Pope-Davis, Reynolds, Dings & Nielson, 1995; Robles-Piña, 2002; Sodowsky, Kuo-Jackson, Richardson & Corey, 1998; Vinson & Neimeyer, 2003; Wheaton & Granello, 1998; Worthington, Mobley, Franks & Tan, 2000), and training model developments (e.g., Abreu, Chung & Atkinson, 2000; Arredondo & Arciniega, 2001; Estrada, Durlak & Juarez, 2002; Robinson & Bradley, 1997). Currently, the awareness-knowledge-skill tricomponential model of MCC is widely accepted as the most dominant theoretical model in the area of MCC theory, research and practice (Sue et al., 1998; Sue, 2001a; Sue, 2003). However, this model has many conceptual problems and limitations, which will be discussed in the next section.  17 Section 2: Conceptual Problems and Limitations of the Tri-Componential Model  As is the case for almost all theories, many (e.g., Constantine et al., 2002; Constantine & Ladany, 2000; Dunn, Smith & Montoya, 2006; Fuertes & Gretchen, 2001; Holcomb-McCoy, 2000; Kim et al., 2003; Kitaoka, 2005; Kocarek et al., 2001; Lee & Damell, 2002; Ponterotto et al., 1994; Ridley et al., 1994; Sodowsky et al., 1994) have identified problems and limitations of the tricomponential model. These conceptual criticisms can be organized into the following three areas: (a) lack of consistencies in terms and definitions of multicultural counselling competency (MCC), (b) possibility of other components, and (c) lack of theoretical grounding.  Lack of Consistencies in Terms and Definitions ofMCC Interchangeability of Terms Used to Refer to Cultural Competency Ridley et al. (1994) pointed out that there is a lack of agreement in terms and definitions of MCC. While Sue’s model has been credited as the primer, others have also developed similar constructs referring to “cultural competency” but named dfferently (Christensen, 1985; Fuertes & Gretchen, 2001; Ridley et al., 1994). Ridley et a!. apprehended that such similar constructs blurred the exclusivity of Sue’s MCC construct. They stated, Cultural sensitivity has been variously defined. Many authors freely interchange the terms cultural sensitivity, cross-cultural competence [italics added], cross cultural expertise, cross-cultural effectiveness, cultural responsiveness, cultural awareness, and culturally skilled. This terminological jumble gives rise to the proliferation of hazy constructs with indeterminable meanings. Some of these terms seem highly related, and others, less so. However, they often appear in the multicultural literature as though they were synonymous. (125-126)  18 Ridley et a!. (1994) lamented that “continual inattention (to the inconsistency of the term) acts as a hindrance to the communication of ideas, the formulation of testable hypotheses, and the advancement of knowledge” (p. 126). Riley et al. cautioned that the proliferation of terms and variability in the use not only confused communications among researchers, but also hindered research processes. While it is reasonable to expect that different theorists assign different labels to capture their unique views of cultural competency, definitions and their composites can be also very different from one another. Many questions can be asked. Are these similarly named constructs different from one another or similar to a degree? What are the similarities and differences? Are these similar constructs capturing just a piece of MCC and identifying subsets of “complete” cultural competency? Are there any relationships between the constructs? Further conceptual examinations are due to answer these questions. It may be beneficial to explore such relationships between these similar constructs from conceptual (e.g., developing a unified theory/construct of MCC), as well as research (e.g., concurrent validity studies) points of view.  Definitional Variance and the Lack of Conceptual Rigor In addition to the inconsistencies in the use of terms referring to MCC, there is a significant inconsistency/variability in defining MCC (Constantine et al., 2004). The questions one can ask is, “How does each model define MCC?” “What does each definition entail?” “What are components, kinds, types, modes, dimensions, levels, layers, or aspects included in each model?” While Sue’s original 1982 model consisted of three components of attitude/belief, knowledge and skills, the subsequent 1990 model changed  19 its components to three characteristics: (a) counsellor awareness of own assumptions, values, and biases (awareness component), (b) understanding the world view of the culturally different client (knowledge component), and (c) developing appropriate intervention strategies and techniques (skills component). No explanations for the changes in components were given in the subsequent writings. The model is also suffering from a considerable lack of conceptual rigor. Revisions in 1992 combined the 1982 model (three components) with the 1990 model (three characteristics), making the matrix model of nine cells. Neither explanations nor a rationale was provided to describe their potential reasons or intent for combining the two models. This combination not only continued to fuel the definitional variance issue, but also implied significant conceptual problems. The combination yielded unclear cells which required further conceptual clarifications. Appendix 1 summarizes the conceptual questions one can ask to explore each cells of the matrix model. The following questions can be also asked for conceptual clarifications. a) What are the conceptual labels for each cell? b) Would some combinations yield components other than awareness, knowledge and skills (e.g., knowledge of knowledge = meta-knowledge as fourth component)? c) Is each cell independent sub-construct of its own (e.g., Knowledge of knowledge = meta-knowledge = new component different from the existing ones) or related to the existing components (e.g., Awareness of skills)? Problems hidden under this matrix were the lack of rationale for the combination, sound construct definition to specify the nature and characteristics of each these components, their exclusivity or inclusivity, and the nature of interrelatedness among these components. Conceptual problems of this model had many detrimental implications to research and practical applications. Currently no explanations were found in the  20 historical documents (Sue et al., 1982; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 1990; Sue et al., 1992; Arredondo et a!., 1996; Sue et al., 1998; Sue, 2001a; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2003; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2008) to clarify these points. It would have enhanced the conceptual rigor of the model if sufficient rationale was given to state the purpose of combining the two models, and conceptual definitions were given for each cell. Then, the model could have been used to explore the possibility of other components as products of the combination.  Impact on MCC Measures Definitional variance and the lack of conceptual rigor have been contributing to limitations in research. One of the primary areas which have been suffering from these issues is the MCC measurement studies. Major MCC measures were developed based on the 1982, 1992, and 1996 theoretical models. They include the Cross-Cultural Competency Scale (Pomales, Claiborn & LaFromboise, 1986), the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory—Revised (LaFromboise et al., 1991), the Multicultural AwarenessKnowledge-Skills Survey (D’Andrea et a!., 1991), the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale (Ponterotto & Potere, 2003), the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale—Form B (Ponterotto et al., 1994; Pope-Davis & Dings, 1994), the Multicultural Counseling Inventory (Sodowsky et al., 1994), the Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (Ponterotto et al., 2002), and the Multicultural Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills Survey-Counselor Edition-Revised (Kim et al., 2003) (Review and analyses of these measures will be offered in the Chapter 2). Virtually all developers and researchers of the MCC measures have been suggesting urgent conceptual re-examination, refinement, revision, re-conceptualization,  21  and reconstruction of MCC to enhance reliability and validity of these measures (e.g., Ponterotto et al., 1994; Sodowsky et al., 1994; Holcomb-McCoy, 2000; Constantine & Ladany, 2000; Worthington et al., 2000; Kocarek et al., 2001; Lee & Darnell, 2002; Constantine et al., 2002; Kitaoka, 2005; Dunn et al., 2006). It is reasonable to assume that the above definitional variance within the Sue’s model and the lack of conceptual rigor have contributed to the unaccountable measurement variances. Arredondo and Toporek 2004) suggested that “multicultural competency measurement and scale development has been ongoing since the mid-1980s. It is recommended that there be more consistency in the definition of constructs and their validity and the internal validity of the scales themselves” (p. 52). Construct refinement is urgently due.  Possibility of Other Components One of the most crucial problems of the MCC model is potential existence of hidden components other than the existing three. As previously indicated, many have explored and attempted to add new components to Sue’s tricomponential model. (e.g., Constantine & Ladany, 2000; Constantine et al., 2002; Constantine & Ladany, 2001; Constantine et al., 2004; Dunn et al., 2006; Holcomb-McCoy, 2000; Kitaoka, 2005; Kocarek et al., 2001; Lee & Darnell, 2002; Ponterotto et al., 1994; Sodowsky et al., 1994; Worthington et al., 2000) Based on their empirical studies on the Multicultural Counseling Inventory (MCI) scale, Sodowsky et a!. (1994) suggested that the fourth factor of Multicultural counselling relationship be added to the conceptualization of MCC. According to Sodowsky et al., multicultural counselling relationship refers to “the counselor’s interactional process with  22 the minority client, such as the counselor’s trust worthiness, comfort level, stereotypes of the minority client, and woridview” (p. 142). Sodowsky et al. stated “the multicultural counselling relationship factor reflects the interpersonal process of multicultural counseling” (p. 146). Similarly, based on their extensive review of the literature pertinent to MCC measures, Constantine and Ladany (2001) also suggested an alternative conceptualization of MCC which consisted of six components: (a) counsellor self awareness, (b) general knowledge about multicultural issues, (c) multicultural counselling self-efficacy, (d) understanding of unique client variables, (e) effective counselling working alliance, and f) multicultural counselling skills. Other suggested components found in the literature includes open-mindedness, flexibility, commitment to the field, active listening, commitment to social justice issues, and exposure to broad and diverse life experiences (Constantine et aL, 2004), curiosity and naiveté (Dyche & Zayas, 2001), counsellor ability to perform multiple roles depending on a client’s need (Atkinson, Thompson & Grant, 1993; Pope-Davis, Liu, Toporek & Brittan-Powell, 2001), ethnically matching the dyad, scientific mindedness, dynamic sizing, culture specific expertise (Sue, 1998), counsellor’s credibility, giving, normalization skill, (Sue & Zane, 1987), cultural empathy (Chung & Bemak, 2002; Dyche & Zayas, 2001; Ivey, Ivey & Simek-Downing, 1987; Ivey, Ivey & Simek Downing, 1993; Ridley & Lingle, 1996; Ridley & Udipi, 2002), ethnotherapeutic empathy (Parson, 1993a; 1993b), cultural role taking (Scott & Borodovsky, 1990), sociopolitical awareness (Robinson & Morris, 2000), culturally sensitive perceptual schema (Ridley et al., 1994), and many more. Evidently, there exists definitional variance  23 across different researchers, which calls for an urgent refinement of the theoretical framework to be able to entrench these other suggested components. While proliferation of suggestions for other components broadened the horizon of conceptualizing MCC, the construct continued to suffer from the lack of its clear componential boundaries and exclusivity, specifying what each component must and must NOT include. It may also become problematic if new components are kept being added to the model. It may lead to a definitional flooding and diffusion of MCC construct. It may end up being the case that anything can be a component of MCC. However on the other hand, if the construct covers too narrow of components, it would lead to a construct under-representation (Messick, 1989). What is necessary is an organizing framework general enough to “encase” various kinds of components, as well as stringent enough in defining what each subcomponent is and is NOT, and specifying their relationships or lack relationships to one another.  The Forgotten Attitude Component This paper explores the nature and role of attitude in MCC, aiming to add it as the fourth component. A careful and thorough examination of Sue’s historical models revealed a crucial question: Where did the original beliefs/attitudes component go? The original model did contain the beliefs/attitudes, yet subsequent revisions (in 1990 and 1992) changed the component into awareness. However, characteristic descriptions (CD5) included under the awareness component in the 1990 model were identical to the ones included under beliefs/attitudes component in the 1982 model. Many conceptual questions can be addressed pertinent to this change.  24 Why were the same CDs used/included to represent two different components Is there a conceptual difference between beliefs/attitudes and awareness? What is the nature of attitude? What is the nature of awareness? What CDs are included in the attitude/belief component? What CDs are included in the awareness component? Can there be a relationship between beliefs/attitudes and awareness components? 8. Can there be a relationship between beliefs/attitudes CDs and awareness CDs?  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  The core problem seemed to be that no conceptual distinction has been made between beliefs/attitudes and awareness by D. W. Sue in his historical writings (D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 1990; Sue et al., 1992; Arredondo et al., 1996; Sue et al., 1998; Sue, 2001; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2003; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2008). The “beliefs/attitudes” label has been used interchangeably with “awareness” component throughout his writings,. This lack of conceptual distinction had raised another crucial issue. Provided that enough explanations were given, is there a need to include the “forgotten” beliefs/attitudes component back into the model as another independent component? The role of attitude in MCC will be discussed and emphasized throughout this paper. Sue et al. (1992) emphasized the importance of counsellor awareness of own attitude (awareness x belief/attitude matrix). However, recent studies have indicated that a person’s attitude can be activated automatically without his/her awareness (Greenwald & Banaj i, 1995; Greenwald, Banaji, Rudman, Famham, Nosek & Mellott, 2002; Betsch, Plessner, Schwieren & Gutig, 2001). If this was the case, it would be challenging for a counsellor to be fully aware of his/her attitude. This finding implies the importance of examining and addressing counsellors’ implicit attitude as a part of developing MCC. Conceptually, it is also possible for a counsellor to have high awareness, knowledge, skills, but low or negative attitude. He/she can claim that “I am skillful,  25 knowledgeable, but highly aware of my strong biases and stereotypes I hold against clients from a certain raciallethnic group.” The counsellor has high self-awareness, knowledge, and skills, but still honestly claiming that he/she hold negative attitude. While such statements perfectly satisfy three conditions for MCC required by current components, the attitude component of the counselor is questionable, or even detrimental to his/her client. The core problem is that the awareness component does not always ensure positive/constructive cultural attitude of a counsellor. The presence of negative implicit or explicit attitude may “spill” to cause harm to clients seen by the counselor without the latter’s awareness. This would be a problem, posing the following questions: “Do we allow a counsellor to counsel client to whom he/she may or may not be holding a strong prejudice?” “Can we ensure the safety of clients just with the heightened awareness in such cases?” Therefore, we are required to take the step to include attitude component to address these issues, and to ensure and nurture counsellor attitude. In order to achieve this goal, a conceptual analysis of attitude will be conducted and roles it plays will be examined in the later section of this paper.  Lack of Theoretical Grounding The final criticism pertinent to the MCC research is a lack of theoretical grounding. Many authors have suggested a complex nature of MCC construct as well as overwhelming diversity of potential components and observables to be included under the construct. However, none had specified what should NOT be included in the definition of MCC, or inclusion and exclusion criteria for the construct, its components, and observables. As mentioned earlier, an over-inclusion of any component and  26 observable indicator would lead to an over-expansion and ultimately a diffusion of MCC construct. On the other hand, an over-simplification of the construct would lead to an under-representation of the construct, resulting in a shortage of testable observables or attributes and/or a decreased ability of the construct to account for potentially significant variables. Mollen et al. (2003) developed six criteria to evaluate various theories of MCC. One of the six criteria specified this balance between oversimplification and overcomplication of a construct. Mollen et al. directed that “a (theoretical) model strikes a balance between simplicity and complexity  Oversimplification detracts from the  operationalization that the field demands. Conversely, the model should not be overly complex. Overcomplexity creates more confusion than clarity” (p. 23). Considering the suggestions, construct of MCC and its components must be “entrenched” by specific criteria of inclusion and exclusion for observables. There are three psychometric concepts which seem useful in providing guidelines on “how” to develop the construct definition of MCC: (a) role of theory, (b) concept of nomological network, and (c) construct explication technique.  The Role of Theory The role of theory is suggested as an essential aspect of developing a construct definition (Benson, 1998; Clark & Watson, 1998; DeVellis, 1991; Netemeyer et al., 2003; Pett, Lackey & Sullivan, 2003; Rychlak, 1981; Simith, 2005; Walsh & Betz, 2001). According to the authors, theory has five roles in a construct development. First, theory is useful in defining a construct. Pett et al. (2003) suggested that the first step of construct definition is to define the very construct of interest. To aid this  27 process, Pett et al. recommended approaching the construct through different mediums, colloquial as well as technical uses, implicit as well as explicit meanings, and different “discipline angels” (e.g., questioning how construct is defined and operationalized in other disciplines). Secondly, theory is useful in specifying the composites of construct. Netemeyer et a!. (2003) suggested that a theory and a literature review should help us define clearly the construct including its essential facets, domains, and a priori construct dimensionality, which can be used as a guideline for the subsequent empirical analyses. Thirdly, theory is useful in specifying the scope of a construct. Various authors (e.g., Clark & Watson, 1998; DeVellis, 1991; Netemeyer et al. 2003; Pett et al., 2003; Simith, 2005; Walsh & Betz, 2001) consistently suggested that a good theory and a construct definition should clearly describe what the construct is and is NOT. Related to the scope of a construct are the ideas of construct underrepresentation and construct irrelevant variance. Messick (1989) explained construct underrepresentation as the case where “the test is too narrow and fails to include important dimensions or facets of the construct,” whereas construct irrelevant variance (he also called it as “surplus construct irrelevancy”) as the case where “the test contains excess reliable variance that is irrelevant to the interpreted construct” (p. 34). Netemeyer et al. (2003) stated that such situation can be avoided or the effect can be minimized through a careful and thorough literature review and theoreticaL/conceptual analyses of the construct. The conceptual development of MCC must follow this principle and clearly specify what it is and it is not, and what is does and does not include. The scope of the presenting new model will be discussed in the next section.  28 Fourthly, a theory is useful in specifying the level ofabstraction of a construct to be examined (e.g., general anxiety to more specific anxiety such as test or social). The point made here is that a judgment on the level of abstraction should be made in accordance with a purpose of the scale development (For what purpose should MCC construct be developed?) or intended user (For whom should MCC construct be developed?). Finally, as suggested by the role of literature review, theory is also useful in specifying empirical indicators.  The “Nomological Net” The idea of nomological net was first proposed by Cronbach and Meehl (1955). A “nomological net” is a psychometric concept illustrating a complexity of conceptualizing constructs and their relationships with observables andior with other constructs. It was metaphorized as a system of an interlocking relationship of constructs, their observables, other constructs and their observables. Cronbach and Meehi (1955) set out six fundamental principles underlying the “nomological net”. Principle 1 describes the nature and importance of a “nomological network” which was defined as “the interlocking system of laws which constitute a theory” (p. 290). With this principle, they emphasized place in the “net” where a particular theoretical construct of interest can situate itself, and underlying laws with which the construct can be related or unrelated to other constructs and observables. This principle implies the importance of making a construct of interest relevant, useful, and meaningful contribution to the science of psychology as whole by examining its position in the “universe” of constructs. As new constructs are being invented, Cronbach and Meehi  29 (1955) guided us to identify and determine the location of the new constructs. Many useful questions related to MCC can be derived from this principle. • • • •  What is MCC? Is MCC a new construct? What are the relationships, if there is any, between MCC and other constructs? What are its observables?  Principle 2 elaborates on relationships which exist in the nomological net in which “(a) observable properties or quantities [relate] to each other, (b) theoretical constructs [relate] to observables, or (c) different theoretical constructs [relate] to one another” (p. 290). This principle highlights the importance of specifying the relationships within the nomological net. Again many useful questions can be derived from this principle pertinent to MCC. • • • • • • •  Are there sub-constructs which fall under MCC? What are the components and observables of MCC? Are subcomponents mutually exclusive, or interrelated? Are subcomponents related to other observables, if so in what way? Does the MCC construct include some observables that are included under different construct? Is the construct of MCC part of or entails other constructs? Are those constructs within the MCC constructs?  Principle 3 states that in order for a construct to be “scientifically admissible,” it must situate itself in a nomological net and lawfully tied to its observables. This principle highlights the importance of “operationalizability” of a construct, so that the construct can be meaningfully measured, related to some constructs, and distinguished from others. The attempt to operationalize the construct has been made by Arredondo et al. (1996). Principle 4 states that “learning more about a theoretical construct is a matter of elaborating the nomological network in which it occurs.  . .“  (p. 290). In the same article,  Cronbach and Meehl (1955) used a word “sketching construct” to illustrate the gradual  30 and never-ending process of construct development and validation. Principle 4 highlights that a particular construct has its own level of sophistication or a scientific maturity. Scientifically immature construct is therefore has limitations with its conceptual clarity and validity, and with relationship principles with others. Some (e.g., Constantine & Ladany, 2001; Constantine et al., 2004) argued that MCC has reached it scientific maturity, while others (e.g., Patterson, 2004; Thomas & Weinrach, 2004; Vontress & Jackson, 2004; Weinrach & Thomas, 2002; Weinrach & Thomas, 2004) cautioned its immaturity, suggesting a further revisions to enhance its conceptual clarity and validity. Principle 5 highlights the conditions in which a new construct can be added. This principle specifies the need for a new construct to generate “nomological laws” which can be verified through observations or data. Alternatively, the construct needs to reduce the number of previous nomologicals in accounting for the same observations. This principle first highlights the falsfiability of a nomological net in that researchers should be able to use data from empirical observations to modify the parts or whole construct of MCC. This reminds us with the urgent need to reflect the result from the previous MCC measurement studies. The principle also highlights that the presenting new four componential model must be superior in entrenching broader observables as it is compared to the previous existing models. Followingly, the present paper incorporates previous findings of MCC measurement studies, and enhances the existing models to encompass more components (four components) and variables. Principle 6 emphasizes a possibility of “intersectionality” and “flexibility” among different operations among the nomological net. This suggests a possibility that two qualitatively different constructs can be related to each other. Furthermore, two different  31 observables can be tied to a same construct if such relationship makes sense theoretically and empirically. From a measurement perspective, this point grants us many insights, including a potential role of a clear construct definition and subcomponent specifications in foreseeing expected degree of inter-item or inter-factorial correlations. These conceptual information can be useful in providing conceptual rationale for employing a factor analytic method (exploratory vs confirmatory) or rotation methods (orthogonal vs oblique). The principle can be also interpreted as an attempt to leave a room for a construct to expand by discovering and including previously-undiscovered components of a construct. This paper acknowledges and attempts to incorporate an attitude component to the existing MCC model. Suggestions to be taken from the discussion of nomological net are very useful for further refinement and enhancement of MCC construct.  Development ofNomologically Sound MCC Construct through “Construct Explication” Technique Related to the concept of nomological net is a “construct explication” technique developed by Murphy and Davidshofer (1998). The construct explication technique is a three-step process in which test developers engage in the following tasks. 1) Identify the behaviours that relate to the construct to be measured 2) Identify other constructs and decide whether they are related or unrelated to the construct to be measured, and 3) Identify behaviours that are related to each of these additional constructs and, on the basis of the relations among constructs, determine whether each behaviour is related to the construct to be measured (p. 157). This technique can be considered as their attempt to elaborate the principle 2 of “nomological net” suggested by Cronbach and Meehl (1955). The principle highlighted  32 the importance of identifying subcomponents and observables of a construct with specifications of their relationships. As was urgently indicated by several theoreticians and researchers in the filed of MCC, nomologically sound (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) construct explication (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1998) of MCC is now urgently due. This paper will employ the construct explication techniques following the three-steps to refine and enhance the existing models of MCC. While historical writings on MCC specified its components and CDs, they failed to specify what each component is NOT, and which CDs each component must NOT include. Due to the lack of inclusion and exclusion criteria, it is likely that a component inadvertently includes component-irrelevant CDs. This can take many forms, for example, 1. A component may include CDs reflecting the other component (e.g., a CD included under the awareness component, in fact, reflects knowledge). 2. A component may include CDs reflecting completely new component (e.g., a CD included under awareness component, in fact, reflect attitude). 3. A CD is included under wrong component (e.g., A CD reflecting awareness is included in knowledge). These conceptual flaws could have resulted in a detrimental impact on the reliability and validity of existing MCC measures. Following the construct explication technique, this paper first reviews and identifies all the existing CDs and ESs from the previously developed MCC models by D. W. Sue. Then, conceptual analyses of attitude and other related concepts will be conducted. Conceptual re-examinations of the existing awareness, knowledge, and skills components will be also conducted. Four components of the presenting model will be elaborated with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, specifying which CDs and ESs to include or not include under each component. Previously existing pool of CDs and ESs will be then conceptually re-examined under the light of the four-componential  33 conceptualization of MCC, and re-categorized under each component. Finally, a full construct explication of the four-componential model of MCC with its refined CDs and ESs will be presented.  Section Conclusion In this section various problems and limitations of the existing models were presented. The analyses revealed a need to conduct conceptual refinement and enhancement of MCC. Three useful theoretical aids, the role of theory, nomological net, and construct explication technique were also introduced to guide the tasks throughout the present paper. Before moving onto refine the construct, some discussions regarding the scope of this paper and the intended area of coverage by the presenting four componential model is warranted. In developing a construct, there may be a misimpression that the construct is intended to be all-inclusive and almighty. This is not the case and unachievable. Clear specifications of limitations and scope of construct must follow to avoid such potential misimpressions. Next section of the chapter introduces and discusses various “frames of reference” through which the new model conceptualizes MCC and limits the scope of the model.  34 Section 3: Six Frames of Reference and the Scope of Paper and the Presenting Model  Section Introduction Six frames of reference will be presented, discussed, and utilized to limit the scope of this paper and the “entrenching” zone of the presenting model of multicultural counselling competency (MCC): (a) general vs MCC, (b) impact of context in constructing MCC, (c) perceiving vs perceived MCC, (d) construction of MCC across “time,” (e) the “theoretypes,” and (f) loci of MCC. It is hoped that the clear specifications of the scope and limitations of this model would avoid misunderstanding, misimpression, over and under applications of the presenting four-componential model of MCC construct. Furthermore, it is also hoped that the specifications will assist future refinement attempt by providing clear area of coverage and uncoverage.  Frame 1: Difficulty Dfferentiating Between General and MCC Does the presenting model attempt to capture MCC only, or general counselling competency altogether? The answer to this question requires an examination of the first frame of reference concerning a debate over general and multicultural counselling competency. Previous models of MCC did not succeed in offering clear conceptual differences between general and multicultural counselling competency. Some claimed that the MCC is a different kind of competency (e.g., Sue, 1998). Others considered it is the “fourth force” in counselling which encompasses general counselling competency (e.g., Pedersen, 2001; Speight, Myers, Cox & Highlen, 1991; Sue, 2001a; D.W. Sue & D. Sue, 2003). Others (e.g., Coleman, 1998; Goh, 2005; Vontress & Jackson, 2004)  35 suggested that general and MCC are the same, claiming that a good counsellor is a good counsellor, and “good” counselling skills are good “multicultural counselling skills.” This debate touches a deeper underlying conceptual issue concerning differences between general and multicultural counselling.  General and Multicultural Counselling Is multicultural counselling different from general counselling? What are defining elements of a general counselling and how are they different from those of a multicultural counselling? In turn, what are defining features of a multicultural counselling, and how are they different from those of a general counselling? To further complicate the issue, various terms has been invented to refer to so-called “multicultural counselling,” such as cross-cultural, transcultural, multicultural, diversity counselling, andlor multiracial/ethnic counselling. According to Vontress and Jackson (2004), cross-cultural counselling was defined as “a helping dyad or group consisting of at least one person who perceives him or herself to be culturally different” (p. 76). This simple yet broadly defined definition captured a perceived difference between a counselling dyad. The generality of this definition allowed it to capture a cultural difference that is not only limited to a cross-racial/ethnic difference, but also based on other cultural variables such as age, gender, and status. However, Speight et al. (1991) lamented that a “cross-cultural counseling.. .has been conceptualized and discussed in much narrower terms, referring primarily to the counseling relationship when the counselor is Caucasian and the clients is a member of a racial or ethnic minority group” (p. 29). It is possible that a multicultural counselling may  36 have been perceived to be focusing only on race/ethnicity variables in counselling. As a result, MCC research has been receiving a criticism (e.g., Weinrach & Thomas, 2002; Thomas & Weinrach, 2004; Weinrach & Thomas, 2004). Weinrach and Thomas (2004) cautioned that by focusing too much on racial/ethnic variable in a counseling relationship would lead to an ignorance of a broader array of issues that are potentially affecting client. They might have perceived that a multicultural counselling only encourage a counsellor to focus on racial/ethnic variable. However, this is not what experts in the area are really advocating. Clarification of the intent, visions and stance multicultural counselling researchers take must be clarified here.  Personal Cultural Identity Experts in the field of multicultural counselling also acknowledged the existence and importance of variables other than race/ethnicity in counselling process (e.g., Patterson, 2004; Vontress & Jackson, 2004). Ridley et al. (2001) and Coleman (2004) articulated that the focus on race as a crucial variable in and of itself is necessary, but not sufficient to capture the entire dimensions of one’s identity variables. Ridley et al. stated that, “it [counselling] must address multiple social identities and their unique intersection for each individual, organization, and society” (p. 830). Experts in the field have been construing a personal identity as a product of these multiple variables existent in an individual. Referring back to the Section 1 of this paper,  Arredondo and Glauner’s model of Personal Dimensions of Identity (PDI) (Arredondo et al, 1996) beautifully captured the multidimensional and multicomponential nature of a personal cultural identity. According to this model, everyone is viewed as a product of  37 multicultural variables, thus multicultural. It follows that when any two person forms a counselling dyad, it automatically becomes a cross-cultural under this model of cultural identity. If we accept these premises, every counselling relationship becomes “cross cultural,” as any dyad can never contain two individuals with identical multicultural identities. Similarly, many elements of culture identified by the PDI model were variables which makes two individual both similar and different. For example, if a counsellor is a Japanese heterosexual male, and a client is Polish homosexual man, then variables of ethnicity and sexual orientation make them different, at the same time the variable of sex makes them identical. If we construe an individual as a constellation of unique cultural variables, then everyone can become “multicultural” and any counselling relationships become multicultural. If we refer to only one variable of race by the term culture, then an individual can be classified as unicultural (e.g., Mongoloid). Dimensionality of culture (e.g., either multicultural or unicultural) entirely depends upon how we define a construct of culture.  The “Psychoculture” It is also worth noting here that one’s culturality changes depending on internal or externalframe of reference. One’s cultural identity changes depending on who defines it, whether the definer him or herself or others. One can define him!herself as Canadian born and raised Japanese homosexual male, at the same time perceived by others as Japanese male (of course this perception can change as others exchange conversations with him). There can be a difference between the perceiving and the perceived identity.  38 Ishiyama (2007) uses a term “psychoculture” to refer to “an internal or private culture (or cultural orientation) practiced by each individual”. He uses the term to differentiate perceived versus perceiving cultural identities. Ishiyama (personal communication, May 13, 2005) stated that, “for example, a Caucasian Protestant upper-middle class collegeeducated Irish-American person from Boston may have a very different cultural orientation, value system, and meaning making system from that of her social cohorts and family/community, after spending 15 years of living and practicing Buddhism in Tibet.” This description exemplifies well the multidimensional and multicomponential model of cultural identity proposed by Arredondo & Glauner’s PDI model. The term psychoculture identifies one’s internal construal of self as a multicultural being. This paper accepts premises proposed by both PDI model and Ishiyama’s psychocultural model that we are all multicultural beings.  General  Multicultural Counselling  We are now informed to move onto discuss the difference between general and multicultural counselling. As was stated before, it depends entirely on how we define culture and what we allow the definition to capture, that a counselling dyad becomes either cross-cultural or monocultural. If we define culture narrowly to refer to racial and ethnic variables only and if the dyad shares the raciality and ethnicity, it becomes monocultural. If we define culture narrowly to refer to racial and ethnic variables only and if the dyad does NOT share the raciality and ethnicity, it becomes cross-racial and cross-ethnic dyad. If we define culture broadly to include other variables, then every  39 counselling relationship between two multicultural individuals becomes multicultural dyad. However, counselling is a multivariate process and has multivariate counselling dyad. It is influenced not only by raciallethnic variables, but also other numerous variables (Weinrach & Thomas, 2002). Weinrach and Thomas (2004) stated that “client needs should not be assumed to be based upon group membership alone, but rather on the unique constellation of individual client characteristics, including but not limited to cultural distinctiveness” (p. 91). I agree. Even if there is a racially/ethnically matched dyad which can be construed as a “general” counselling relationship, other numerous variables are influencing the counselling dynamics than the single matched variable of race or ethnicity. For example, while matching in a racial/ethnic variable, a dyad can also mismatch in a sex variable thus becomes cross-sexual counselling. Furthermore, mismatches in other variables such as age, religion, SES, educational level, language and social class would make the dyad cross-age, cross-religious, cross-SES, cross-educational, cross-linguistic, cross-social class counselling dyad. Many, if not all, of such variables influence counselling contents and processes. Appendix 2 depicts such constellations of variables operating within and between the dyad. This diagram depicts complexity and multiculturality of individuals consisting the counselling dyad. In this sense, any general counselling relationship entails numerous variables, which can be construed as elements of “culture.” If we relax the definition of “culture” to include such multiple variables, the multivariate nature of general counselling relationship becomes no different from multicultural counselling dyad. Pedersen (1991) stated that by defining culture broadly to include demographic variables (e.g., age, sex, place of residence) status variables (e.g., social, educational, economic) and —  40 affiliations (formal and informal), as well as ethnographic variables such as nationality, ethnicity, language, and religion the construct “multicultural” becomes generic to all counselling relationships. (p. 7) —  It all depends ofthe inclusively ofa definition ofculture: What variables we allow it to capture or not. Under the light of PDI and Ishiyama’s psychocultural model, this  paper assumes that every individual is a multicultural being. It follows that the paper assumes any counselling relationship built between two individuals will be crossmulticultural counselling dyad. A simple term, multicultural counselling dyad, will be used to encapsulate the constellation of multiculturality within and between the two individual formulating the dyad. The term multicultural will be used throughout this paper to refer to and highlight the unique constellation of variables that exists within an individual which makes up his/her unique personal identity, as well as multiple variables that make a counselling dyad similar and different. The term, culture, will be used in this paper to refer simply to variables which make the dyad similar as well as different. Under this model, a general counselling dyad is thus viewed as being fused or entailed within a multicultural counselling dyad that both are viewed as the identical under the model. This position raises another challenge. If the terms, general and multicultural counselling, are identical, then why use the term multicultural in stead of general counselling? Answer to this question calls for a discussion of another frame of reference, the impact of a context.  41 Frame 2: Impact of Context in Constructing MCC Dfferent Culture  =  Dfferent MCC  The second frame of reference highlights the importance of context in defining MCC. Where is the presenting model of MCC valid? A definition of MCC varies depending on where and what context it is defined in. This contextual factor takes two forms. First, the construct definition of MCC can vary depending on where it is defined. Multiculturally competent counsellor in Canada may not be so in Japan, Europe or in the United States. Considering every culture has its own unique mentality (McLaren, 1998), ways of interacting and communicating (Hall, 1966; Hall, 1976), customs, conventions, and languages (Hunt & Agnoli, 1991; Whorf, 1956), it is realistic to assume that elements constituting a cultural competency change from culture to culture. In his presidential address article, Paul Heppner (2006) bravely shared a beautiful personal narrative illustrating how a culturally competent behaviour in a culture (being able to hold and use ca set of chop sticks well) can be practiced to be perceived as disrespectful in another culture and context. He shared his story of a dinner table experience with his Chinese colleagues from Beijing Normal University. His Chinese colleagues, the vice president from the university and the dean, kept dishing out foods to Heppner’s plate as he ate. Being competent in using chopsticks himself, Heppner asked his interpreter to express to his Chinese colleagues that he is self-sufficient in brining a food to his own dishes by himself. Later on, he invited a feedback from his Chinese colleagues as to whether he behaved in a culturally incompetent manner. His colleague kindly pointed out to him that “when someone puts food on your plate, it is a sign on  42 respect, a way of honoring you” (Heppner, 2006, p. 151). He shared how glad he felt by learning this cultural practice at the same time embarrassed to have behaved in a disrespectful manner. This personal narrative teaches us many valuable points. • • • • • • • • •  It is so quick to assume others behaviour through our cultural filter and perceptions. A behaviour perceived as competent in one culture does not guarantee to be received as so in other cultures. We often need different sets of skills to be competent in other cultures. One can engage in a well-intended behaviour, but can be received as opposite. One can engage in a culturally incompetent behaviour outside of one’s awareness. Developing a cultural competency is a never-ending process, which can be sometimes quite embarrassing and uncomfortable. Developing a cultural competency can be very enjoyable, rewarding and enriching to one’s personhood and being. Developing a cultural competency requires one to be humble in their position. It is admirable to be able to be open and flexible enough to learn from the mistake (and successes) in the experiences.  This personal narrative touched on the importance of awareness (whether in or outside of his awareness), knowledge (table manner in Chinese culture), and skills (chopstick use) components of the existing MCC. However, it just required different kind of cultural competency. One more crucial component to highlight is the exact theme of this paper, his attitudinal competency (being open, flexible, and humble) which allowed him to learn from the rich cultural experience. As a globalization progresses and our world becomes closer to each other, we would need different sets of cultural competency depending on a certain cultural context. The choice of the term, multicultural competency (as opposed to a general counselling competency, in this paper carries a hope for the future for the presenting framework to be more inclusive to include other models on cultural competency from  43 other cultures. It is hoped that the presenting model will become more and more multicultural and global multicultural competency model (See Appendix 3). However, the radii (range of applicability) the presenting model attempts to entrench is limited to a counselling context in either Canada or the United States. It does NOT claim its universal applicability, yet. It does NOT claim its applicability to other setting such as multicultural teaching, group, and organizational competency. It does NOT claim its applicability in other cultures, as they would require different sets of competencies. Having said, its modifications and applications to another settings and contexts can be beneficial. They would require different theoretical questions which are beyond the scope of this paper.  Culture in Counselling, Counselling in Culture Cultural can be also discussed in different context levels. Appendix 4 illustrates these changes in the construal of culture. When culture is construed in a counselling context, it becomes micro-variables captured by previously discussed Ishiyama’s psychocultural or the PDI model. On the other hand, when it is used to refer to a context, then it becomes either global healing culture context or local (Japanese) cultural context. The notion of culture changes depending on this context level as well. In introducing the Japanese Morita Therapy, Ishiyama (in press) uses an expression “Morita therapy in counselling and counselling in Morita therapy,” to highlight the importance of the impact of context in conceptualizing Morita Therapy (either as a deliverable technique as opposed to a context). This expression brilliantly highlights that a term can be used to refer to two different level of abstraction. When a counselling becomes the context (Morita Therapy in counselling), the essence of the  44 Japanese Morita therapeutic intervention can be incorporated into the counselling session. On contrary, when Morita therapy becomes the context (counselling in Morita Therapy), counselling microskills technique can be incorporated in the traditional Japanese Morita therapy methods. A term, Morita Therapy, can become both context as well as microtechniques. Similarly, the notion of culture can become both context and micro-variables. By drawing an analogy to Ishiyama’s expression, “counselling in culture, culture in counselling” can be derived. Each construal level of culture yields different types of cultural competency. If one accepts the notion of culture as micro-variables in counselling context, then cultural competency refers to a counsellor’s ability to take cultural variables into account when counselling a culturally diverse. If one accepts broader notion of culture as a global healing context, cultural competency then refers to healer’s ability to utilize different systems of healing, including counselling, to better suit the needs of the healed. If one accepts broader notion of culture as a local cultural context, cultural competency then refers to healer’s ability to acquire different sets of cultural competency in that cultural context. Again, the contextual level influences how we can construe culture and MCC. In this paper, culture is viewed as a micro-variable influencing counselling context. Once again, it would be invaluable to explore and develop model of MCC in a global/local healing context. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper.  45 Frame 3: Perceiving and Perceived MCC Counsellor Perception and Client Perception ofMCC The third frame of reference deals with the issue of perceiving and perceived MCC. Various researchers identified that MCC has been traditionally construed from a counsellor or counsellor educator point of view. Therefore, there is a lack of sufficient research exploring clients’ perception of MCC (Fuertes et al., 2001; Pope-Davis et al., 2001). It is indeed reasonable to assume that there is a difference between how a counsellor perceives his/her competency and how his/her culturally diverse clients view it. Further quantitative and qualitative research is due to explore the differences. The explorations and discussions of clients’ perceptions of MCC are beyond the scope of this paper. It focuses on MCC from a reference point of the counsellor, counsellor educator, and researchers in the field of multicultural counselling. This frame of reference is also useful in exploring cultural identities of the counsellor and client. A counselling dyad consists of a counsellor and a client. It is possible to expect following pairs in multicultural counselling dyad: Mainstream counsellor counsellor  —  —  minority client, mainstream counsellor mainstream client, minority -  mainstream client, and minority counsellor  —  minority client. These  combinations of a counselling dyad vary depending on who perceives the cultural status of both counsellor and client. The point being that different counselling dyad may require a counsellor to possess different MCC. If a counsellor is of mainstream background who has never traveled to another country, then s/he may need a training to develop cultural self-awareness, knowledge skills to effectively work with culturally diverse clients. If a counsellor is of racial/ethnic minority background and has immigrated to Canada one-  46 year ago from Japan, then he/she may need more general training in language, western counselling techniques, and development of awareness of their cultural identity as it affects his/her interaction with clients. Again the construct of MCC changes by the function of cultural identity and background of a counsellor. It is also possible that a perceived counsellor competency by a client also differs depending on the client’s cultural identity and background. The presenting model is based on the premise that all individuals are multicultural and the culture is viewed as micro-variables affecting the counselling process. Under this model, no distinctions are made between mainstream and minority, although the issue of perceived and perceiving is taken into a consideration. The presenting MCC model will be developed to be applicable to both mainstream as well as racial/ethnic minority counsellors. Furthermore, the term multicultural counselling competency is chosen in this paper with the hope that the model would develop to increase its coverage radii to include universal MCC model (See Appendix 3). If that is achieved, then, any global healer, regardless of racial/ethnic majority and minority status, can and must acquire the MCC to be globally multiculturally competent.  Frame 4: Construction ofMCC across “Timeline” MCC in Different Phases of Counsellor Development and Service Delivery The fourth frame of reference illustrates how construct and indicators of MCC can vary depending on what point in time it is being captured through different stages of counsellor development and service delivery. There are many phases a counsellor proceeds through his/her career and development of MCC. He/she first goes through an  47 extensive training (indicating training phase) to become a counsellor (which continues throughout his/her career). Then he/she prepares for a counselling session (pre-session preparation phase), engages in the actual counselling process to provide the services to clients (counselling process/service delivery phase), and yields a certain outcome, which needs to be reflected and evaluated constantly (counselling outcome evaluation phase). Considering the existence of this multiple phases in counsellor development and service delivery, it is possible to construct MCC per each phase yielding four-phased MCC model: (a) a training phase MCC, (b) a pre-session preparation phase MCC, (c) a counselling process/service delivery phase MCC, and (d) a counselling outcome evaluation phase MCC. It is also reasonable to expect that different phase MCC would contain different composites and indicators. To complicate the matter further, there are also pre-training variables such as a counsellor’s personality characteristics. What kinds of personality characteristic variables are desirable for someone to become a multiculturally competent counsellor or counsellor trainee? Constantine et al. (2004) have conducted a qualitative research exploring twelve multicultural counselling scholar’s perspectives on aspects of being a multiculturally competent counsellor. The result revealed identification of personality characteristics that multiculturally competent counsellor possesses. These included “being open-minded, flexible, committed to multicultural work, an active listener, knowledgeable and aware of cultural issues, skillful in making cultural interventions, committed to social justice issues, self-aware, and exposed to broad and diverse life experiences” (Constantine et al., 2004, p. 387). Constantine et al. also indicated that while these personality characteristic variables are of significant importance, very few have explored these issues. Constantine  48 et al. concluded by stating the importance of exploring the role of personality characteristic variables in MCC training and multicultural counselling process. They also highlighted the potential to cultivate such characteristics through MCC training. This research result adds the importance of pre-training counsellor personality characteristic variables to the four-phase MCC model discussed earlier. Ridley et al. (1994) guided that development of specific indicators of cultural competency through operationalization must take three forms: operationalization of “(a) cognitive abilities, attitudes, or knowledge that provide the prerequisite foundation for culturally responsive behavior; (b) actions that are synonymous with culturally responsive behavior, and (c) the effects that counselors trained in cultural sensitivity have on client perceptions, behavior, and evaluations” (p. 126). What Ridley et al. identified is the need to operationally differentiate indicators of MCC across the continuum of “time,” beginning from pre-training or pre-session counsellor personality characteristics indicators of MCC, counselling process/service delivery phase indicators of MCC, to counselling outcome evaluation phase indicators of MCC. What personality characteristics must a counsellor trainee have as pre-requisites to develop MCC? What does a multiculturally competent counsellor do to prepare for his/her session? How do we know and what can we observe to determine that he/she is being multiculturally competent during the session? What can be observed or measured to determine whether he/she produced multiculturally competent outcomes after the session? Construction of MCC and its indicators across this “timeline” complicates but enriches the theoretical model of MCC.  49 However, not enough attention has been paid to differentially examine the construction and operationalization of MCC in this chronological way (Pope-Davis, Liu, Toporek & Brittan-Powell, 2001). Careful examination of Sue’s model revealed that competencies and CDs are a mixture of these preparatory, counselling process and outcome competencies without clear distinctions. This lack of differential examinations provides important further directions and breadths to the theory, research, and practice of MCC. This differential examination is however beyond the scope of this paper. The presenting model attempts to encompass three phases of MCC: (a) a counsellor personality characteristic variable (namely attitudinal characteristic), (b) training phase, and (c) counselling process/service delivery phase MCCs. The counselling outcome evaluation phase MCC is beyond the scope of this paper and the presenting model.  Frame 5: The “Theoretypes” The Theoretype The fifth frame of reference introduces different theoretypes of a construct, their unique differential functions, and discusses their relevance to the construct of MCC. Joseph Rychlak (1981) introduced four types of construct: (a) structural constructs, (b) motivational constructs, (c) time-perspective constructs, and (d) individual differences constructs. The first two of which are of particular relevance to the present paper. Structural construct. In exploring the construct ofpersonality, Rychlak (1981, p. 31) asked a question, “What is the structure of personality?” In this structural view, a certain construct is viewed as a static entity which has its composites. The construct can be viewed either as the most fundamental irreducible elementary unit or as the sum of  50  such units. Basic units can be organized hierarchically from concrete to abstract, or horizontally with or without relationships among each other. This structural view is very similar to the laws of the nomological net (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) as discussed earlier. This structural view helps us ask the following conceptual questions relevant to the MCC construct development. • • • • • • •  What are the internal structures, or components of MCC? Is MCC construct unidimensional or multidimensional? (Dimensionality) If the construct is unidemensional, what are the manifestations (indicators, operational definitions) of MCC? If the construct is multidimensional, what are the composites of the construct? Are such composites related or independent to each other? Does the organization of composites imply concrete-to-abstract relationships (implying supra- or subordination of components)? Does the organization of composites imply horizontal relationships (implying no supra- or subordination)?  Answers to these conceptual questions through careful construct analyses would not only yield a rich explication of the construct, but also reveal useful information to guide us in developing MCC measures and conducting the data analysis (e.g., providing conceptual rational for factor analyses and rotation methods). Previous models of MCC are of this structural nature, providing its components, namely awareness, knowledge, and skills. Although they lacked clear construct explication, they did offer rich array of characteristic descriptions (CDs) and explanatory statements (ESs). They provided bases for various MCC measures. The essence of structural view will be incorporated into the presenting model through the development of construct explication for its components. Motivational (Dynamic) construct. In exploring the construct of personality  Rychlak (1981) also asked a question, “How does the personality structure get underway in behavior and why (p. 31)?” In this motivational view, a certain construct is viewed as a  51 dynamic entity which generates “energy” or “forces” (e.g., heat or light in a physical sense, passion or motivation in a psychological sense). In this view, a particular construct is viewed as the very source of energy which gives rise to a certain behaviour or mental processes. Examples of such dynamic constructs in psychology includes instinct, libido, affect/emotion, drive, motivation, and the very focus of this paper, attitude. Previous models of MCC contained three components of MCC which were all structural in nature. The presenting model attempts to add attitude component to dynamically fuel existing construct of MCC. Attitudinal variables such as open-mindedness, willingness, curiosity, interests, and passion, have the very energy fueling property which offers dynamic component to the existing MCC construct. The notion of theoretype helps us recognize the structural nature of the existing models of MCC, and highlights the importance of adding the attitude component from the dynamic point of view.  Frame 6: Loci ofMCC There are many variables contributing to a counselling process and outcome. In constructing a counselling competency, it is possible to construe it in different loci where it resides: (a) counsellor competency, (b) client competency (e.g., language, help-seeking attitude, expectation), (c) interactional competency (e.g., absence or presence of rapport, therapeutic alliance), and (d) contextual/environmental competency (e.g., settings, room arrangements). This paper focuses on counsellor competency and the other competency loci are beyond the scope of this paper. Interactional competency variables such as rapport or therapeutic alliance will be framed from the counsellor’s ability to develop  52 rapport or therapeutic alliance, as opposed to objective observations of the presence and absence of such.  Section Conclusion Six different frames of reference were presented in the section to limit the discussion of the present paper. It is also an attempt to clarify what this model can and cannot capture with its theoretical/conceptual framework. Various frames of reference also helped us ask many useful conceptual questions to enrich the further task of construct explication. Lastly, various frames of reference also helped us to take positions in developing a new model. For example, with regards to the choice between the term general counselling competency and MCC, the paper clarified its stance and chose the term MCC. It was based on the hope that one day the range of applicability of MCC will increase to include global healing competency. Heppner (2006) stated that... I will maintain that increased cross-cultural competence will increase the sophistication of our research and expand the utility and generalizability of the knowledge bases in counseling psychology. Moreover, greater cross-cultural competence will promote a deeper realization that counseling occurs in a cultural context and will increase not only counseling effectiveness but also the profession’s ability to address diverse mental health needs across different populations around the globe (p. 148). He continued that “moreover, the complexities of the problems around the globe demand a wide array of problem-solving perspectives that cross disciplines and cultural boundaries” (p. 152-153). “Many of the societal needs of the new millennium are multidimensional and cross national boundaries, which subsequently necessitate cross national collaborations” (p. 153). I also believe that the MCC theory, with its capacity to  53  include general counselling competency, research and practice has much to offer in a global field in the future. Finally, D. W. Sue (2001b) stated, As I have gotten older, perhaps not wiser, I view my role in the cultural competency dialogue as framing ideas and concepts that challenge much of what I have learned from my monocultural education. Thus, I leave it to colleagues to wrestle with the research and conceptualizing that may help us one day to have a holistic definition of cultural competence (p. 853). It is also with this spirit of D. W. Sue and honour that the present paper attempts to refine and expand the theoretical mode to enhance the conceptual rigor, empirical validity and practical utility of the existing model. Next section begins the process by examining the nature and role of attitude as the fourth component.  54 Section 4: Conceptual Analysis of Attitude and Other Related Constructs  Conceptual Analysis ofAttitude. This section begins the process of construct refinement and enhancement by exploring the nature and role of attitude. During the past two decades of research on attitude in the area of social cognition, there seemed to be no universal agreement on a single definition of attitude (Ajzen, 2001; Chaiken & Stangor, 1987; Eagly, 1992; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Olson & Zanna, 1993; Petty, Wegener & Fabrigar, 1997; Tesser & Shaffer, 1990; Wood, 2000). However, a comprehensive review and careful analyses of the past researches revealed that an attitude is a complex psychological construct containing multidimensional characteristics and processes.  Componential View ofAttitude Many researchers have reported that an attitude has its components (e.g., Chaiken & Stangor, 1987; Olson & Zanna, 1993; Tesser & Shaffer, 1990). The term intra attitudinal structure is often used to refer to such composites. Some (e.g., Edwards, 1957) indicated that an attitude is one’s affective orientation toward a certain object, while others (e.g., Katz & Stotland, 1959; Triandis, 1971) suggested its multiple (affective, cognitive and behavioural) components. The tricomponential model of attitude seemed to have been one of the most common models in the 1960s (Greenwald, 1968; Katz & Stotland, 1959). The tripartite model suggested that an attitude has affective (emotions), cognitive (ideas, beliefs, or opinions), and behavioural (action or action tendencies) components, and each is associated with a varying degree of evaluative dimension  55 (Greenwald, 1968). Triandis (1971) also supported this tricomponential conceptualization, consisting of cognitive (idea), affective (emotion), and behavioural (predisposition to action) components.  Psychological Theoretical Accounts for Attitude One of the most integrative theoretical models of attitude based on this tricomponential model is the one developed by Greenwald (1968). He conceptualized that various componential views of attitude previously developed were elements consisting a larger theoretical/conceptual framework of attitude. To his contribution, Greenwald integrated four areas of psychological theory to offer accounts for formative processes, intra-structure of attitude, and the relationships between components; (a) learning theory, (b) behavior theory, (c) theory of cognitive information processing, and (d) theory of component interaction. According to Greenwald, “learning theory offers an account of the process involved in storing the residues of direct and symbolic experience with an attitude object as habits, cognitions, and emotions” (p. 364). Greenwald further divided the learning process into three classes of learning process through which each of the attitude components (habits, cognitions and emotions) can be formed. He conceptualized that one’s behavioural component of habit were formed based on instrumental learning (e.g., reward or punishment for responses to attitude object). One’s cognition (cognitive) component of attitude was formed based on cognitive learning via cognitive information processing from exposure to verbal communication. Finally, Greenwald conceptualized  56 that affective emotional component of attitude was formed by the mechanism of classical conditioning from paring of attitude object with affective stimulus. Greenwald explained the rest of the three theories as follows. 1. “Behavior theory accounts for performance as a function of learned habits, cognitions, and emotions, in combination with current stimulus conditions.” 2. “Theory ofcognitive information processing explains the transformations in information input that occur prior to information storage as the cognition component of attitude.” 3. “Theory ofcomponent interaction explains the transformations that occur in attitude components (particularly cognitions) subsequent to storage 364365). (p.  The four systems of psychological theory were integrated under Greenwald’s model and offering an account for the following: (a) formative processes, (b) intervening variables, (c) three components of attitude with their relationships, and (d) mechanisms of attitude response emission. It is notable that the three components of attitude are viewed as also responses (response manfestations ofcomponents) under this model.  Criticisms from Attitude Measurement Studies Despite the popularity of this tri-componential model, it has received criticisms from empirical studies. Chaiken and Stangor (1987), Eagly and Chaiken (1993), and Eagly and Chaiken (1998) reported various studies exploring factors as well as covariance structure of attitude and attitude components. They have concluded that there are inconsistencies in findings supporting the tricomponentiality of internal attitude structure. They also suggested that the intra-structure of attitude and the relationship between attitude components vary depending on other variables such as the sophistication of researchers’ LISREL programs used, characteristics of attitude objects, andJor the domain(s) studied. For example, Chaiken and Stangor stated that people are more likely  57 to respond to an abstract attitude object at a conceptual level, thus the intra-structure of his/her attitude toward such an abstract object maybe primarily unidimensional (cognitive). They concluded that “a definitive judgment on the three- (or two-) versus one-dimensional issue seems premature..  .“  (Chaiken & Stangor, 1987, p. 578).  Commonalities of Characteristics across Various Models ofAttitude Despite of the inconsistencies in findings supporting the componentiality of intra attitudinal structure, there are some common characteristics of attitude consistently identified by various theoretical models of attitude. Three classes of attitudinalfactors. First of which is the commonality among the researchers to identify three classes of attitudinalfactors: affect, cognition and behaviour. Based on their review of previous theoretical models, Olson and Zaima (1993) identified that many seem to capture affective, cognitive, and behavioural as antecedents (formative sources) of attitude, as previously identified by Greenwald (1968). Olson and Zanna also observed that the affect, cognition and behaviours were being captured as the consequence or products (components) of attitude formation. Olson and Zanna concluded by suggesting that the previously construed three components of attitude maybe the correlates of attitude, and the attitude is another independent cognitive entity. The latent process model ofattitude. Three components of attitude were also construed as responses. Recent development of a latent process model (LPM) of attitude (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Oskamp, 2005) regarded the components as three manfestations or evaluative response classes. Under this model, an attitude is considered as a separate cognitive entity (a latent trait) which gives rise to three attitude responses  58 (attitudefunctions). The attitude as a latent trait can be only inferred from its three observable manifestations or evaluative response classes (Eagly, 1998). Eagly and Chaiken (1993) stated as follows: Like other hypothetical constructs, attitudes are not directly observable but can be inferred from observable responses. The relevant observations are responses that are elicited by certain stimuli. As a general strategy in psychology, when certain types of responses are elicited by certain classes of stimuli, psychologists infer that some mental state (e.g., mood, emotion, attitude) or disposition (e.g., personality trait) has been engaged. It is this state or disposition that is said to explain the covariation of stimuli and responses (p. 2). Conceptual solutions to the lack ofconsistency in empiricalfinding. Considering the lack of consistent empirical evidences, it maybe useful to temporarily conceptualize attitude as a latent trait. This psychometric conceptualization has theoretical and empirical utilities. Theoretically the LPM has a conceptual capability to “entrench” existing theoretical frameworks and all the componentiality and dimensionality of attitude. The model is different from the Greenwald’ s depiction that the LPM does not assume three components of attitude. They were viewed as three responses emitted from attitude. Empirically, the latent process model allows more flexible analyses of three classes of attitude response. Being construed as three separate evaluative response classes, independent from one another and attitude (latent trait), the LPM model does not necessitate a degree of covariance relationships among the three classes of response. On the other hand, previous tricomponential view required some degree of relationship between to be conceptualized under a construct of attitude (Oskamp, 2005). The LPM allowed us to explore the components and their relationships among and with other variables with more freedom and independence.  59 This freedom and independence in capturing attitude has an implication to developing a theoretical model. A question has been raised as to whether every attitude must have three classes of responses (Oskamp, 2005). Under the LPM, all three classes of responses do NOT always have to be present as an attitude function as they are construed as independent “responses” with no expected relationships. One can only observe one, two or three responses depending on an attitude object that elicit responses under this model. When individuals display their attitude toward a highly conceptual and abstract issue, they may express their attitude through cognitive response (e.g., opinion) only, which does not require other affective or behavioural responses. The LPM allows such single path expression of one’s attitude. On the other hand, other models must require simultaneous presence of one (unitary view), two (affecto-cognitive view) or three (tricomponential view) classes of attitude components with some degree of expected relationships (covariance). From this perspective the LPM is superior to other models in its utility, flexibility, and conceptual capability to account for the phenomena. Attitude as readiness to respond. The other commonality among various models of attitude is the construal of attitude as a state of readiness for responses (Greenwald, 1968; Triandis, 1971; Oskamp, 2005). The classic definition offered by Gordon Allport (1935) stated that “an attitude is a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual’s response to all objects and situations with which it is related” (p. 810). This definition captures attitude as the response readiness and possesses energy-fueling property that propel one to engage in responses. Attitude predisposes one to emit responses.  60 Evaluative nature ofattitude responses. The other commonality is that attitude and attitude responses are considered to be evaluative in nature (Eagly, 1992). Eagly and Chaiken (1993) viewed attitude as a “psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating [italics added] a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor” (p. 1). Eagly and Chaiken defined that “evaluative responses are those that express approval or disapproval, favor or disfavor, liking or disliking, approach or avoidance, attraction or aversion, or similar reactions” (p. 3). Ajzen (2001) also identified that the evaluative dimensions can take any forms such as good-bad, harmful-beneficial, pleasant-unpleasant, and likable-dislikable. The directionality of evaluative responses is termed valence, while the strength of evaluation is termed intensity or extremity of evaluative responses. Recent studies (e.g., Bohner & Wänke, 2002; Priester & Petty, 2001; Wilson, Lindsey & Schooler, 2000) also showed the evidence of ambivalent attitudes (or termed “dual attitudes”) containing two opposing attitudes towards an attitude object in an orthogonal fashion. This suggests that a person can hold two attitudes towards an attitude object. Furthermore, Wood (2000) also offered a comprehensive review of the notion of multiple attitudes, which suggests that a person can hold multiple attitudes toward a given entity. Attitude object. Attitude has its object (termed attitude object) to which subject’s affective, cognitive, and behavioural evaluative responses are directed. Eagly (1992) stated that “the entity in question, commonly known as the attitude object can be anything that is discriminated by the individual”  (p.  693). Each attitude object can also  vary in abstract-concreteness (Bohner & Wänke, 2002; Eagly, 1998). Heritability ofattitude. Some studies (e.g., Olson, Vernon, Hams & Jang, 2001; Tesser, 1993) suggested that attitudes are, to a large degree, heritable. Others suggest that  61 the positivity and negativity of attitude is biologically influenced, yet an attitude formation requires either direct or indirect experiences with attitude objects. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) asserted that “an individual do not have attitude until they first encounter the attitude object and respond evaluatively to it on an affective, cognitive, or behavioural basis” (p. 2). This supports the theoretical framework of attitude formation suggested by Greenwald (1968). Automaticity ofattitude. One last, yet crucial characteristic of attitude is that it can be activated automatically without one’s awareness. Reviews of studies investigated this issue (e.g., Ajzen, 2001; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald et al., 2002; Petty et al., 1997; Olson & Zanna, 1993; Tesser & Shaffer, 1990) seemed to consistently indicate the very possibility of automatic activation of one’s attitude. Ajzen (2001) stated that an evaluative meaning of an attitude object can arise spontaneously without one’s conscious effort and these reactions can be immediate and fast and can occur without one’s awareness. This suggests that a person can have both implicit and explicit attitudes. Recent studies have begun to focus further on identifying specific conditions necessary for automatic activations of certain kinds of attitude. These studies indicated that certain attitudes or elements of attitude cannot come to one’s awareness. This automaticity of attitude has also been pointed out as one of the challenges and the criticisms of self-report measure of one’s attitude (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995).  62 Development ofa Working Definition and an Integrative Model ofAttitude By summarizing the key characteristics of attitude identified by previous models, a working definition and an integrative model of attitude’ can be derived. In this paper, attitude is defined as a hypothetical psychological construct (a latent trait), which refers to one’s internal state ofreadiness or evaluative tendency, formed based on one’s past affective, cognitive and behavioural processes of experiences (attitude sources), which predisposes one to emit implicit and/or explicit, affective, cognitive, and/or behavioural evaluative responses (attitudefunctions) towards a particular object or entity (attitude object). The integrative model of attitude is depicted in the Appendix 5. This model integrates characteristics identified by previous models under the latent process model. It depicts attitude as an inferred latent trait which predisposes one to emit three explicit and/or implicit attitude functions (affective, cognitive, and behavioural evaluative responses) towards an attitude object. This diagram also shows how one’s attitude can be formed through affective, cognitive, and behavioural processing of one’s past experience with the attitude object as indicated by Greenwald (1968). Hence, the model incorporates the formative processes, internal hypothetical structure, and functions of attitude. The working model is different from the Greenwald’s model as the former captures attitude as a latent trait. The working model enhances the LPM by adding the formative processes identified by the Greenwald’s model. It is therefore a hybrid of the two models. It is also notable that the model does not require all classes of responses to be present when a person’s attitude toward a particular object is activated.  1  “Versions of this working definition and model have been submitted for publication. Minami, M. Role of Attitude in Multicultural Counselling Competency.”  63 The Working Model ofAttitude and its Conceptual Capability to Accountfor Other Related Constructs The usefulness of the working model lies in its capability to account for other psychological variables. Eagly and Chaiken (1998) stated that “the cognition or thoughts that are associated with attitudes are typically termed beliefs by attitude theorists Beliefs express positive or negative evaluation of greater or lesser extremity and occasionally are exactly neutral in their evaluative content” (p. 271). Oskamp (2005) further differentiated a general belief from an evaluative belief and located the evaluative belief as a cognitive function of attitude. Again in order for a response to be part of attitude function, it must be evaluative in nature. Evaluative cognitive contents such as evaluative belief, opinion, evaluation, respect and criticism can be construed as cognitive functions of one’s attitude toward an attitude object. Similarly, value can be a cognitive function of attitude. Eagly and Chaiken (1998) stated that “Attitude toward relatively abstract goals or end states of human existence (e.g., equality, freedom, salivation) is usually known as values” (p. 270). Oskamp stated that “value is an important life-goal or societal condition desired by a person”  (p.  14).  Examples of value included freedom, justice, beauty, happiness, or service to others. Oskamp located such end-state value as rather a special type of attitude object. On the other hand, value can also be in a statement forms such as “I value freedom.” Such value statements can be construed as a cognitive function of attitude. We can conceptually draw the difference between value as an attitude object and value as an evaluative statement. This paper locates the former value as an attitude object, while locating the value statement as a cognitive attitude function.  64  Eagly and Chaiken (1998) stated that “the affective aspect of attitude structure consists of feelings, moods, emotions, and sympathetic nervous-system activity that people have experienced in relation to an attitude object” (272). Evaluative feelings such as curiosity, interest, willingness, desire, comfort, passion, and motivation can be considered affective functions. Eagly and Chaiken also stated that “the behavioral aspect encompasses a person’s overt actions toward the attitude objects as well as intentions to act” (p. 272). It follows that one’s evaluative behavioural actions or intent to act, such as engagement and commitment can be considered as behavioural functions of one’s attitude. The final characteristic of the working model of attitude is its complex, flexible, fluid and dynamic nature. Emissions of responses may not always be straightforward, simultaneous, and single-componented. Classes of responses can be combined fluidly and dynamically to conceptually explain more complex psychological phenomena, such as racial discrimination. If one holds a negative attitude towards a racial minority individual, such attitude can be manifested in either explicit or implicit affecto-cognitive (prejudice) and cognitive (biases/stereotypes) attitude functions, then eventually leads his/her to engage in negative behavioural functions (discriminations) towards the attitude object (the racial minority individual). Appendix 6 illustrates such mechanism of fluid dynamism, interactionism, intersectionality, and delayed-responses of the model accounting for the complex construct such as racial discrimination. It also illustrates the emission of three attitude functions in a time-orderlyfashion to produce such complex attitude functions. Appendix 7 illustrates the model accounting for another complex  65 constructs: schema (affectively mediated cognition) and script (behavioural engagement resulting from the schema) (Westwood & Wilensky, 2005). The model contains the capacity to account for such complex phenomena with its complexity, fluidity and dynamism.  Attitude as a Separate Component ofMCC The integrative model of attitude is also useful in helping us examine an independent role of attitude in MCC. The evidence indicating the possibility of existence and automatic activation of implicit attitude (e.g., Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald et al., 2002; Oskamp, 2005) suggests that a person can possess negative or positive attitude unknown to himlherself. It follows that a counsellor’s awareness of his/her belief/attitude has its limits and the awareness component may not be able to cover the implicit parts of his/her attitude. Furthermore, a counsellor can be knowledgeable about racial/ethnic minority issues (high knowledge competency), highly skillful in interventions (high skills competency), and yet highly aware of his/her negative attitude toward racial/ethnic minorities (high awareness, but low or negative attitude competency). As a result, he/she may avoid interacting with these populations. In this case, he/she has high level of all the other MCC components, yet he/she is missing the constructive racial/ethnic attitude. Similarly, a counsellor can admit that he/she is highly aware of his/her negative racial/ethnic attitude and does not want to work with the population. Having either positive or negative attitude is one thing and to become aware of such attitudes is another. These evidence and logics help us conceptualize that the attitude  66 deserves a separate component on its own distinct from the other three existing components.  Importance and Benefits ofIncluding Attitude Component What are the importance and the benefits of including attitude as a separate component? The attitude component can challenge and change one’s overt or covert negative racial/ethnic attitude. Intending to change one’s attitude is a radical statement. Yet, if we truly value nurturing a constructive racial/ethnic attitude in a multiculturally competent counsellor, then the MCC model must include the component to cultivate and nurture such an attitude. Developing awareness is necessary, but not sufficient to ensure positive/construct attitude. Another foremost important benefit of including the attitude component is its dynamic energy-fueling property. Various educational/training programs to develop MCC would become useless if a counsellor claims that he/she is not interested in, curious about, motivated and willing to participate in the training programs to develop his/her MCC. The attitude component of MCC and the resulting installment of a constructive attitude in the counsellor would fuel his/her journey through the development of MCC. Eagly (1992) stated that “the importance of attitudes. lies in their presumed power to . .  influence responding” (p. 694). Eagly (1998) also stated that “attitude express passion and hates, attractions and repulsions, likes and dislikes”  (p.  269). Positive affective  attitude functions, such as curiosity, interest, willingness, desire, comfort, passion, and motivation exerts dynamic energy to motivate a counsellor to explore and take on this task of developing MCC. Positive behavioural functions of attitude have the power to  67 propel himlher to act on, engage in and commit to developing or promoting MCC. Without such dynamic attitudinal energy, how can educators and trainers expect the counsellor to take on this endless life-long journey of developing MCC? One must be installed with a constructive attitude and the resulting dynamic energy before moving on to developing other components of MCC. The nurturing and force-fueling properties of attitude component are essential pre-requisites to the development of MCC, thus must be incorporated into the current model of MCC.  Examples ofAttitude Found in Multicultural Counselling Literature There have been numerous discussions of the role of attitude in multicultural counselling in the literatures such as white racial identity attitude (Burkard, Juarez Huffaker & Ajmere, 2003; Constantine, 2002; Constantine & Gushue, 2003; Constantine, Juby & Liang, 2001; Cumming-McCann & Accordino, 2005; Middleton et al., 2005; Ottavi, 1994; Pope-Davis, Vandiver & Stone, 1999; Sciarra, Chang, McLean & Wong, 2005; Toporek & Pope-Davis, 2005), counsellor attitudinal characteristics such as empathic (Ivey et al., 1993), culturally naïve (Dyche & Zayas, 1995), respectfully curious (Dyche & Zayas, 1995), open-mind (Constantine et al., 2004), flexible (Constantine et al., 2004), and committed (Constantine et al., 2004) attitudes. While the importance of such attitudinal variables is discussed by many, none except the original model of MCC in 1982 had explored the role of attitude as an independent component of MCC.  68 Section Conclusion In this section, a comprehensive review of definitional characteristics of attitude as a construct was conducted, which resulted in the identifications of various useful characteristics of attitude and an integrative working model of attitude. Importance and benefits of including the attitudinal component to the existing model of MCC was also discussed. In the next section, a review will be conducted to explore and develop the working definitions of existing components of awareness, knowledge and skills, before moving onto the conceptual re-examinations of existing CDs and ESs.  69 Section 5: Review and Examinations of Existing Awareness, Knowledge, Skills Component Definitions  The section 1 of this paper reviewed the history and evolution of D.W. Sue’s conceptual model of MCC. Various limitations of the models were identified and analyzed in the section 2, and the various frames of reference were introduced in the section 3 to limit the focus of the presenting MCC model. Conceptual analyses of attitude and other related concepts were offered in the section 4 of this paper, which added the fourth component to the existing model of MCC. This section 5 reviews and explores descriptions of awareness, knowledge and skills offered by the previous models to collect useful information for the development of working definitions of the existing three components to be developed at the beginning of the section 6.  Exploration ofDefinitions for the Existing Awareness, Knowledge and Skills in the Previous Models Careful conceptual review and analyses of previous models revealed various defining features and descriptions of each component, as well as critical questions which requires an answer.  Beliefs/Attitudes In the original 1982 (Sue et al., 1982), as well as 1992 (Sue et al., 1992), 1998 (Sue et al., 1998) and 2001 (Sue et al., 2001a) models, descriptions of what the beliefs/attitudes component entails are offered. The 1992 model described that “the first  70 [component of beliefs/attitudes] deals with counselors’ attitudes and beliefs about racial and ethnic minorities, the need to check biases and stereotypes, development of a positive orientation toward multiculturalism, and the way counselors’ values and biases may hinder effective cross-cultural counseling” (Sue et al., p. 481). This description of beliefs/attitudes component offered some information, but is insufficient in defining what beliefs/attitudes are. First, while it offered what the component deals with or concerns about, which is attitude, it did not specify what the definitions of attitude and belief are. It must first define what this component is and is not. Secondly, the component expressed a need for a counselor to check his/her biases/stereotypes. However, it did not necessitate the acquisition of certain attitudinal or belief characteristics. For example, an attitudinal statement such as “a counsellor is open to cultural differences” is different from the “needs” statements such as “a counsellor needs to check his/her biases/stereotypes. The result of this checking can be that the counsellor possesses negative biases and stereotypes. Checking does not ensure constructive attitudes. Thirdly, it expressed a need for a counsellor to develop positive orientation toward multiculturalism. This can be considered as an attitude competency. Fourthly, the component specified that it deals with counselors’ values and biases and how they may hinder their cross-cultural counselling. This statement can be interpreted in many ways. It can be reframed into an attitude statement such as “a counsellor values multiculturalism” or into an awareness statement such as “a counsellor is aware of his/her own values and biases, and how they may hinder effective cross-cultural counseling.” This ambiguity in interpretation implies that this component is unclear in its conceptual boundaries, thus insufficient to define  71 what this component exclusively covers. Finally and most importantly, it does not define what attitude and beliefs are. The 2001 model (Sue et a!., 2001a) offered a brief description of attitude/beliefs component suggesting that the component requires counsellor “understanding of one’s own cultural conditioning that affects personal beliefs, values, and attitudes” (p. 798). This statement seems more like an awareness statement suggesting the need for a counsellor to understand, or aware of his/her own cultural conditionings and so on. This does not qualify as an attitudinal competency statement, thus can be incorporated under awareness component. Most importantly this description failed to define the component as well.  Awareness There were no definitions of what awareness is offered in the history of the model evolution. However, the models specified what should a counsellor be aware of, hence the contents of awareness. 1990, 2003 and 2008 model described the awareness component of MCC as such that “a culturally skilled counselor (replaced with the term “a culturally competent helping professional” in 2003 and 2008 models) [Italics added] is one who is actively in the process of becoming aware of his or her own assumptions about human behavior, values, biases, preconceived notions, personal limitations, and so forth” (D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2003, p. 166; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2003, p. 17-18; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2008, p. 43-44). While this illustration does not offer the definition of what awareness is, it provides contents of self-awareness such as own assumptions about human behaviour, values, biases, preconceived notions, and personal limitations. These  72 contents provide useful guideline for awareness CDs. It would have been useful in many different ways if the model specified what awareness is and is not.  Knowledge The original 1982 and the 1998 models described knowledge component as such that “the culturally skilled counselor has good knowledge and understanding of his or her own woridview, has specific knowledge of the cultural groups he or she works with, and understands sociopolitical influences” (Sue et al., 1982, p. 481; Sue et al., 1998, p. 37-38). Again the model failed to define what knowledge is and is not. Its first sentence seemed to be suggesting the importance of counsellor self-awareness of his/her own worldview. It was left unclear or unexamined as to whether knowledge ofown woridview can be equated to or different from awareness of own woridview. This calls for critical questions such as follows: “Is awareness different from knowledge?” and “Is self-knowledge different from awareness? This point will be discussed later during the development of construct explication. Similarly to the case of awareness, knowledge component also offered contents of knowledge (information a counsellor should be knowledgeable about), such as “specific knowledge of the cultural groups s/he works with” and “sociopolitical influences”. These contents offered useful guidelines for training counsellors for the knowledge component. The 2001 model also specified the content of knowledge, worldviews of culturally different individuals and groups. The 1990, 2003, and 2008 models described the knowledge component as such that “a culturally skilled counselor is one who actively attempts to understand the worldview of his or her culturally different client without negative judgments” (D. W.  73 Sue & D. Sue, 1990, P. 166; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2003, P. 18; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2008, p. 44). This description can be interpreted in many ways. Technically, it is an attitudinal statement as it stated about the counsellor’s “attempt” and “absence of negative judgment.” An attempt can be construed as a behavioural function of the counsellor’s positive attitude toward culturally different clients or their worldview. It can also be interpreted as a knowledge statement as it suggests contents of knowledge, namely of culturally different clients’ woridview. As is the case for attitude/belief, the knowledge component description also showed blurred conceptual boundaries. Again most importantly, the models did not specify what knowledge is and what it is not.  Skills Skills component of the model is the most clearly defined out of all the components previously suggested. The original model in 1982 and 1998 defined skills as “specific skills (intervention techniques and strategies) needed in working with minority groups (it includes both individual and institutional competencies)” (Sue et aL, 1982, p. 481; Sue et a!., 1998, p. 37-38). The 1990, 2003 and 2008 models described the skills component as such that “a culturally skilled counselor is one who is in the process of actively developing and practicing appropriate, relevant, and sensitive intervention strategies and skills in working with his or her culturally different clients” (D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 1990; p. 166; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2003, p. 18; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2008, p. 44). Aside from the phrase, “actively in the process of’ which nuances behavioural attitudinal function of “engagement in” or “commitment to” developing skills, this statement defined skills as “appropriate, relevant, and sensitive intervention strategies”. The 2001  74 model defined skills as “use of culturally appropriate interventionlcommunication skills” (Sue, 2001a, p. 798). Historically, skills components were clearly defined straightforwardly. The review of component descriptions offered by previous models revealed that all models failed to specify definitions of what each component are and are not, except the skills component. It also revealed that componential boundaries were blurred by the mixture of componential descriptions. This leaves the possibility that some components may contain irrelevant CDs. Nevertheless, previous models provided useful contents of awareness (something to be aware of) and knowledge (something to be knowledgeable about). It is important to note that the contents are different from the definitions of components. What is further necessary is the MCC construct explication, specifying what each component doe or does NOT entail.  Other Definitions Offered Before moving onto the construct explication task, it is worthwhile exploring definitions of the existing three components offered by other experts in the area.  Awareness Arthur (1998) stated that “awareness refers to developing an understanding of the ways in which cultural vales and biases influence ways of operating in professional relationships (p. 95).” This statement contained many interpretive potentials and calls for clarification. First, it is unclear whether the author was referring to counsellor’s own or his/her clients’ values and biases influencing ways of operating. There has been a debate  75  attempting to clarify the difference between cultural self- versus other-awareness (Kitaoka, 2005), as previous models tended to leave it vague. Pedersen (2001) defined awareness as “the ability to accurately judge a cultural situation from both one’s own and the other person’s cultural viewpoint.” Pedersen’s definition seems more to be interpreted as skills description as it implies counsellors’ ability to interpret counselling dynamics from both his/her and client perspective. Again ability is different from awareness. Others also offered contents of awareness. Richardson and Molinaro (1996) highlighted the importance of counsellor awareness of his/her own worldview, cultural values, and racial identity. Pedersen (2001) also suggested the components of awareness to include the following ingredients. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  The ability to recognize direct and indirect communication styles (skills) Sensitivity to nonverbal cues (skills) Awareness of cultural and linguistic differences (awareness/knowledge) Interest in culture (affective attitude function) Sensitivity to the myths and stereotypes of each culture (skills) Concern for the welfare of persons from another culture (Affective attitude function) Ability to articulate elements of his or her own culture (skills) Appreciation of the importance of multicultural teaching (cognitive attitude function) Awareness of the relationships between cultural groups (awareness/knowledge) Accurate criteria for objectivity judging goodness and badness in the other culture (skills)  However, as specified in the brackets one can construe some statements as tapping on components other than awareness, thus lacks awareness component exclusivity. This lack of exclusivity has significant implications to empirical measurement studies in which a stringent definition and indicators of component are required. Component exclusivity and construct explications are necessary.  76 Knowledge In reviewing definitions of knowledge component, there was confusion as to whether knowledge exclusively deals with counsellor knowledge of others or to include his/her knowledge of his/her own. Depending on how one defines knowledge, the latter type of knowledge can be construed as self-awareness. For example, Sue (1991) explained that the knowledge component requires “the acquisition of information regarding one’s own and the other cultures’ values, woridviews, and social norms” (p. 102). Pedersen (2001) also stated that the knowledge component entails “gathering meaningful facts to increase knowledge and comprehension of one’s own and other cultures”  (p.  22). These explanations of knowledge component highlight both knowledge  of other and knowledge of self. Is knowledge of self different from self-awareness? Can knowledge component contain both knowledge of others and self? What implications does one way have over another? Again, this is a theoretical/conceptual question and must be clarified by a conceptual model.  Skills The skills component was the most straightforwardly defined component by others as well. Sue (1991) highlighted the importance of both verbal as well as non verbal communication skills, stating that “the effective multicultural counselor-manager and worker is able to send and receive both verbal and nonverbal message accurately and appropriately”  (p.  103). Sue also introduced and highlighted the importance of nonverbal  communication and its impact on interactions with clients, such as proxemics, kinesics, paralanguage, high-low context communication. Pedersen (2001) described that the skills  77 entail the ability to “do the right things at the right time in the right way” and “the ability to present a solution in the other culture’s language and cultural framework” (p. 22). These descriptions all speak about one’s ability which can be construed as skills, thus meet the exclusivity of component, and as the definition of the skills.  Section Conclusion By summarizing the review of definitions and explanations offered, certain trend began to appear. First, historical definitions did not offer exclusive definition of what attitude/belief, awareness, and knowledge are and are not, except skills component which was more concretely defined. Secondly, explanations of awareness and knowledge components revealed contents of awareness (what culturally competent counsellors should be aware of) and knowledge (what culturally competent counsellors should be knowledgeable about). Thirdly, explanations of awareness and knowledge components included a mixture of the awareness of self and others and the knowledge of self and others. Depending on how one defines, both the awareness component and the knowledge component can contain the knowledge and awareness component: awareness component containing self-awareness (awareness) and other-awareness (knowledge), and knowledge component containing self-knowledge (awareness) and other knowledge (knowledge). It can also be possible to construe that awareness and knowledge can be knowledge and awareness: awareness can tap on knowledge component by defining it as other-awareness, knowledge can tap on awareness component by defining it as self-knowledge. The awareness and knowledge components of previous models contained this mixture of awareness and knowledge descriptions. This lacks the purpose of separating the two  78 components. Conceptual differentiations must be made to specify and ensure the exclusivity of components (e.g., awareness component strictly referring to self-awareness, and knowledge strictly referring to knowledge of others, and the other-awareness being included in knowledge and self-knowledge being included in awareness). Fourthly, each component’s descriptions contained descriptions of other component thus lacking the exclusivity of component within and between components. Fifthly, some explanations of component could be interpreted as tapping on different component. Thus each component must specify and phrase its CDs and ESs in an exclusive manner. Finally, construct explication is urgently due to provide specific inclusion and exclusion guidelines. The nest section of the paper begins and presents the process of developing a construct explication of the four-componential model of MCC.  79 Section 6: Construct Explication of MCC via Conceptual Re-Analyses and ReCategorization of Existing Characteristic Descriptions and Explanatory Statements  Urgent Needfor Construct Explication, Component Specflcation, and CDs/ESs Re examination and Re-categorization Review of existing models, descriptions of their components, and CDs and ESs, revealed that a construct refinement and clear explication is urgently due. This section performs a series of procedures to develop a construct explication of the four componential model of MCC. First, temporary working specifications of four components of MCC will be established. Secondly, CDs and ESs from the previously developed model will be collected and re-analyzed under the light of the new four componential conceptualization and re-categorized under each component. Finally, full construct explication will be developed and presented.  Capturing the “Universe” of CDs and ESs through the Development of Working Definitions ofAttitude, Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills The larger circle in the Appendix 8 represents finite possibilities of CDs and ESs that can be part of counsellor MCC. The four smaller circles represent each component of MCC attempting to capture aspects of the MCC by their definitions. There maybe possibilities of other MCC components (Constantine & Ladany, 2001; Sodowsky, 1994), however the diagram and the small circles represent areas of finite CDs that the presenting model attempts to capture. As was suggested in the previous discussion of the Nomological network (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), in order for a construct to be able to  80 capture “aspects” of phenomenon, it must offer a clear definition specifying what the construct is and is not with clear specifications of its components. Prior to conducting analyses of existing CDs and ESs, temporary working specifications of attitude, awareness, knowledge and skills components will be developed. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for CDs and ESs under each component will also be established. Appendix 9 summarizes temporary specifications of four-componential model. The specification will undergo revisions as the conceptual analyses progresses. Review of previous component descriptions and specifications reveled that there were no definitions of what awareness and knowledge are. Rather, the awareness component showed a mixture of cultural self-awareness and other-awareness, and the knowledge component contained mixtures of other-knowledge and self-knowledge. Both of the components lacked componential exclusivity. The four-componential model specifies awareness component to specifically entail cultural self-awareness, while locating cultural other-awareness under the knowledge component. Similarly, the four componential model specifies knowledge component to specifically entail otherknowledge or knowledge of others (information about something or someone). The cultural self-knowledge will be included under the awareness component. Awareness CDs and ESs must include contents of cultural self-awareness (e.g., counsellor awareness of his/her own woridview). Similarly, knowledge CDs and ESs must include contents of other knowledge (e.g., counsellor knowledge of client’s woridview). Skills CDs and ESs must include words specifying or illustrating specific intervention skills or systemic/institutional intervention skills. (e.g., counsellor is able to use empathy effectively). Finally the new attitude component includes three classes of constructive  81 attitude functions. For example, affective attitudinal CDs and ESs must include evaluative feeling words, such as willing, comfortable, interested, and curious. Cognitive attitudinal CDs and ESs must include evaluative cognitive content verbs, such as believe, respect and value. Finally, behavioural attitudinal CDs and ESs must include evaluative verbs, such as try, be committed, and be engaged. Again, this is a temporary working specification of the four components. It is expected that the following process will reveal more elaborate construct explications of the four-componential model.  Conceptual Re-examination and Re-categorization of the Existing CDs and ESs Development ofa Pool of CDs and ESs from Previous Models In order to conduct conceptual re-analysis, a pooi of existing CDs and ESs were collected from the previously developed models (Sue, et al., 1982; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 1990; Sue et al., 1992; Arredondo et al., 1996; Sue et al., 1998; Sue, 2001; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2003; D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 2008). 1982 model contained 4 CDs under the belief/attitude component, 4 under the knowledge component, and 3 under the skills component. 1990 model contained 5 CDs under the awareness component, 4 under the knowledge component, and 4 under the skills component. 1992 matrix model contained a total of3l CDs: 4 CDs under the awareness by belief/attitude, 3 CDs under the awareness by knowledge, 2 CDs under the awareness by skills, 2 under the knowledge by belief/attitude, 3 under the knowledge by knowledge, 2 under the knowledge by skills, 3 under the skills by belief/attitude, 5 under the skills by knowledge, and 7 under the skills by skills cells. Similar to the 1992 model, 1996 model contained a total of 31 CDs, though the wordings of some CDs were  82 modified. 1996 model also contained a total of 119 ESs: 20 ESs under the awareness by belief/attitude, 13 ESs under the awareness by knowledge, 10 ESs under the awareness by skills, 8 under the knowledge by belief/attitude, 17 under the knowledge by knowledge, 7 under the knowledge by skills, 5 under the skills by belief/attitude, 18 under the skills by knowledge, and 21 under the skills by skills cells. 1998 model contained a total of 34 CDs with the addition of 3 extra CDs under skills component: 4 CDs under the awareness by belief/attitude, 3 CDs under the awareness by knowledge, 2 CDs under the awareness by skills, 2 under the knowledge by belief/attitude, 3 under the knowledge by knowledge, 2 under the knowledge by skills, 3 under the skills by belief/attitude, 6 under the skills by knowledge, and 9 under the skills by skills cells. 2001 model contained 9 CDs under the belief/attitude component, 11 under the knowledge component, and 11 under the skills component. Finally, the latest model (D.W. Sue & D. Sue, 2003; 2008) contains 5 CDs under the awareness, 4 under the knowledge, and 5 under the skills component. Review of the models yielded a total of 165 CDs and 119 ESs. The total of 284 statements of cross-/multiculturally competent counsellor were re-analyzed its components and re-categorized under the four-componential framework.  Procedure 1: Omissions ofDuplicate CDs Since Sue’s model has been revised seven times, some of the same CDs appeared in the updated version of the models. The total of 284 identified statements was reviewed and the duplicated statements were omitted from the further analyses. CDs under the 1990, 2003, and 2008 models were identical except an addition of 1 new CD under skills component of the 2003 model. Therefore, the duplicate CDs from the 1990 and 2008  83 were omitted from the pooi. This resulted in a total of 271 statements. The 17 CDs listed under the 1996 model were identical to those used in the 1992 model; therefore these 17 CDs were omitted from the pooi. This resulted in a total of 254 statements. CDs under the 1998 model were identical to the ones elaborated in the 1992 model except the three new CDs added from this model. The duplicate CDs from the 1998 model were omitted from the pooi. This resulted in a total of 223 statements. The pool of 223 CDs and ESs underwent conceptual re-examination and re-categorization.  Procedure 2: Decomposition of CDs and ESs into Simple Sentences Many of the CDs and ESs contained two or three ideas in a sentence. Such complex statements were broken down into simple sentences containing one idea per each. The purpose of this decomposition was to ensure that a sentence contains one idea/element of MCC, and to avoid containing two conflicting competency statement (e.g., a CD containing both awareness and attitude statements). From a psychometric perspective, decomposed statements were not double-barreled. For example, the first CD from Beliefs/Attitudes component of the 1982 model, “the culturally skilled counselling psychologist is one who has moved from being culturally unaware to being aware and sensitive to his/her own cultural heritage and to valuing and respecting differences” (Sue et al., p. 49) was decomposed into the following four simple sentences. • • • •  A culturally competent counsellor is aware of his/her own cultural heritage. A culturally competent counsellor is sensitive to his/her own cultural heritage. A culturally competent counsellor values differences. A culturally competent counsellor respects differences.  Each simple sentence contained one idea or ingredient of MCC.  84  Procedure 3: Omission ofSubject Phrases As the model underwent several updates, the subject of the statement was changed from “culturally skilled counseling psychologist” in 1982 and 1990 models to “culturally skilled counsellors” in 1992, 1996, and 1998 models to “culturally competent mental health professional” in 2003 model. For a convenience purpose, such subject phrases were taken off from the statements to facilitate the analyses. This yielded statements in a singular form, starting from either verb, auxiliary verb, or adverb. For example, previous examples of simple statements were changed into... • • • •  is aware of his/her own cultural heritage. is sensitive to his/her own cultural heritage. values differences. respects differences.  Procedure 4: Changing the Phrase “Cross-Cultural” to “Multicultural” Section 3 introduced a frame of reference to discuss issue regarding generalmulticultural counselling competency. It is under the light of the discussion that this paper will adopt the use of the term multicultural in phrases such as “multiculturally competent” or “multicultural counselling” as opposed to “cross-culturally competent” or “cross-cultural counselling.” The spelling of “counseling” was changed to “counselling” to reflect Canadian English usage.  Procedure 5: Omission ofStatements Irrelevant to CDs Some CDs contained comments that are not directly convertible to CDs. For example, the third CD from the Beliefs/Attitudes component of the 1982 model stated  85 A culturally skilled counseling psychologist is one who is comfortable with differences that exist between the counselor and client in terms of race and beliefs. Differences are not seen as deviant! The culturally skilled counselor does not profess “color blindness” or negate the existence of differences that exist in attitudes/beliefs. The basic concept underlying “color blindness” was the humanity ofall people. Regardless ofcolor or other physical dfferences, each individual is equally human. While its intent was to eliminate bias from counseling, it has served to deny the existence of differences in clients’ perceptions ofsociety arising out ofmembership in dfferent racial groups. The message tends to be “I will like you only fyou are the same,” instead of “I like you because ofand in spite ofyour differences (Sue et al., p. 50). The last four sentences of this statement italicized were comments not directly convertible to CD. Other statement contained research findings. For example, the first CD from the Skills component of the 1982 model stated At the skills level, the culturally skilled counseling psychologist must be able to generate a wide variety of verbal and nonverbal responses. There is mounting evidence to indicate that minority groups may not only define problems differently from their Anglocounterparts, but respond differently to counseling/therapy styles (rej). Ivey and Authier (1978) stated that the wider the repertoire ofresponses the counselor possesses, the better the helper he/she is likely to be. We can no longer rely on a very narrow and limited number ofskills in counseling. We need to practice and be comfortable with a multitude ofresponse modalities (Sue et a!., p. 50). Such statements at are not directly convertible to the competency statement, thus omitted from the pooi. However, attempts were made to convert such research statements into CDs where applicable. For example, the last italicized sentence was converted to CDs... • •  practices a multitude of response modalities. is comfortable with a multitude of response modalities.  86 Procedure 6. Elaboration ofESs Based on Arredondo ‘S PDI model Many ESs were combined with the PDI model to elaborate the statement. For example, an explanatory statement under the awareness x knowledge component of the 1996 model contained ES stating [A culturally skilled counselors] have knowledge regarding their heritage. For example, A [italics added] Dimensions in terms of ethnicity, language, and so forth, and C Dimensions in terms of knowledge regarding the context of the time period in which their ancestors entered the established United States or North American continent. Such statements were first decomposed to simple sentences and then elaborated using the PDI model to make a competency statement. For example, the above ES was decomposed into two simple sentences. • •  has knowledge regarding his/her heritage. has knowledge regarding the context of the time period in which his/her ancestors entered the established United States or North American continent.  Then, the first sentence was elaborated on by applying the A dimensions of PDI model, yielding variations of CDs. • • • • • • • • •  has knowledge regarding his/her age. has knowledge regarding his/her culture. has knowledge regarding his/her ethnicity. has knowledge regarding his/her gender. has knowledge regarding his/her language. has knowledge regarding his/her physical disability. has knowledge regarding his/her race. has knowledge regarding his/her sexual orientation. has knowledge regarding his/her social class.  Procedure 7: Converting the Contents ofAwareness, Knowledge, and Skills to CDs Many of the awareness, knowledge, and skills CDs and ESs suggested contents such as points to be aware of, information to be knowledgeable about, and techniques or skills to be skillful in. Wherever applicable, such suggestions were converted into CDs.  87 For example, the third CD listed under the knowledge component from the 1982 model stated... The culturally skilled counseling psychologist must have a clear and explicit knowledge and understanding of the generic characteristics of counseling and therapy. These encompass language factors , culture-bound values, and classbound values (Sue et al., p. 50). Such statements were first decomposed into simple sentences. • •  Has a clear and explicit knowledge of the generic characteristics of counseling and therapy. Has a clear and explicit understanding of the generic characteristics of counseling and therapy.  Then, the sentences were elaborated to CDs. • • •  Has a clear and explicit knowledge of language factors in counseling and therapy. Has a clear and explicit knowledge of culture-bound values in counseling and therapy. Has a clear and explicit knowledge of class-bound values in counseling and therapy.  Procedures through 1 to 7 yielded a total of 1129 simple competency statements. These statements were termed as competency statements (CSs)  Procedure 8: Conceptual Re-Analysis of CSs All of the 1129 competency simple statements were carefully analyzed under the light of the temporary specifications of the four-componential model of MCC. The result yielded 328 attitudinal CSs. Analyses of awareness CSs revealed four types of statements which called for conceptual labels. The first type referred to a counsellor awareness of something (contents ofcultural self-awareness) about him/her. Examples include... •  is aware of his/her own values.  88 • • •  is aware of his/her own biases. is aware of his/her own preconceived notions. is aware of his/her own personal limitations.  This type of CSs will be labeled as “cultural self-awareness” and categorized under awareness component. The second type referred to a counsellor awareness of something about others (clients, racial/ethnic minority individuals). Examples from this category include • • • •  is is is is  aware of the history of various racial/ethnic groups. aware of the experiences of various racial/ethnic groups. aware of the cultural values of various raciallethnic groups. aware of the lifestyle of various racial/ethnic groups.  This type of CSs will be considered as “cultural other-awareness” and categorized under knowledge component. The phrase, “is aware of,” will be replaced with the phrase “is knowledgeable about” to differentiate them from awareness statements. The third type referred to the awareness of how a counsellor’s own something affects counselling process. Examples from this category include • • • • •  is aware of how his/her own cultural background influence psychological processes. is aware of how his/her own cultural experiences influence psychological processes. is aware of how his/her own attitudes influence psychological processes. is aware of how his/her own values influence psychological processes. is aware of how his/her own biases influence psychological processes.  This type of CSs will be labeled as “interactive cultural self-awareness” and categorized under awareness component. The final type referred to the awareness of how other’s something affect counselling process. Examples from this category include •  Adequately understands the client’s religious beliefs to know when topics are appropriate to discuss regarding those beliefs.  89 • • •  Adequately understands the client’s spiritual beliefs to know when topics are appropriate to discuss regarding those beliefs. is sensitive to sociopolitical influences which may dictate referral of the minority client to a member of his/her own race. is sensitive to sociopolitical influences which may dictate referral of the minority client to a member of his/her own culture.  This type of CSs will be labeled as “cultural sensitivity and dynamics interpretation skills” and categorized under skills component. This skill is almost similar to immediacy skills (Egan, 2002). It followed that the awareness component revealed two subcomponents: (a) cultural self-awareness, and (b) interactive cultural self-awareness. The knowledge component will contain the cultural other-awareness statements, and the skills component revealed another subcomponent of cultural sensitivity and dynamics interpretation skills in addition to the microskills and systemic intervention skills subcomponents. As a result of the procedure 8, awareness component yielded 300, knowledge component yielded 353, and the skills component yielded 148 pools of CSs.  Procedure 9: Update of the Temporary Working Specfications ofFour Components At this point, the temporary working specification of the four components was 2 (See Appendix 10) reflecting the procedures and new updated to the second generation subcomponents revealed so far. The subcomponent of Interactive cultural dynamic awareness was added under the awareness component. Analyses of CSs also revealed that the knowledge competency encourages counsellor to be familiar with/knowledgeable about major themes in multicultural counselling literatures, and community resources that are useful in assisting clients. Followingly, the two types of knowledge were added as 2  “A version of this working specification has been submitted for publication. Minami, M. Role of Attitude  in Multicultural Counselling Competency.”  90 new subcomponents (a) -knowledge ofmajor themes in MCC literature, and (b) knowledge ofcommunity resources. Conceptual analyses also revealed a subcomponent for counsellors’ sensitivity to cultural dynamics/influences clients’ bring to the process of counseling, and how he/she can interpret and make best use of it to assist clients. This was conceptualized as a part of counsellors’ skills, thus was labeled as “cultural sensitivity and dynamics interpretation skills.” New entries are highlighted in bold in Appendix 10.  Procedure 10: Removal ofDuplicated Sentences At this point duplicated sentences were identified and removed once again. This reduced the numbers to a total of 1078 CSs: 303 under attitude, 288 under awareness, 336 under knowledge, and 151 under skills components.  Procedure 11: Conceptual Re-Examinations, Sub-Categorizations, and Statement ReFramings Consistent with the starting phrases specified under each subcomponent of the 2’ generation specifications, CSs categorized under each component were re-framed to achieve unity and consistency in statements. Attitudinal CSs. Following the  nd 2  generation working specification, attitudinal  CSs were further subcategorized into (a) affective, (b) behavioural, and (c) cognitive subcomponents. The affective subcomponent contained 11 CSs including evaluative feeling words such as “is comfortable with” and “is not averse to.” The behavioural subcomponent contained 207 CSs including evaluative action verbs such as “seeks out,”  91 “takes responsibility in,” and “actively involved with.” The cognitive subcomponent contained 85 CSs including evaluative cognitive contents such as “believes,” “values,” “respects,” and “accepts.” Procedure 11 yielded a total of 303 attitudinal CSs under three subcomponents. Awareness CSs. Awareness CSs were further subcategorized into (a) cultural selfawareness, and (b) interactive cultural self-awareness subcomponents. Cultural selfawareness subcomponent contained 208 CSs including contents of cultural self awareness such as “assumptions,” “beliefs,” “cultural background,” and “heritage.” Interactive cultural self-awareness subcomponent contained 81 CSs including how contents of selfawareness affect their interactions with clients. The result of procedure 11 yielded a total of 289 awareness CSs under two subcomponents. Knowledge CSs. Further duplicated knowledge CSs were identified and removed from the pool before subcategorization. Conceptual analyses further revealed two more new categories under this component which required revisions in the  generation  specification of subcomponents before proceeding to categorization. Knowledge CSs were further subcategorized into (a) knowledge of clients, (b) knowledge of culture, cultural groups and members, (c) knowledge of counselling and major themes in MCC, (d) knowledge of community resources & limitations, and (e) knowledge of sociopolitical influences in counselling. The first subcategory, knowledge of clients, included 16 CDs exclusively related to counsellor knowledge of clients he/she is working with or had experiences working with. The second subcategory, knowledge of culture, cultural groups and members, included 62 CDs exclusively related to counsellor knowledge of information pertinent to particular culture, cultural groups and its members. This category  92 is differentiated with the first category in which a counsellor may/may not have prior experiences working with the members of the culture. Whereas, the first subcomponent regards clients the counsellor has prior experience working with. The third subcomponent, knowledge of counselling and major themes in MCC, included 101 CDs exclusively tapping on counsellor knowledge of general counselling theories and major themes in multicultural counselling. The fourth subcomponent, knowledge of community resources & limitations, included 55 CDs pertinent to counsellor knowledge of community resources and limitations for clients. The fifth subcomponent, knowledge of sociopolitical influences in counselling, included 73 CDs illustrating counsellor knowledge of sociopolitical influences such as impact of poverty, immigration, class, and culture on counselling process. The result of procedure 11 yielded a total of 307 knowledge CSs under five subcomponents. The working specification was updated to the  id 3  generation  to include the addition of two subcomponents, yielding a total of 5 subcomponents of knowledge component (See Appendix 11). Skills CSs. Duplicated CDs were identified and removed from the pool before categorization. Following the 3’ generation working specification, skills CSs were further categorized into (a) counselling microskills, (b) systemic intervention skills, and (c) cultural sensitivity and dynamics interpretation skills subcomponents. Counselling microskills subcomponent contained 101 CSs including specific counselling skills. Systemic intervention skills subcomponent contained 30 CSs including systemic intervention skills such as use of traditional healers, community referral, or use of interpreter. Cultural sensitivity and dynamics interpretation skills subcomponents contained 18 CSs including counsellor sensitivity to and ability to interpret and make best  93 use of cultural dynamics clients bring to counselling process. The result of procedure 11 yielded a total of 149 skills CSs under three subcomponents. In summary, the result of procedure 11 yielded a total of 1033 CDs: 303 under attitude, 289 under awareness, 292 under knowledge, and 149 under skills components. Two new subcomponents emerged and were categorized under knowledge component. The table 1 summarizes number of CSs under each components and subcomponents at the end of procedure 11.  Procedure 12: CSs Condensations through Omissions ofRedundant Phrases Many of the original CDs and ESs contained two elements of MCC per each statement. To facilitate the conceptual re-analyses and re-categorization of CDs and ESs, original CDs and ESs were decomposed into simple sentences (termed competency statements CSs). This procedure allowed each CSs to be conceptualized under one component of MCC. At this point of procedure 12, simple CSs were combined to reduce statements where applicable. For example, many CSs contain the same starting phrases such as • • • • • • •  Is knowledgeable about how a counselling approach may not be for a specific age group of people. Is knowledgeable about how a counselling approach may not be for a specific cultural group of people. Is knowledgeable about how a counselling approach may not be for a specific ethnic group of people. Is knowledgeable about how a counselling approach may not be for a specific gender group of people. Is knowledgeable about how a counselling approach may not be for a specific language group of people. Is knowledgeable about how a counselling approach may not be for a specific physically disabled group of people. Is knowledgeable about how a counselling approach may not be for a specific racial group of people.  appropriate appropriate appropriate appropriate appropriate appropriate appropriate  94 Such sentences will be condensed to a complex sentence... Is knowledgeable about how a counselling approach may not be appropriate for a specific age/culturallethnic/gender/language/physically disabled/racial group of people. This procedure condensed the CSs to a total of 356; 99 under attitude, 92 under awareness, 117 under knowledge, and 48 under skills components. The table 2 summarizes number of CSs under each components and subcomponents at the end of procedure 12.  Full Construct Explication of the Four-Componential Model The  31(1  generation working specification of the four components successfully  offered conceptual organizing framework through the procedure 12. No new subcomponents emerged during the procedure 12. Therefore, the  rd 3  generation  specification was adopted and developed into the final construct explication of the four componential model of MCC (See Appendix 12).  Section and Chapter Conclusion This section performed procedures to developing a construct explication of the presenting four-componential model of MCC. Working specifications of attitude, awareness, knowledge and kills components were developed first to offer temporary framework for organization of CDs and ESs. Then a series of procedures were followed to conduct conceptual re-examination, and re-categorization of the existing CDs and ESs. The result of the procedures successfully yielded a full construct explication of the model  95 with four components and 13 subcomponents with condensed competency statements fully meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria for each component. This chapter offered a thorough theoretical/conceptual review and analyses of the dominant tri-componential models of MCC. Various limitations were identified and an attempt was made to refine, enhance and extend the mode into four-componential conceptualization, with the new component of attitude, with full construct explication with condensed competency statements. Additionally, various conceptual frames of reference were introduced and discussed to limit the scope of presenting model, the area of coverage, and range of its applicability. The research implications and applications of the model will be discussed in the next chapter.  96 Chapter 2: DISCUSSIONS OF RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS/PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS  Chapter 2 of this paper discusses research implications and practical applications of the four-componential model of MCC. Comprehensive illustrations and discussions of the existing multicultural competency measures and training models are beyond the scope of this paper. However, brief summary of the MCC measures will be presented with available reliability and validity information. Then the limitations and shortcomings of the existing measures will be summarized and the contribution of the new model will be discussed with suggestions and future research directions. Similarly, practical applications of the four-componential model to MCC training will be discussed with existing relevant training strategies and future directions.  Research Implications of the Four-Componential Model of MCC  BriefSummaiy ofExisting MCC Measures There are four MCC measures that are popularly researched in the area: (a) the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised (CCCI-R) (LaFromboise et al.,1991), (b) the Multicultural Awareness-Knowledge-Skills Survey-Counselor Edition (MAKS S) (D ‘Andrea et al., 1991), subsequently revised into the Multicultural Awareness Knowledge-Skills Survey-Counselor Edition Revised (Kim et al., 2003), (c) Multicultural Counseling Inventory (MCI S-report) (Sodowsky et al., 1994), and (d) Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS) (Ponterotto et al., 2002).  97 Comprehensive reviews of these measures are offered by Ponterotto et al. (1994), Lee & Damell (2002), and Dunn et al. (2006). This paper presents brief summary of the measures with available reliability and validity information.  The Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised (CCCI-R) (LaFromboise et al.,]991) The CCCI-R was developed by LaFromboise, Coleman, and Hernandez in 1991 by revising the previously developed Cross-Cultural Competency Scale (Pomales et al., 1986). The item development for the CCCI-R was based on the Sue’s 1982 model of MCC (Sue et al., 1982). The measure consists of 20 items in 6 point Likert-type scaling, ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 6=strongly agree. The measure is used by others (e.g., supervisor or evaluator) to rate their perception of a counsellor’s counselling effectiveness with culturally diverse clients. This is the only available other-rated measure of MCC. Reported internal consistency (reliability) of the measure is a = .95 (LaFromboise et a!., 1991) with the maximum of a inter-rater reliability coefficient of a  =  .96 (Coleman, 1998), and has an  .84 (LaFromboise et al., 1991).  The factor structure of the measure was explored via principal component techniques with squared multiple correlations as the initial communality estimates. An orthogonal rotation revealed four eigenvalues of the original correlation matrix, 10.286, 1.216, 1.127, and 0.968. Based on the scree test (Cattell, 1966) a single factor was extracted which accounted for 51% of the total variance. LaFromboise et al. also conducted a second factor analysis using the same data. Based on Sue et al’s (1982) tn componential conceptualization, forced three-factor orthogonal rotation yielded a threefactor model accounting for 63% of the total variance. LaFromboise et al. had labeled  98 each factor as (a) Cross-cultural counseling skill, (b) socio-political awareness, and (c) cultural sensitivity. According to LaFromboise et al., the first factor of cross-cultural counseling skill refers to “counselor’s self-awareness, ability to convey appropriate counselling communication skills, and understanding of the counselling role” (p. 384). The second factor, socio-political awareness refers to “counselor’s ability to recognize his or her own strengths or limitations that might advance or impede the counseling process with culturally unique clients” (p. 385). The final factor, cultural sensitivity refers to “the degree to which the counselor can empathize with the client’s feelings and understand the environmental and interpersonal demands placed on the client” (p. 385).  The Multicultural Awareness-Knowledge-Skills Survey-Counselor Edition (MAKSS) (D ‘Andrea et al., 1991) The MAKSS was developed by D’Andrea, Daniels, and Heck (1991). The revised version (the Multicultural Awareness-Knowledge-Skills Survey-Counselor Edition Revised) of this measure in 2002 by Kim et al. indicated that the measure was developed to assess three domains of MCC proposed by Sue et al. (1982). The measure consists of three subscales (e.g., awareness, knowledge, and skills subscales) with a total of 60 items. Each subscale contains 20 items with a mixture of different types of scaling format. Examples of scaling includes one ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, another ranging from “very limited” to “very aware,” and the other ranging from “Very limited to very good.” Scaling formats seemed to be used depending on the domain of competency being tapped. The MAKSS is a self-report measure to be used by a counsellor to rate his/her perception of counselling effectiveness with culturally diverse  99 clients. Information regarding internal consistency (reliability) of the measure is reported per each component (awareness, knowledge and skills). Reported internal consistencies (reliability) of each component were cc  =  .75, .90, and .96 for awareness, knowledge and  skills components respectively (D’Andrea et al., 1991). Constantine and Ladany (2000) had reported another set of reliability information using the larger sample size yielding cc =  .62, .79, and .90 for awareness, knowledge, and skills subscales respectively. Kim et al.  (2002) had raised a caution that the internal consistency of awareness subscale is inadequate. The construct validity of the measure was explored for each sub scale via factor analysis using a principal axis extraction and orthogonal (varimax) rotation. Preliminary report by D ‘Andrea et al. (1991) indicated that the awareness component seemed to have multiple factor structure, while knowledge and skills components were best interpreted as single factors. Later studies conducted by Kim et al. yielded a result indicating the three-factor solution accounting for 29.8% of the total variance.  The Multicultural Counseling Inventory (MCI) (Sodowsky et al., 1994) The MCI was developed by Sodowsky et al. in 1994. The item development of the MCI was based on the Sue’s (Sue et al., 1982; Sue et al., 1992) model of MCC. The MCI is a self-report measure assessing a counsellor’s cultural competency in four different domains: (a) multicultural counselling skills (14 items), (b) multicultural counselling knowledge (11 items), (c) multicultural awareness (10 items), and (d) multicultural counselling relationship (8 items). The measure consists of 40 items 4 point scaling, ranging from 1 =inaccurate, 2=somewhat inaccurate, 3=somewhat accurate, to 4=very accurate. Preliminary internal consistency (reliability) of the measure reported by  100 Sodowsky et al. is a = .81-.83 for skills, a knowledge, a  =  =  .80-.83 for awareness, a  =  .65-.67 for multicultural counseling relationship, and a  .80-.79 for .86-.88 for the  entire scale. The factor structure of the measure was explored in two studies via factor analysis. The four factor solution yielded eigenvalues of greater than 1 and was considers the most accountable solution in both studies, yielding 36.1% and 37.4% of the total variance account.  The Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS) (Ponterotto et al., 2002) The MCKAS was developed by Ponterotto et al. (2002) by revising the previously developed Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale-Form B (MCAS:B) (Ponterotto et al., 1994). Both the MCAS:B and MCKAS were developed based on the theoretical model by Sue’s (Sue et al., 1982; Sue et al., 1992). The MCKAS is a self-report measure assessing a counsellor’s cultural competency in both awareness and knowledge domains. The measure consists of 32 items with 7 point Likert-type scaling, ranging from 1=not at all true to 7=totally true. Preliminary internal consistency (reliability) of the measure reported by Ponterotto et al. (2002) is a  =  .92 for knowledge and a =.79 for the awareness.  In their study, Constantine and Ladany (2000) reported the internal consistency of a for the entire scale, a  =  .90 for the knowledge subscale, and a  =  =  .89  .75 for the awareness  subscale. The factor structure of the measure was explored via confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis yielding the fit of two factor oblique solution to the proposed conceptual domain.  101 Limitations of the Existing Measure Low Construct Validity Review of MCC measures revealed inadequate evidence for construct validity of the measure, questioning the validity or construct defined or purported to be measured by MCC measures. Researchers reviewed and conducted studies exploring the reliability and validity of the existing measures have consistently indicated the lack of evidence supporting either unidimensional or multidimensionality of the MCC construct, (e.g., Constantine et al., 2002; Constantine & Ladany, 2000; Dun et al., 2006; KitaOka, 2005; Kocarek et al., 2001; Worthington et a!., 2000). Many have attributed the cause of this low construct validity to the lack of conceptual rigor in developing the measure and the lack of sound construct definition. Lee and Darnell (2002) have stated that We readily acknowledge the difficulty of creating an instrument to quantify MCC. At the same time, we were struck by the lack of psychometric rigor in the development of some of these instruments Factor analyses on the various have failed to support the multidimensional model of MCC. We suspect scales that it may not be possible, nor reasonable to expect, to measure fully all the dimensions and characteristics of MCC, but the available data suggests that perhaps the original operational definition is insufficient and needs to be revisited (p. 292). ...  Lee and Darnell seemed to have acknowledged the infinite possibility of what consist MCC (the “universe of CDs” discussed in the previous chapter) and the possible impossibility in capturing and measuring all aspects of MCC. They have also acknowledged the importance and insufficiency of the original definition and the lack of psychometrically sound construct explication. Constantine et al. (2002) have conducted a large scale study examining the factor structure of MAKSS, MCI and MCKAS, with a sample size of 259. The result of their confirmatory factor analysis did not yield sufficient evidence supporting the three factor  102 model originally proposed by the 1982 model. Their exploratory factor analysis yielded a 2 factor structure and have accounted for a total of 63% of the total variance. The two factors were labeled as (a) self-perceived multicultural counselling skills (factor with an eigenvalue of 4.5) and (b) multicultural counselling attitude/beliefs (factor with an eigenvalue of 1.2). Constantine et al. had raised an apprehension for the original conceptual model by Sue. Constantine et a!. also concerned the component change from the original attitudes/beliefs to awareness component, and its implications to the measures. Constantine et al. (2002) and Constantine (2000) strongly suggested the conceptual model undergo revisions and refinement. Constantine et al. (2000) stated that “this historical definition has gone virtually unchallenged by multicultural scholars and practitioners in counselling psychology.” A comprehensive review of the model conducted by this paper revealed many concerns for its conceptual rigor. These include (a) a lack of specific definitions andlor working models for each components, (b) a lack of specific componential boundaries specifying inclusion and exclusion criteria for each component, (c) a lack of rigorous conceptual examinations of existing CDs and ESs with specific construct and component explications, (d) a lack of attention to and conceptual differentiation of attitudinal CDs and ESs, hidden under each component, from other components. Such limitations may have been the contributing factor in yielding the scale’s low construct validity, the most detrimental of which can be the lack of inattention for the attitudinal factors.  103  Potential Attitudinal Items Hidden in the Existing Measures Previously developed measures of MCC consistently yielded adequate to good internal consistency, providing the support for reliability, but not validity. It is possible, then, that the measures have been consistently measuring variables other than awareness, knowledge and skills. As previous conceptual review had revealed, various attitudinal CDs and ESs were hidden under other component without clear acknowledgement and conceptual distinctions. Followingly, many of the items found in the existing measures seemed to be tapping on this attitudinal component, yet conceptualized in the measure as tapping other components. For example, careful and close examinations of items in CCCI-R (LaFromboise et al., 1991) reveled that many items seemed to tap attitudinal component of the four componential conceptualization. Followings are examples of attitudinal items excerpted from the instrument. • • •  Item 2: Counselor values and respects cultural differences. Item 3: Counselor is comfortable with differences between counselor and client. Item 5: Counselor is willing to suggest referral when cultural differences are extensive.  Items 2, 3, and 5 can be conceptualized as tapping the cognitive, affective, and behavioural subcomponents (respectively) of attitudinal component under the light of the new model. Item analyses of MCAKSS (D’Andrea et al., 1991) also revealed that many of the items seem to tap on counsellor’s belief contents about something that were construed as awareness items. Followings are examples of such items found in the measure. •  Item 7: The human service professionals, especially counseling and clinical psychology, have failed to meet the mental health needs of ethnic minority.  104 •  Item 11: The effectiveness and legitimacy of the counseling profession would be enhanced if counselors consciously supported universal definitions of normality.  Considering the self-report nature of the measure, tapping on such beliefs contents of counsellors may be an integral aspect of exploring counsellor “awareness of’ own belief. Yet, it is also possible to construe under the light the four-componential model that such items are tapping cognitive manifestations (evaluative beliefs) of counsellor attitude toward racial/ethnic minority issues. Other items taps on awareness item by questioning a degree of awareness. For example, item 3, 4 of the measure asks... •  •  Item 3: At this time in your life, how would you rate yourself in terms of understanding how your cultural background has influenced the way you think and act? Item 4: At this time in your life, how would you rate your understanding of the impact of the way you think and act when interacting with persons of different cultural backgrounds?  Then the scale is followed by setting a degree of awareness ranging from “very limited” to “very aware”. Such degree of awareness answer can be differentiated from kind of awareness. This difference in degree and difference in kind issue will continue to pose questions in developing a measure including attitude component. Items in the MCKAS also contained belief items such as the followings. • •  Item 1: I believe all clients should maintain direct eye contact during counseling. Item 20: I believe that my clients should view the patriarchal structure as ideal.  Both are considered as awareness items, yet they can be construed as item tapping on the cognitive attitudinal component of the presenting model. It is perhaps assumed that the contents of belief is measuring counsellor awareness of own belief. Yet the very beliefs content can be also understood as part of attitudinal measure.  105 The construct explication of the model developed in this paper conceptually differentiated the attitude component from the awareness component. Attitude CDs are evaluative statements, whereas awareness component refers specifically to counsellor cultural self-awareness and interactive cultural self-awareness with the contents of selfawareness. This differentiation can be helpful in providing a guideline for item development. As was exemplified by the MCAKSS (D’Andrea et al., 1991), awareness item can be scaled by the degree, while measuring the attitudinal component through kind. For example, an awareness item can be phrased in such a way to ask for a degree of selfawareness as... •  “How would you rate your awareness of your own worldview (contents of selfawareness).” Tapping the Cultural Self-Awareness Subcomponent “To what extent are you aware of how your own cultural belief affects counselling process?” Tapping the Interactive Cultural Self-Awareness Subcomponent —  •  —  Then, attitudinal items can be formed to question the kinds of evaluative contents such as... • • •  I believe that cultural differences can be strength for society. I value bilingualism. I feel curious when encountered with cultural differences.  While conceptually differentiated, this differentiation is also vulnerable to the same criticism. It was mentioned earlier that the awareness items of the existing measures might have been measuring one’s attitudinal components. It is also possible that an attitude items may end up measuring one’s awareness of own attitude/beliefs. This is the limitation of self-report measure (Pope-Davis et al., 2001; Suzuki et al., 2001) and the issue is shared by various implicit attitude measurement studies (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995) as well social desirability issues (Constantine et al., 2000; and Worthington et al.,  106 2000). However, as long as the measures remain as self-reported, it is also possible to construe that every item can be considered as an awareness item (awareness of attitudes/beliefs, awareness of knowledge, awareness of skills and awareness of awareness), as the self-report measure relies heavily on one’s awareness and selfknowledge. Although challenging, various methods of implicit attitude measurement has been developed (e.g., Fazio & Olson, 2003; Oskamp, 2005), including implicit association test (e.g., Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald et al., 2002; Karpinski & Hilton, 2001; McConnell & Leibold, 2001). Despite the limitations of self-report, implicit attitude and social desirability, sound construct explications with clear conceptual recognition and analysis of attitudinal component offers an important first step to approach construct study of MCC from different directions.  Contribution ofthe Presenting Model This paper conducted a comprehensive review and analysis of the model and developed a sound construct explication of the four-componential model of MCC with conceptually re-examined competency statements. Specifications of each components and subcomponents can be utilized as domain specifications of future measurement developments and offer working solutions to the lack of sound definitions and working models for each component previously identified by MCC measurement studies as a source of measurement error. Having specific inclusion and exclusion criteria would offer clear guidelines in examining the existing items in the existing measures. Criteria should be also useful in guiding how to develop and phrase future items for each component, and what should each item under each component should and should not tap on in a specific  107 way. Comprehensive conceptual re-examinations of the CDs and ESs and the resulting generation of competency statements offers examples of how each componential CSs should and should not be phrased and also offers examples for future item developments. Finally, the addition of new attitudinal component helps us to re-examine existing measures of MCC for hidden attitudinal items and helps us ask right questions and look for a better solution to the existing limitations of measures.  Practical Applications of the Four-Componential Model of MCC  One of the foremost important contributions of the new mode is the inclusion of attitude component to the existing training models. The key to the effective application of the model lies in the new addition of attitude component. Many of the existing training models are theoretically based on Sue’s tricomponential model (e.g., Abreu, Chung & Atkinson, 2000; APA, 2003; Arredondo & Arciniega, 2001; Constantine & Sue, 2005; Robinson & Morris, 2000; Sue, Ivey & Pedersen, 1996). The new attitude component of MCC training formally addresses many issues previously unrecognized. Two of the unique conceptual properties of attitude are of particular importance and can potentially make effective contributions to the existing training models; (a) attitude and attitude change model applied to confront and change covert racism, biases/stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination tendencies, and (b) the dynamic energy fueling property of attitude and the resulting installment of constructive motivation for multicultural counsellor trainees. The addition of the attitude component also reveals new considerations for  108 future training model development and evaluations. Suggestions are made regarding the future direction of attitude component training model.  Potential Ability ofAttitudinal Component to Confront and Change Negative Attitude Previous models of MCC with awareness, knowledge and skills components did not ensure the presence of counsellors’ constructive attitude towards culturally diverse clients or multicultural issues. Awareness subscales of the existing measures addressed degree of awareness, yet did not address the degree of lack of awareness. Measurement quantifies the presence level, but not the absence level. Low scores in awareness also indicate a high risk for counsellor negative attitude. Previous training models (e.g., Abreu, Chung & Atkinson, 2000; APA, 2003; Arredondo & Arciniega, 2001; Constantine & Sue, 2005; Robinson & Morris, 2000; Sue, Ivey & Pedersen, 1996) aimed to change one’s covert attitudes/beliefs through increasing awareness. However, there is also conceptual problem to this approach. Conceptually, one can be skillful, knowledgeable, and still increase his/her high self-awareness of negative biases, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination tendencies towards culturally diverse clients or others. It is aimed that the increased awareness would eventually lead counsellor to change his/her attitudes/beliefs. However, there are many hidden assumptions under this model. First, it is assumed that counsellor trainees always wish to be changed. It is perhaps optimistic to view that all participants of MCC training would be equipped with such open-minded, flexibility and willingness to change. It maybe possible that there are few who undergo training to increase his/her own attitude, yet still wish or claim to hold onto their accustomed bias/stereotypes, and habitual discriminatory  109 tendencies. Secondly, previous models assume that one’s attitude will always come to one’s awareness. Previous review of attitude revealed the very possible existence and activation of one’s implicit attitude (Betsch et al., 2001; Fazio & Olson, 2003; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald et al., 2002; Karpinski & Hilton, 2001; McConnell & Leibold, 2001). The mere attempt to increase one’s awareness component may not always ensure full awareness of counsellors’ own attitudes/beliefs. Awareness is necessary but may not be sufficient to prevent counsellor from imposing negative attitude functions to culturally different clients. We need more powerful method to nurture trainees’ positive attitude, in stead of leaving the responsibility to them. It is necessary and essential to include attitude component to take the step to confront explicit and implicit biases, stereotypes, prejudices, discriminatory tendencies potentially held by counsellor trainee. But how can we achieve this goal?  Power ofExperience in Changing One ‘s Attitude Previous review and the development of working model of attitude revealed that one’s attitude is formed through affective, cognitive, and behavioural processes in his/her own experiences with an attitude object. Therefore, it is logical to assume that an experiential activity in MCC training is the method of choice to nurture constructive attitude in counsellor trainees. Many have supported the effectiveness of contact experience with or exposure to culturally diverse clients or others. Diaz-Lazaro and Cohen (2001) conducted research exploring the impact of cross-cultural contact component of their multicultural counselling course on student’s MCC. The result indicated that students with greater  110 degree of prior cross-cultural lfe experience showed higher MCC, and the post training MCC of the students were significantly higher than the levels measured by the MCKASS (D’Andrea, 1991) at the beginning of the course. A study conducted by Arthur (2000) revealed that Canadian counsellors with high MCC had significantly higher percentage of clients that are culturally diverse in their caseload. Constantine et a!. (2004) have also reported that many multicultural counselling scholars were exposed to culturally different other while growing up. Many “experts” in the field of multicultural have shared their personal narratives and journey through their development of expertise, self-awareness, and attitude changes in the winter 1999, volume 77 edition of the Journal of Counseling and Development. Their narratives also highlighted the importance of encountering experiences with the culturally diverse others and cultural differences in changing their attitudes. Heppner (2006) also highlighted the importance and powerfulness of his learning through internationaljourney experience over 12 countries on his self- as well as professional development. The importance and powerfulness of transformative travel experience (Kottler, 2002) and short-term study-abroad experiences (Jurgens & McAuliffe, 2004) are also documented by others. Heppner (2006) also highlighted and suggested various examples of experiential activities in counsellor MCC training, such as cross-cultural immersion experiences, learning a new language, learning opportunities with international students and colleagues, reading international novels, watching internationalfilms, exploration ofother countries through media information, and traveling. Many of these activities suggested are also found to be important by other multicultural counselling experts investigated by Constantine et a!. (2004). Powerfulness  111 of experiential activities and learning are well noted in the literature (e.g., Arthur & Achenbach, 2002; Burnett, Hamel & Long 2004; DeRicco & Sciarra, 2005; Ishiyama, 2000a, 2000b; Kim & Lyons, 2003; Westwood & Wilensky, 2005). The working model of attitude formation and change developed by this paper offers a theoretical/conceptual account for these observations, the powerfulness, and mechanisms of experiential exercises in changing counsellor attitude. The model accounts that counsellor’s attitudes towards culturally diverse others are formed based on a complex multidimensional and multimodal (affective, cognitive, and behavioural) processes of a counsellor in his/her own experiences with culturally diverse others. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that a positive experience with culturally diverse others andlor with cultural differences will form positive attitude and propel one to emit future positive attitude functions. Affective formative processes, such as counsellor experiences of feeling excited, enjoyed, comforted, curious, interested, amazed, rewarded, supported, welcomed, content, and satisfied, brings a rewarding and gratifying experience to counsellor. The reward forms and remains in his/her attitude which propels him/her to emit future response to seek for the similar experiences. Cognitive formative processes, such as eureka moment, provoked insight, wisdom, challenged beliefs and views, and gaining of new perspective brings a thought provoking experience to counsellor. The cognitive experience also contributes to forming one’s attitude which propels him/her to emit future cognitive responses (e.g., positive/constructive views and beliefs of certain culture). Finally behavioural formative processes, such as counsellor experience of being rewarded by acting and behaving in a  112  certain way brings multimodal rewards to himlher. This forms his/her attitude which propels him/her to engage in a similar act. The present four-componential model of MCC, with the inclusion of attitude and its working model, not only offers conceptual account, but also guides us to ask further questions to explore in designing and conducting such experiential training activities. This point will be discussed shortly after the discussion of second contributing property of attitude.  Attitude as a Dynamic Construct In addition to the function of attitude change in confronting counsellor’s negative attitude, attitude change can also be tailored towards installing positive attitudinal variables. As was indicated by the working model of attitude, another foremost important contribution of including the attitude component is its dynamic energy-fueling property. Previous discussion of the theoretype of construct (Rychiak, 1981) identified that the existing three component of the MCC model were all structural in nature highlighting the importance of contents of self-awareness and knowledge, and kinds of skills. No component has been taking the role of dynamic energy fueling component in the training model. The existing model lacks such energy giving component. One’s journey though the development of multicultural counselling competency requires a life-long commitment to the filed (Heppner, 2006; Pedersen, 2000). It requires relentless and often challenging effort to confront one’s own attitudes and beliefs, to engage in continuing reflection to increase cultural self-awareness, to accumulate knowledge of the field, and to polish various interventions skills. Various  113 educational/training programs to develop MCC would become useless if a counsellor claims that s/he is not interested in, curious about, motivated to, willing to, and comfortable with going through the training programs to develop her/his MCC. Attitudinal component of the training model addresses the exact point of this installment of positive and constructive attitude towards culturally diverse others and multicultural counselling issues. If successfully done, attitude component of MCC training through experiential activities brings invaluable rewarding experience to the trainee through their own rewarding experience with the culturally diverse and exposure to multicultural field of work. The attitude component of MCC and the installment of a constructive attitude in counsellor trainees are essential goals of MCC training. The resulting energy would continue to fuel his/her throughout the journey of developing his/her MCC. The affective attitude functions, such as curiosity, interest, willingness, desire, comfort, passion, and motivation exerts dynamic energy to motivate her/him to explore and take on this task of developing MCC. Behavioural functions of attitude have the power to propel himlher to act on, engage in and commit to developing or promoting MCC. The result of behaviour can also bring new rewarding experiences to fuel back into ones positive attitude. Without such dynamic attitudinal energy and the specific component to deal with this issue, it may not be reasonable to expect the counsellor to take on this endless life-long journey of developing MCC. Trainees must be installed with a constructive attitude and the resulting dynamic energy before moving on to developing other components of MCC. Intending on changing one’s attitude is a radical statement. Yet, if we truly value nurturing a constructive cultural attitude in a counsellor, then the nurturing and force-  114 fueling properties of attitude component are an essential pre-requisite to the development of MCC, thus must be also incorporated into the current training model of MCC.  Future Research Directions The importance and effectiveness of experiential activities are evident in confronting one’s covert attitude and in installing a constructive and positive attitude in trainees. However, various questions emerge to be considered in the future research. First, what exactly are the necessary conditions for positive attitude change? Power of experiential activity lies in its multidimensional/multimodal impacts it has on counsellor, yet this brings a complexity of analyses of elements that are contributing to the change. The analyses of such multiple variables/factors is suggested as a future research direction for MCC training model design, and the answer to the question brings us useful information to design more powerful activities. Secondly what are the exact processes and mechanisms of change? What steps does experiential training need to entail? What are the dynamics operating during the positive attitude change process? Complexity of such dynamic process analysis is further due. Thirdly, what cautions do we need to take in experiential training designs and processes? Experiential activity is powerful in bringing positive as well as negative attitude change. Cautions regarding what not to include in the design, and what not to do during the process must be investigated in the future research. Fourthly, how do we know when trainees’ attitudes have been changed to more positive and constructive ones? How can we measure the outcome? Further exploration is due to address these issues. Finally, what is ethical and non-ethical to include in the design and do during the experiential training? The new model aimed at  115 changing one’s attitude. Are there any ethical concerns for such radical methods of counsellor training? Is there any value laden underneath this attitude change model that may be detrimental to counsellor autonomy? Can we always ensure and bring the best result for the trainees after the attitude change? Can we foresee and account for a possible consequences of such trainings for counsellor’s future experience? Explorations of ethical considerations and consequential validity of the experiential training are also due and suggested for future explorations. Despite such considerations, the new MCC model conceptually suggests the experiential learning and training activities to be the optimal way to nurture counsellor positive attitudes/beliefs. It is hoped that the future research exploring the considerations suggested earlier will enhance the efficacy of attitude change experiential training models.  Chapter Conclusion This chapter discussed implications of the presenting four-componential model of MCC to the MCC measurement studies, and applications of the model to the MCC training model development. A brief review and summary of the existing MCC measures were provided and the contributions of the presenting model were discussed. Development of the clear MCC construct explication with specifications of its subcomponents and their inclusion and exclusion criteria offered temporary solutions to the limitations of existing MCC measures. It also offered clear conceptual guidelines and directions for future measurement developments. Two of the properties of the newly added attitude component were discussed. It ability to confront and potentially change counsellor trainees’ attitude towards cultural diverse clients are discussed. Experiential  116  activities were suggested as the method of choice to nurture constructive attitude in the trainees. Various considerations for the design, method, process, and ethics of experiential activities were suggested as the future research directions. Throughout the discussion, the usefulness and contributions of the presenting model were highlighted. It is hoped that the refined and enhanced model would increase reliability and validity of the existing MCC measures and enhanced the effectiveness of existing MCC training models.  117 CONCLUSION This conceptual study refined and extended the D. W. Sue’s tricomponential model of MCC. A comprehensive review and careful analyses of the existing versions of Sue’s model were conducted. As a result, various problems and limitations of the model were found. The model showed an inconsistency in the use of terms to refer to its competency components (e.g., change from the beliefs/attitudes to awareness). The definitional features of the model also lacked conceptual clarity and consistencies. The model was also suffering from the lack of conceptual rigor and of its theoretical grounding. As a result of these limitations, the model has impacted negatively on the MCC measurement studies. Possibility of other components and the forgotten role of attitude were suggested as factors contributing to the low construct validity of the existing MCC measures. The need for an urgent construct refinement and enhancement emerged. After discussing the limit and scope of this paper and the new model, this paper first enhanced the Sue’s model by examining the nature and role of attitude as the new fourth component. A comprehensive review was conducted to explore the defining characteristics of attitude from the social cognition area of research. A working model of attitude was developed as a result. The working model specified the formative processes, inferred nature of attitude, and its three classes of responses. The capability of the working model of attitude in account for other related psychological constructs were then discussed. It was shown that the construct of attitude is a multidimensional structural as well as a dynamic construct which offers an essential role in MCC.  118 Then, this paper refined the conceptual rigor of the existing model by employing the psychometric theoretical concept of nomological net and the technique of construct explication. An exhaustive review of the previous versions of the model was conducted to develop working specifications of the existing awareness, knowledge, and skills component and a pooi of competency statements (CS5). Prior to the conceptual re examination of the existing CSs, working specifications of the four-componential model of the MCC were developed. The pooi of CSs were conceptually re-examined under the light of the four-componential conceptualization. The working specification underwent two revisions, with the final version successfully accounting for categorizations of all CSs. As a result, conceptual re-examination of four components and all CSs yielded the development of construct explication of the four-componential model of MCC with its clear component and subcomponent specifications. Implications and applications of the model were discussed in the chapter two of this paper. Review of the previously developed MCC measures, their reliability, and validity was conducted. Various limitations of the measures were emerged including the lack of sufficient evidence supporting the construct validity of MCC, and the possible other factors including attitudinal factors hidden under the model, influencing the measures’ validity. Developers and researchers of the MCC measures attributed the source of measurement error to the lack of sound construct explication of the MCC and of domain specifications of the MCC measure. This paper suggested the construct explication of four-componential model of MCC be used as a conceptual model to develop further MCC measures, and to guide item and component re-examinations for  119 the existing measures. Further research implications of the new conceptual model were discussed. Applications of the four-componential model were also discussed. The presenting model suggested the addition of attitudinal component to the existing models of MCC trainings to confront trainees’ potential implicit negative attitude towards culturally diverse client. Based on the working model of attitude developed in this paper, experiential activities were suggested as the optimal method of attitude change. The energy-fueling property of attitude and its capability to install positive and constructive energy to aid the trainees’ journey throughout the development of their own MCC were also highlighted. Many considerations and suggestions for future research also emerged and were presented. The working model of attitude as well as the full construct explication of the four-componential model of MCC with enhanced conceptual rigor and components offered significant research implications, useful conceptual guidelines, backbones, and aids, as well as useful practical applications. In concluding this paper, it is once again highlighted that the conceptual refinement and enhancement of the D. W. Sue’s model was conducted under the spirit, admiration and in honor of his seminal works, efforts, and contributions to this area of research. Furthermore, it was also with the spirit of other experts dedicated to the field of multicultural counselling that the new model was constructed and explicated. It is hoped that the new four-componential model, together with its fully explicated nature, will act as a model for structural as well as process guideline and backbone to develop a future MCC model refinement and enhancement.  120 Table 1 Number of Competency Statements Categorized under Components and Subcomponents at the End ofProcedure 11  Components  Subcomponents  Attitude  Affective Behavioural Cognitive  Awareness  Cultural Self-Awareness 208 Interactive Cultural Self-Awareness 81 Awareness component total 289  Knowledge  Knowledge of Clients Knowledge of Culture, Cultural Groups and Members Knowledge of Counselling and Major Themes in MCC Knowledge of Community Resources & Limitations Knowledge of Sociopolitical Influences in Counselling Knowledge component total  Skills  Counselling Microskills 101 Systemic Intervention Skills 30 Cultural Sensitivity and Dynamics Interpretation Skills 18 Skills component total 149  N of CSs  11 207 85 Attitude component total 303  TotalCSs  15 60 98 51 68 292  1033  121 Table 2 Number of Competency Statements Categorized under Components and Subcomponents at the End ofProcedure 12  Components  Subcomponents  Attitude  Affective Behavioural Cognitive  Awareness  Cultural Self-Awareness 67 Interactive Cultural Self-Awareness 24 Awareness component total 91  Knowledge  Knowledge of Clients Knowledge of Culture, Cultural Groups and Members Knowledge of Counselling and Major Themes in MCC Knowledge of Community Resources & Limitations Knowledge of Sociopolitical Influences in Counselling Knowledge component total  Skills  Counselling Microskills 30 12 Systemic Intervention Skills Cultural Sensitivity and Dynamics Interpretation Skills 6 Skills component total 48  N of CSs  5 60 32 Attitude component total 97  6 23 40 19 29 117  TotalCSs 356  122 References Abreu, J. M., Chung, R. H. G., & Atkinson, D. R. (2000). Multicultural counseling training: Past, present, and future directions. The Counseling Psychologist, 28(5), 641-656. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review ofPsychology, 52, 2758. American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist, 58(5), 377-402. Arredondo, P., & Arciniega, M. (2001). Strategies and techniques for counselor training based on the multicultural counseling competencies. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling & Development, 29, 263-273. Arredondo, P., & Toporek, R. (2004). Multicultural counseling competencies  =  Ethical  practice. Journal ofMental Health Counseling, 26(1), 44-55. Arredondo, P., Toporek, R., Brown, S. P., Jones, J., Locke, D. C., Sanchez, J., & Stadler, H. (1996). Operationalization of the multicultural counseling competencies. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 24, 42-78. Arthur, N. (2000). Predictive characteristics of multicultural counselling competence. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA., April 24-28, 2000. Arthur, N., & Achenbach, K. (2002). Developing multicultural counseling competencies through experiential learning. Counselor Education & Supervision, 42, 2-14 Arthur, N., & Januszkowski, T. (2001). The multicultural counselling competencies of  123  Canadian counselors. Canadian Journal of Counselling,35(1), 36-48. Atkinson, D. R., Thompson, C. E., & Grant, S. K. (1993). A three-dimensional model for counseling racial/ethnic minorities. The Counseling Psychologist, 21(2), 257-277. Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: A test anxiety example. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 10-17. Betsch, T., Plessner, H., Schwieren, C., & Gutig, R. (2001). I like it but I don’t know why: A value-account approach to implicit attitude formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2 7(2), 242-253. Bohner, G., & Wänke, M. (2002). Attitudes and Attitude Change. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Burkard, A. W., Juarez-Huffaker, M., & Ajmere, K. (2003). White racial identity attitudes as a predictor of client perceptions of cross-cultural working alliances. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 31, 226-244. Burnett, J. A., Hamel, D., & Long, L. L. (2004). Service learning in graduate counselor education: Developing multicultural counseling competency. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 180-19 1. Cates, J. T., Schaefle, S. E., Smaby, M. H., Maddux, C. D., & LeBeauf, I. (2007). Comparing multicultural with general counseling knowledge and skill competency for students who completed counselor training. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 35, 26-39. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 1, 245-276. Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of  124 Psychology, 38, 575-630. Christensen, C. P. (1985). A perceptual approach to cross-cultural counselling. Canadian Counsellor, 19(2), 63-81. Chung, R. C., & Bemak, F. (2002). The relationship of culture and empathy in cross-cultural counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 154-159. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1998). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (2nd ed., pp. 215-239). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Coleman, H. L. K. (1998). General and multicultural counseling competency: Apples and oranges? Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 26(3), 147-156. Coleman, H. L. K. (2004). Multicultural counseling competencies in a pluralistic society. Journal ofMental Health Counseling, 26(1), 56-66. Constantine, M. G. (2001). Multicultural training, self-construals, and multicultural competence of school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 4(3), 202-207. Constantine, M. G. (2002). Racism attitudes, white racial identity attitudes, and multicultural counseling competence in school counselor trainees. Counselor Education & Supervision, 41, 162-174. Constantine, M. G., Gloria, A. M., & Ladany, N. (2002). The factor structure underlying three self-report multicultural counseling competence scales. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(4), 3 34-345. Constantine, M. G., & Gushue, G. V. (2003). School counselors’ ethnic tolerance  125 attitudes and racism attitudes as predictors of their multicultural case conceptualization of an immigrant student. Journal of Counseling Development, 81, 185-190. Constantine, M. G., Juby, H. L., & Liang, J. J. (2001). Examining multicultural counseling competence and race-related attitudes among white marital and family therapists. Journal ofMarital and Family Therapy, 27(3), 353-362. Constantine, M. G., & Ladany, N. (2000). Self-report multicultural counseling competence scales: Their relation to social desirability attitudes and multicultural case conceptualization. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(2), 155-164. Constantine, M. G., & Ladany, N. (2001). New visions for defining and assessing multicultural counseling competence. In J.G. Ponterotto, J.M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki & C.M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook ofmulticultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 482-498). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Constantine, M. G., Melincoff, D. S., Barakett, M. D., Torino, G. C., & Warren, A. K. (2004). Experiences and perceptions of multicultural counselling scholars: A qualitative examination. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 17(4), 375-393. Constantine, M.G., & Sue, D. W. (2005). The American Psychological Association’s guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational psychology: Initial development and summary. In M. G. Constantine & D. W. Sue (Eds.), Strategies for building multicultural competence in mental health and educational settings (pp. 3-15). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehi, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.  126  Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302. Cumming-McCann, A., & Accordino, M. P. (2005). An investigation of rehabilitation counselor characteristics, white racial attitude, and self-reported multicultural  counseling competencies. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 48(3), 167-176. D’Andrea, M., Daniels, J., & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating the impact of multicultural counseling training. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 143-150. Darnell, A. J., & Kuperminic, G. P. (2006). Organizational cultural competence in mental health service delivery: Multilevel Analysis. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 34, 194-207. DeRicco, J. N., & Sciarra, D. T. (2005). The immersion experience in multicultural counselor training: Confronting covert racism. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 33, 2-16. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Guidelines in scale development. In Scale development: Theory and applications (pp. 51-90). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Diaz-Lazaro, C. M., & Cohen, B. B. (2001). Cross-cultural contact in counselling training. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 29(1), 4 1-56. Dunn, T. W., Smith, T. B., & Montoya, J. A. (2006). Multicultural competency instrumentation: A review and analysis of reliability generalization. Journal of  Counseling and Development, 84, 471-482. Dyche, L., & Zayas, L. H. (1995). The value of curiosity and naiveté for the cross-cultural psychotherapist. Family Process, 34(4), 389-399. Dyche, L., & Zayas, L. H. (2001). Cross-cultural empathy and training the contemporary psychotherapist. Clinical Social Work Journal, 29, 245-258.  127 Eagly, A. H. (1992). Uneven progress: Social psychology and the study of attitudes. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 63(5), 693-710. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology ofattitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Egan, G. (2002). The skilled helper: A problem-management and opportunitydevelopment approach to helping (7th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Estrada, A. U., Durlak, J. A., & Juarez, S. C. (2002). Developing multicultural counseling competencies in undergraduate students. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling & Development, 30, 110-123. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition Research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review ofPsychology, 54, 297-327. Fischer, A. R., Jome, L. M., Atkinson, D. R. (1998). Reconceptualizing multicultural counseling: Universal healing conditions in a culturally specific context. The Counseling Psychologist, 26(4), 525-588. Fuertes, J. N. (2002). Clients’ ratings of counselor multicultural competency. Cultural  Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(3), 2 14-223. Fuertes, J. N., Bartolomeo, M., & Nichols, M. (2001). Future research directions in the study of counselor multicultural competency. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 29, 3-12. Fuertes, J. N., & Gretchen, D. (2001). Emerging theories of multicultural counseling. In J.  G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 509-541). thousand Oaks, CA:Sage. Glockshuber, E. (2005). Counsellors’ self-perceived multicultural competencies model.  128 European Journal ofPsychotherapy, Counselling and Health, 7(4), 291-308. Goh, M. (2005). Cultural competence and master therapists: An inextricable relationship. Journal ofMental Health Counseling, 27(1), 71-81. Greenwald, A. G. (1968). On defining attitude and attitude theory. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychologicalfoundations ofattitudes (pp. 361-388). New York, NY: Academic Press. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, selfesteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4-27. Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Famham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, selfesteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 1(3), 3-25. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Random House. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Holcomb-McCoy, C. C. (2000). Multicultural counseling competencies: An exploratory factor analysis. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling & Development, 28(2), 83-97. Ishiyama, F. I. (In press). Integrative outpatient Morita therapy with an emphasis on the interview process. Paper presented at the Morita award lecture. The  Japan  Morita Therapy Conference, Tokyo, Japan, November, 30-December, 1, 2007. Ishiyama, F.I. (2000a) (as commissioned author). Prejudice reduction research and implications. Multiculturalism, B.C., Ministry of Multiculturalism and Immigration. Ishiyama, F.I. (2000b). Toward organizational maturation: Active witnessingfor prejudice reduction, Proceedings, in paper and compact disc formats, for the  129 Australian Organizational Conference, sponsored by Griffith Univeristy, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia (Sept. 7, 2000). Ishiyama, F. I. (2007, April). Listening with the heart and soul: Use of the self-validation model for multicultural therapist training. In F. Noda & S. Ganesan (Chair), Therapeutic relationship in multicultural context. Symposium conducted at the Japanese Society of Transcultural Psychiatry, World Psychiatric Association  —  Transcultural Psychiatry Section, World Association of Cultural Psychiatry joint meeting in Kamakura. The New Era of Transcultural Psychiatry: Advancing Collaboration of East and West, Kanagawa, Japan. Ivey, A. E., Ivey, M. B., & Simek-Downing, L. (1987). Individual and cultural empathy. In A. E. Ivey, M. B. Ivey, & L. Simek-Downing (Eds.), Counseling and psychotherapy; Integrating skills, theory, and practice (2nd ed.), (jp. 91-118). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ivey, A. E., Ivey, M. B., & Simek-Downing, L. (1993). The empathic attitude: Individual, family, and culture. In A. E. Ivey, M. B. Ivey, & L. Simek-Morgan (Eds.), Counseling and psychotherapy: A multicultural perspective (3rd ed.), (pp. 21-44). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Jurgens, J. C., & McAuliffe, G. (2004). Short-term study-abroad experience in Ireland: An exercise in cross-cultural counseling. International Journalfor the Advancement of Counseling, 2 6(2), 147-161. Karpinski, A., & Hilton, J. L. (2001). Attitudes and the implicit association test. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 774-78 8. Kim, B. S. K., Cartwright, B. Y., Asay, P. A., & D’Andrea, M. J. (2003). A revision of  130 the multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills survey-counselor edition. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36, 161-180. Kim, B. S. K., & Lyons, H. Z. (2003). Experiential activities and multicultural counseling competence training. Journal of Counseling & Development, 8], 400-408. Kitaoka, S. K. (2005). Multicultural counseling competencies: Lessons from assessment. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 33, 3 7-47. Kocarek, C. E., Talbot, D. M., Batka, J. C., & Anderson, M. Z. (2001). Reliability and validity of three measures of multicultural competency. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 486-496. Kottler, J. A. (2002). Transformative travel: International counselling in action. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 24, 207-210. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions  ( t 3 d  ed.). Chicago, IL: The  University of Chicago. LaFromboise, T. D., Coleman, H. L., & Hernandez, A. (1991). Development and factor structure of the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory--Revised. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22(5), 380-388. Lee, R. M., & Darnell, A. J. (2002). Theory and method of multicultural counseling  competency assessment. In K. S. Kurasaki, S. Okazaki, & S. Sue (Eds.), Asian American mental health: Assessment theories and methods (pp. 283-299). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J. M. (2001). Relations among the implicit association test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of  131 Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 43 5-442. McLaren, M. C. (1998). Interpreting cultural dfferences: The challenge of intercultural communication. Norfolk, UK: Peter Francis. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement, (3rd ed., pp. 13-104). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Middleton, R. A., Stadler, H. A., Simpson, C., Guo, Y., Brown, M. J., Crow, G., et al. (2005). Mental health practitioners: The relationship between white racial identity attitudes and self-reported multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 444-456. Mollen, D., Ridley, C. R., & Hill, C. L. (2003). Models of multicultural counseling competence: A critical evaluation. In D. B. Pope-Davis, H. L. D. Coleman, W. M. Liu, & R. L. Toporek(Eds.), handbook of multicultural competencies in counseling and psychology (pp. 2 1-37). Thousand  Oaks, CA:  Sage.  Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. 0. (1998). Validity of measurement: Construct and construct-oriented validation strategies. In Psychological testing: Principles and applications (4th ed., p. 146-169). Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. 0., & Sharma, S. (2003). Steps 1 and 2: Construct definition and generating and judging measurement items. In Scaling procedures: Issues and applications (pp. 88-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Olson, J. M., & Zarina, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117-54. Olson, J. M, Vernon, P. A., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (2001). The heritability of attitudes: A study of twins. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 80(6),  132 845-860. Oskamp, S. (2005). Attitudes and opinions. Mahwah, NJ: L. Eribaum Associates. Ottavi, T. M., Pope-Davis, D. B., & Dings, J. G. (1994). Relationship between white racial identity attitudes and self-reported multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41(2), 149-154. Parson, E. R. (1993a). Ethnotherapeutic empathy (EthE)  —  part I: Definition, theory, and  process. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 23, 5-18. (1 993b). Ethnotherapeutic empathy (EthE)  —  part II: Techniques in interpersonal  cognition and vicarious experiencing across cultures. Journal of Contemporaiy Psychotherapy, 23(3), 171-182. Patterson, C. H. (2004). Do we need multicultural counseling competencies? Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 26(1), 67-73. Pedersen, P. (1991). Multiculturalism as a generic approach to counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 6-12. Pedersen, P. (2000). A handbookfor developing multicultural awareness, (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Pedersen, P. B. (2001). Multiculturalism and the paradigm shift in counselling: Controversies and alternative futures. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 35(1), 15-25. Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Designing and testing the instrument. In Making sense offactor analysis: The use offactor analysis for instrument development in health care research (pp. 13-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Petty, R. B., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change.  133 Annual Review ofPsychology, 48, 609-647. Pomales, J., Claiborn, C. D., & LaFromboise, T. D. (1986). Effects of black students’ racial identity on perceptions of white counselors varying in cultural sensitivity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33(1), 57-61. Ponterotto, J. G., Gretchen, D., Utsey, S. 0., Rieger, B. P., & Austin, R. (2002). A revision of the multicultural counseling awareness scale. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 30, 153-180. Ponterotto, J. G., & Potere, J. C. (2003). The multicultural counseling knowledge and awareness scale (MCKAS): Validity, reliability and user guidelines. In D. B. Pope-Davis, H. L. D. Coleman, W. M. Liu, & R. L. Toporek(Eds.), handbook of multicultural competencies in counseling and psychology (pp. 21-37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 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, 316-322. Pope-Davis, D. B., Liu, W. M., Toporek, R. L., & Brittan-Powell, C. S. (2001). What’s missing from multicultural competency research: Review, introspection, and recommendations. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(2), 121138. Pope-Davis, D. B., Reynolds, A. L., Dings, J. G., & Nielson, D. (1995). Examining multicultural counseling competencies of graduate students in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26(3), 322-329. Pope-Davis, D. B., Vandiver, B. J., & Stone, G. L. (1999). White racial identity attitude  134 development: A psychometric examination of two instruments. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(1), 70-79. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2001). Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal ambibalence: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 19-34. Richardson, T.  Q., & Molinaro, K. L.  (1996). White counselor self-awareness: A  prerequisite for developing multicultural competence. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 23 8-242. Ridley, C. R., Baker, D. M., & Hill, C. L. (2001). Critical issues concerning cultural competence. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(6), 822-832. Ridley, C. R., & Lingle, D. W. (1996). Cultural empathy in multicultural counseling; A multidimensional process model. In P. B. Pedersen, J. G. Draguns, W. J. Lonner, & .T. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (4th ed.), (pp. 21-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ridley, C. R., Mendoza, D. W., Kanitz, B. E., Angermeier, L., & Zenk, R. (1994). Cultural sensitivity in multicultural counseling: A perceptual schema model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41(2), 125-136. Ridley, C. R., & Udipi, S. (2002). Putting cultural empathy into practice. In P. B. Pedersen, J. G. Draguns, W. J. Lonner, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (5th ed.), (pp. 3 17-333). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Robinson, D. T., & Morris, J. R. (2000). Multicultural counseling: Historical context and current training considerations. The Western Journal ofBlack Studies, 24(4), 239253.  135 Robles-Piña, R. A. (2002). A survey of school counselor’s multicultural counseling competencies. TCA Journal, 30(2), 45-55. Rychiak, J. F. (1981). Introduction: A framework for the study of personality. In Introduction to personality and psychotherapy (2nd ed., pp. 1-36). Scott, N. E., & Borodovsky, L. G. (1990). Effective use of cultural role taking. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 167-170. Sciarra, D., Chang, T., McLean, R., & Wong, D. (2005). White racial identity and attitudes toward people with disabilities. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 33, 232-242. Simith, G. I. (2005). On construct validity: Issues of method and measurement. Psychological Assessment, 17(4), 3 96-408. Sodowsky, G. R., Kuo-Jackson, P. Y., Richardson, M. F., & Corey, A. T. (1998). Correlates of self-reported multicultural competencies: Counselor multicultural social desirability, race, social inadequacy, locus of control racial ideology, and multicultural training. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(3), 256-264. Sodowsky, G. R., Taffe, R. C., Gutkin, T. B., & Wise, S. L. (1994). Development of the multicultural counseling inventory: A self-report measure of multicultural competencies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41(2), 137-148. Speight, S. L., Myers, L. J., Cox, C. I., & Highien, P. S. (1991). A redefinition of multicultural counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 29-36. Sue, S. (1998). In search of cultural competence in psychotherapy and counseling. American Psychologist, 53(4), 440-448. Sue, D. W. (1990). Culture-specific strategies in counseling: A conceptual framework.  136 Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21(6), 424-43 3. Sue, D. W. (1991). A model for cultural diversity training. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 99-105. Sue, D. W. (2001a). Multidimensional Facets of Cultural Competence. The Counselling Psychologist, 29(6), 790-821. Sue, D. W. (2001b). The superordinate nature of cultural competence. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(6), 850-857. Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 477-486. Sue, D. W., Bernier, J. E., Durran, A., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P., Smith, E. J., Vasquez Nuttall, E. (1982). Position paper: Cross-cultural counseling competencies. The Counseling Psychologist, 10(2), 45-52. Sue, D. W., Carter, R. T., Casas, J. M., Fouad, N. A., Ivey, A. E., Jensen, M., et al. (1998). Multicultural counseling competencies: Individual and organizational development. In P. Pedersen (Series Ed.), Multicultural aspects ofcounselling series 11. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sue, D. W., Ivey, A. E., & Pedersen, P. B. (1996). Research, practice, and training implications of MCT theory. In A theory of multicultural counseling and therapy. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Sue, D, W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counselling the culturally dfferent: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2003). Counselling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice  137 (4th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2008). Counselling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (5th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Suzuki, L. A., McRae, M. B., & Short, E. L. (2001). The facets of cultural competence: Searching outside the box. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(6), 842-849. Tesser, A., & Shaffer, D. R. (1990). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 479-523. Thomas, K. R., & Weinrach, S. G. (2004). Mental health counseling and the AMCD multicultural counseling competencies: A civil debate. Journal ofMental Health Counseling, 26(1), 41-43. Toporek, R. L., & Pope-Davis, D. B. (2005). Exploring the relationships between multicultural training, racial attitudes, and attributions of poverty among graduate counseling trainees. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11(3), 259-271. Toporek, R. L., & Reza, J. V. (2001). Context as a critical dimension of multicultural counseling: Articulating personal, professional, and institutional competence. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 29, 13-40. Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York, NY: Wiley. Chapter 1: Introduction and underlying processes. Vinson, T. S., & Neimeyer, G. J. (2003). The relationship between racial identity development and multicultural counseling competency: A second look. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31. 262-277. Vontress, C. E., & Jackson, M. L. (2004). Reactions to the multicultural counseling  138 competencies debate. Journal ofMental Health Counseling, 26(1), 74-80. Walsh, W. B., & Betz, N. E. (2001). Reliability, validity, and test construction. In Tests and assessment (4th ed., p. 46-84). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wehrly, B. (1995). Pathways to multicultural counseling competence: A developmental journey. Pacific Grove, CA: Brookes/Cole. Weinrach, S. G., & Thomas, K. R. (2002). A critical analysis of the multicultural counseling competencies: Implications for the practice of mental health counseling. Journal ofMental Health Counseling, 24(1), 20-35. Weinrach, S. G., & Thomas, K. R. (2004). The AMCD multicultural counseling competencies: A critical flawed initiative. Journal ofMental Health Counseling, 26(1), 81-93. Westwood, M., & Wilensky, P. (2005). Therapeutic enactment: Restoring vitality through trauma repair in groups. Vancouver, BC: Group Action. Wheaton, J. E., & Granello, D. H. (1998). The multicultural counseling competencies of state vocational rehabilitation counselors. Rehabilitation Education, 12(1), 5 1-64. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf Cambridge, MA: MIT. Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107(1), 101-126. Worthington, R. L., Mobley, M., Franks, R. P., & Tan, J. A. (2000). Multicultural counseling competencies: Verbal content, counselor attributions, and social desirability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 4 7(4), 460-468.  139 Appendices Appendix 1: Conceptual Table Illustrating 9 Cells of the 1992 Matrix Model and Conceptual Questions for Each Cell Awareness Knowledge Beliefs/Attitudes Awareness of Knowledge of attitude/beliefs? attitude/beliefs? Or Is awareness of Knowledgeable attitude the same as, attitude? siniilar to or different from awareness? Knowledge Awareness of Knowledge of knowledge? knowledge? Knowledge of awareness? Skills Awareness of skills? Knowledge of Skills as awareness? skills? Skills as knowledge?  Skills Attitude/Belief viewed as skills? Are skills equated with attitude?  Skills of knowledge? Knowledge as skills? Skills of skills?  140 Appendix 2: Conceptual Diagram Illustrating Constellations of Variables in a Counselling Dyad Possible Counselling Terms Cross-Racial! Inter-Racial  Cross-Ethnic! Inter-Ethnic  Cross-Age! Inter-Age  Cross-Religious! Inter-Religious  Cross-Sexual! Inter-Sexual  Cross-SES! Inter-SES  Cross-Linguistic! Inter-Linguistic  141 Appendix 3: Global/Universal MCC  Global/Universal MCC Radii  Western Counselling MCC  New Zealand Maori MCC  142 Appendix 4: Impact of Context in Capturing “Culture” “Culture in Counselling Context”  —  “Culture” as Micro-Variables  Ability! Disability  “Counselling in Cultural Context”  —  “Culture” as a global cultural context  4cio\ Healing Circle  Tea Ceremony  Other Healing Systems  143 “Counselling in Culture Context”  —  “Culture” as a local cultural context  Japanese Language  Ascribed Credibility  Advice Giving  144 Appendix 5: The Integrated Model of Attitude, Depicting Attitude, Attitude Sources and Functions  Past Experience  145  Appendix 6: Conceptual Model of Attitude, its Fluid Dynamism, Intersectionality, and Delayed-Responses Accounting for a Complex Construct: Racial Discrimination Response Emission  Racial Discrimination Stereotype/Bias  A racial  minority individual Time Line  Affective function  Cognitive functiomi  Behavioiwal function  146 Appendix 7: Conceptual Model of Attitude, its Fluid Dynamism, Intersectionality, and Delayed-Responses Accounting for a Complex Construct: Schema and Scripts  Mediating affect a person holds toward an attitude Schema object  Affective function  Cognitive function  Behavioural Script  Behavioural fimction  147 Appendix 8: Schematic Diagram of the Universe of CDs/ESs, and Areas Captured by the Four Components of MCC  148 Appendix 9: Temporary Working Specification of Four Components Component 1: Attitude Component Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria • Attitudinal CDs must be evaluative. o Subcomponent 1: Affective Functions (Evaluative feelings) Counsellors feel... (e.g. comfort/discomfort). o Subcomponent 2: Behavioural Functions (Evaluative behaviour; Contents must indicate behavioural commitment to or promotion of cultural competency and diversity.) Counsellors (Verb).... (e.g. promotes, commits him/herself, actively seeks). o Subcomponent 3: Cognitive Functions (Evaluative thought contents) Counsellors value, respect, prefer, believe, or think etc. —  —  —  Component 2: Awareness Component Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria • Awareness CDs must be about counsellor him/herself. o Subcomponent 1: Cultural self-awareness: Counsellor awareness of his/her own (contents E.g. values, beliefs, stereotypes) • Awareness CDs must be neutral which indicates contents ofawareness that are pertinent to one’s own cultural dimensions. • Awareness CDs must NOT imply “evaluative direction” (positive, negative) differentiation from attitude. —  Component 3: Knowledge Component Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria • Knowledge CDs must be about knowledge of something outside of counsellor him/herself. o Subcomponent 1: Knowledge of Cultural background/style of Client Component 4: Skills Component Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria • Skills CDs must specify particular counselling skills, intervention techniques or strategies. o Subcomponent 1: Counselling microskills o Subcomponent 2: Systemic intervention skills (e.g. taking mult4le roles, referral)  149 Appendix 10: Temporary Working Specification of Four Components (2’ Generation) Component 1. Attitude Component Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria • Attitudinal CDs must be evaluative. o Subcomponent 1: Affective Functions (Evaluative feelings) • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor feel... (e.g. comfort/discomfort). o Subcomponent 2: Behavioural Functions (Evaluative behaviour; Contents must indicate behavioural commitment to or promotion of cultural competency and diversity.) • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor (Verb). (e.g. promotes, commits him/herself, actively seeks). o Subcomponent 3: Cognitive Functions (Evaluative thought contents) • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor values, respects, prefers, believes, or thinks etc.... Component 2: Awareness Component Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria • Awareness CDs must be about counsellor himlherself. o Subcomponent 1: Cultural Self-Awareness: • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is aware of his/her own (contents E.g. values, beliefs, stereotypes) • Awareness CDs must be neutral which indicates contents ofawareness that are pertinent to one’s own cultural dimensions. • Awareness CDs must NOT imply “evaluative direction” (positive, negative) differentiation from attitude. • Awareness CDs must be about how such cultural self-contents influence the dynamics of counselling and clients. o Subcomponent 2: Interactive Cultural Self-Awareness: • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is aware of how his/her own (contents of cultural self-awareness) affects (dynamics of counselling/psychotherapy or clients). —  Component 3: Knowledge Component Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria • Knowledge CDs must be about something out side of counsellor him/herself. o Subcomponent 1: Knowledge ofcultural background/style ofclient • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is knowledgeable about/familiar with (cultural background/style of client). o Subcomponent 2: Knowledge ofmajor themes in MCC literature • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is knowledgeable about/familiar with (major themes in MCC literature). o Subcomponent 3: Knowledge of community resources  150 •  Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is knowledgeable about/familiar with (community resources).  Component 4: Skills Component Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria • Skills CDs must specify particular counselling skills, intervention techniques or strategies. o Subcomponent 1: Counselling microskills • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is able to, skillful in. o Subcomponent 2: Systemic intervention skills (e.g. referral) • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is able to, skillful in. o Subcomponent 3: Cultural sensitivity and dynamics interpretation skills • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is sensitive to.  151 Appendix 11: Temporary Working Specification of Four Components  (31(  Generation)  Component 1: Attitude Component Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria • Attitudinal CDs must be evaluative. o Subcomponent 1: Affective Functions (Evaluative feelings) • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor feel... (e.g. comfort/discomfort). o Subcomponent 2: Behavioural Functions (Evaluative behaviour; Contents must indicate behavioural commitment to or promotion of cultural competency and diversity.) • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor (Verb). (e.g. promotes, commits him/herself, actively seeks). o Subcomponent 3: Cognitive Functions (Evaluative thought contents) • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor values, respects, prefers, believes, or thinks etc.... Component 2: Awareness Component Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria • Awareness CDs must be about counsellor him/herself. o Subcomponent 1: Cultural Self-Awareness: • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is aware of his/her own (contents E.g. values, beliefs, stereotypes) • Awareness CDs must be neutral which indicates contents ofawareness that are pertinent to one’s own cultural dimensions. • Awareness CDs must NOT imply “evaluative direction” (positive, negative) differentiation from attitude. • Awareness CDs must be about how such cultural self-contents influence the dynamics of counselling and clients. o Subcomponent 2: Interactive Cultural Self-Awareness: • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is aware of how his/her own (contents of cultural self-awareness) affects (dynamics of counselling/psychotherapy or clients). —  Component 3: Knowledge Component Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria • Knowledge CDs must be about something out side of counsellor him/herself. o Subcomponent 1: Knowledge of Clients • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is knowledgeable about/familiar with (cultural background/style of client he/she is working with or has worked with before). o Subcomponent 2: Knowledge of Culture, Cultural Groups and Members • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is knowledgeable about/familiar with (a particular culture, cultural groups, or members of cultural groups). o Subcomponent 3: Knowledge of Counselling and Major Themes in MCC  152 Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is knowledgeable about/familiar with (general models/theories of counselling and major themes in MCC literature). Subcomponent 4: Knowledge of Community Resources & Limitations • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is knowledgeable about/familiar with (community resources and limitations). Subcomponent 5: Knowledge ofSociopolitical Influences in Counselling • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is knowledgeable about/familiar with (how sociopoliticalfactors influence counselling process). •  o  o  Component 4: Skills Component Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria • Skills CDs must specify particular counselling skills, intervention techniques or strategies. o Subcomponent 1: Counselling Microskills • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is able to, skillful in (specfIc counselling microskills). o Subcomponent 2: Systemic Intervention Skills • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is able to, skillful in (systemic intervention skills: e.g. referral, use of traditional healing system) o Subcomponent 3: Cultural Sensitivity and Dynamics Interpretation Skills • Starting phrase: A multiculturally competent counsellor is sensitive to and skillful in interpreting (cultural dynamics clients present).  153 Appendix 12: Final Full Construct Explication of the Four-Componential Model of Multicultural Counselling Competency  Component 1: Attitude •  •  Component general descriptions A multiculturally competent counsellor is one who is equipped with positive/constructive attitude toward culturally diverse clients andlor multicultural issues. A multiculturally competent counsellor emits positive/constructive a) affective, b) behavioural, andJor c) cognitive evaluative response(s) toward culturally diverse clients and/or multicultural issues.  Subcomponent 1: Affective Functions A multiculturally competent counsellor holds positive/constructive feelings toward culturally diverse clients and/or multicultural issues.  Subcomponent 2: Behavioural Functions A multiculturally competent counsellor engages in positive/constructive behaviour to promote welfare of culturally diverse clients and/or multiculturalism, continue developing his/her own multicultural counselling competency.  Subcomponent 3: Cognitive Functions A multiculturally competent counsellor holds positive/constructive beliefs, views, perspective or other cognitions toward culturally diverse clients andlor multicultural issues.  Component 2: Awareness •  Component general descriptions A multiculturally competent counsellor is one who has high a) cultural self-awareness and b) interactive cultural self awareness.  Subcomponent 1: Cultural Self-Awareness A multiculturally competent counsellor is highly aware of his/her own (contents of cultural self-awareness).  154  Subcomponent 2: Interactive Cultural Self-Awareness A multiculturally competent counsellor is highly aware of how his/her own (contents of cultural self-awareness) affects interactions with clients/others and/or dynamics of counselling.  Component 3: Knowledge •  Component general descriptions A multiculturally competent counsellor is knowledgeable about a) cultural background of his/her clients, b) different cultures, cultural groups, and members, c) counselling and maj or themes in multicultural counselling, d) community resources and limitations, and e) socio-political influences in counselling.  Subcomponent 1: Knowledge of Client A multiculturally competent counsellor is knowledgeable about/familiar with (cultural background/style of client he/she is working with or has worked with before).  Subcomponent 2: Knowledge of Culture, Cultural Groups, and Members A multiculturally competent counsellor is knowledgeable about/familiar with (a particular culture, cultural groups, or members of cultural groups).  Subcomponent 3: Knowledge of Counselling and Major Themes in Multicultural Counselling A multiculturally competent counsellor is knowledgeable about/familiar with (general models/theories of counselling and major themes in MCC literature).  Subcomponent 4: Knowledge of Community Resources & Limitations A multiculturally competent counsellor is knowledgeable about/familiar with (community resources and limitations).  Subcomponent 5: Knowledge of Sociopolitical Influences in Counselling A multiculturally competent counsellor is knowledgeable about/familiar with (how sociopolitical factors influence counselling process).  155  Component 4: Skills •  Component general descriptions A multiculturally competent counsellor is skilled in utilizing a) counselling microskills, b) systemic intervention skills, c) cultural sensitivity and interpretation skills to assist cultural diverse clients.  Subcomponent 1: Counselling Microskills A multiculturally competent counsellor is able to, skillful in (specific counselling microskills).  Subcomponent 2: Systemic Intervention Skills A multiculturally competent counsellor is able to, skillful in (systemic intervention skills: e.g. referral, use of traditional healing system)  Subcomponent 3: Cultural Sensitivity and Dynamics Interpretation Skills A multiculturally competent counsellor is sensitive to and skillful in interpreting (cultural dynamics clients present).  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 26 12
United States 17 2
Germany 5 13
France 3 0
United Kingdom 2 0
Kazakhstan 1 0
Canada 1 3
Republic of Korea 1 3
City Views Downloads
Beijing 24 0
Unknown 10 15
Washington 6 0
Ashburn 5 0
London 2 0
Shenzhen 2 12
North Vancouver 1 0
Canal Fulton 1 0
Astana 1 0
Kansas City 1 0
Mishawaka 1 0
Mountain View 1 1
Arlington 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0054156/manifest

Comment

Related Items