Identifying Critical Cross Cultural

Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp.
115 – 141, 2002

Copyright D 2002 Society for the Study of School Psychology
Printed in the USA
0022-4405/02 $ – see front matter
PII S0022-4405(02)00093-6
Identifying Critical Cross-Cultural School

Psychology Competencies
Margaret R. Rogers
Psychology Department, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA
Emilia C. Lopez
Queens College of The City University of New York, Flushing, NY, USA
The purpose of this study was to identify critical cross-cultural competencies for
school psychologists. This study used a Delphi procedure to bring together the
expertise of a national sample of cross-cultural experts, including school psychology
practitioners, faculty, and supervisors/administrators of whom 62% represented a
racial/ethnic minority group member. To identify the competencies, we conducted
an extensive literature search about cross-cultural school psychology competencies
then used a questionnaire to ask expert panelists to rate the importance of the
literature based competencies and to delineate additional competencies not re-
presented in the integrated literature but based on expert opinion. The literature
yielded 185 competencies and the panelists generated 75 additional competencies.
Following the second questionnaire round, 102 competencies were identified as
critical cross-cultural competencies. The 102 competencies cover 14 major domains
of professional activities and practices for school psychologists (e.g., Academic
Interventions, Assessment, Consultation, Counseling, Culture, Language, Laws and
Regulations, Organizational Skills, Professional Characteristics, Report Writing,
Research Methods, Theoretical Paradigms, Working with Interpreters, and Working
with Parents). Implications for research and training are discussed. D 2002 Society
for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd
Keywords: Critical, Cross-cultural, School, Psychology, Competencies.
To meet the needs of an increasingly diverse clientele, school psychologists

must develop cross-cultural competencies. In the revised and updated School
Psychology: A Blueprint for Training and Practice II (Blueprint II) (Ysseldyke et al.,
1997), cross-cultural competence is identified as one of four principal
domains of expertise needed by all school psychologists. The importance
placed on school psychologists developing cross-cultural competencies is
Accepted January 15, 2002.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Margaret R. Rogers, Psychology Depart-
ment, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, USA. Phone: (401) 874-7999; fax: (401)
874-2157; E-mail: mrogers@uri.edu
115
116 Journal of School Psychology
not surprising given the significant demographic changes currently taking

place in the U.S. Projected population estimates for the year 2020 suggest
that one out of three children attending our nation’s public schools will
represent a racially, ethnically, or culturally diverse group (Ponterotto &
Casas, 1991). Studies also indicate that one out of every five school children
in the U.S. speaks a language other than English (Waggoner, 1994) and
consequently, the need for bilingual school psychologists has grown rapidly
(Ochoa, Rivera, & Ford, 1997).
For training of school psychologists to be maximally effective, compe-
tencies essential to serving diverse populations must be clearly articulated
and validated. Other fields have initiated this procedure. Numerous
researchers within counseling psychology have proposed definitions of
cross-cultural counseling competence (e.g., D’Andrea, Daniels, & Heck,
1991; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Hernandez, 1991; Ponterotto, Sanchez, &
Magids, 1991; Sodowsky, Taffe, Gutkin, & Wise, 1994; Sue, Arredondo, &
McDavis, 1992; Sue et al., 1982) which have been operationalized into
measures of cross-cultural counseling competence (see Ponterotto, Rieger,
Barrett, & Sparks, 1994) but the focus of these measures appears to be
working with adult clients. In school psychology, a field that specializes in
the delivery of psychological services to children and youth, no clear con-
sensus has emerged about what constitutes the full range of cross-cultural
school psychology competencies.
One of the major reasons that we need to turn our attention to the
identification of cross-cultural competencies in school psychology practices
is the growing body of literature that establishes a relationship between
cross-cultural competence and intervention outcomes (e.g., Ridley, Men-
doza, & Kanitz, 1994; Rogler, Malgady, Costantino, & Blumenthal, 1987;
Yutrzenka, 1995; Zayas, Torres, Malcolm, & DesRosiers, 1996). Two con-
tributions germane to school psychology illustrate this relationship. In the
first, Tarver Behring and Ingraham (1998) describe the consequences of
providing consultation services with and without a cross-cultural approach.
When the consultant is not cross-culturally competent, critical resources
are not engaged, important changes to improve the cultural and linguistic
relevance of the instructional environment are not made, the teacher
remains uninformed, the parents uninvolved, and the child’s needs go
unmet. In this scenario, the potential for a compromised outcome for the
child and all associated parties due to the use of a culturally uninformed
approach is significant. In the second contribution, Moecker (as cited in
Gersten & Woodward, 1994) found that English-as-a-Second-Language
students were frequently identified as learning disabled after the students
were administered standardized assessment instruments in English rather
than being assessed in their native language. The multidisciplinary team
decision to identify the children as learning disabled then led to placement
in special education, a form of intervention that may bear little to no
Rogers and Lopez 117
relationship to the student’s true academic skill development needs. This

finding may account for the common observation that language minority
students are more likely than their English-speaking counterparts to be
overreferred and misplaced in special education (Figueroa, 1989). Because
individuals representing diverse racial/ethnic, linguistic, and cultural
groups may be especially at risk for irrelevant or inappropriate services,
it is important that we identify the cross-cultural competencies that school
psychologists need to promote rather than hinder psychological well being
and academic excellence.
Best practices in training also demand the identification of cross-cultur-
al school psychology competencies (American Psychological Association,
2000). Although APA accreditation guidelines emphasize the need for
accredited programs to engage in cross-cultural training, more precise
definition is needed regarding exact content or the range of cross-cultural
competencies required for school psychologists. Given this situation, it is
perhaps not unusual that many school psychology programs do not pro-
vide coverage of cross-cultural issues. A national survey of the multi-
cultural training occurring in school psychology programs found that
40% of the programs sampled did not offer specific minority issues
coursework and almost 30% of the students attending the sampled
programs received little to no exposure to racial/ethnic minority children
during practicum or internship (Rogers, Ponterotto, Conoley, & Wiese,
1992). These results suggest that in many school psychology programs there
is a critical need to develop the features of the cross-culturally competent
school psychologist. One way to guide training efforts is to delineate the
specific cross-cultural skills and competencies essential to working with
diverse clients.
Two early articles discussed competencies needed by school psychologists
when working with English Language Learner (ELL) students (Figueroa,
Sandoval, & Merino, 1984) and bilingual/bicultural children (Rosenfield &
Esquivel, 1985). More recently, Gopaul-McNicol (1997) proposed compe-
tencies for monolingual school psychologists who work with multilingual
student populations. In each of these three articles, however, the compe-
tencies were based on practical suggestions and were not identified using
empirical methods and procedures. In an attempt to establish an empirical
base, Rogers et al. (1992) asked trainers of future school psychologists to
define cross-cultural competence. Rogers et al. report that most of the
training directors sampled defined cross-cultural competence as ‘‘the
psychologist’s knowledge, awareness, and sensitivity to differences in
culture,. . . or the ability of the school psychologist to deliver nonbiased
services’’ (p. 610). Although this definition is important as a beginning
exploration of the meaning of cross-cultural school psychology compe-
tence, it may not fully capture the wide range of cross-cultural competen-
cies needed by school psychologists when they carry out the complete
spectrum of professional functions and activities that characterizes their

day-to-day work.
The purpose of the present study was to identify the critical cross-cultural
competencies needed by school psychologists. To identify the competen-
cies, we conducted an extensive literature search about cross-cultural
competencies relevant to school psychology practice then asked experts
in cross-cultural school psychology to rate the importance of the literature
based competencies and to delineate additional competencies not repre-
sented in the integrated literature but based on expert opinion. The study
used a Delphi procedure (Linstone & Turoff, 1975) to establish the critical
cross-cultural school psychology competencies. This methodology has been
found to be very useful when establishing a consensus of opinion about
complex issues or problems that have not yet been clearly articulated or
explored (Cookson, 1986; Weatherman & Swenson, 1974). The study
focused on the cross-cultural psychology competencies (i.e., knowledge
and skills) that school psychologists should have in the delivery of psycho-
logical services to diverse group members. For this study, diverse group
members referred to African-Americans/Blacks, Asian Americans, His-
panics/Latinos, Native American Indians, Pacific Islanders, bilinguals,
biracials, and ELLs. In addition, individuals representing other diverse
‘cultural’ groups (because of sexual orientation, economic status, and
gender) were also included in the present definition. Our conceptualiza-
tion of cross-cultural competence embraces Lynch and Hanson’s (1992)
perspective, which defines cross-cultural competence as a ‘‘way of thinking
and behaving that enables members of one cultural, ethnic, or linguistic
group to work effectively with members of another’’ (p. 356). The study was
designed to answer two questions: First, ‘‘What do the experts believe are
the critical research-, practice-, and theory-derived cross-cultural competen-
cies that school psychologists should have?’’ and second, ‘‘What other
competencies, not addressed in the literature but based on expert experi-
ence, are critical cross-cultural school psychology competencies?’’
This study is important, given the need for research that identifies cross-
cultural competencies across the major areas of school psychological
practice. Previous articles, book chapters, and books (e.g., Esquivel, 1985;
Figueroa et al., 1984; Gopaul-McNicol, 1997; Rosenfield & Esquivel, 1985)
concerned with cross-cultural competencies relevant to school psychology
practices have focused our attention on one client group or a single area of
professional competence (e.g., bilingual/bicultural individuals or assess-
ment competencies essential with ELL youngsters) but have not synthe-
sized nor incorporated the findings from various literatures into one
comprehensive investigation. This dispersed approach does not provide
us with an integrated understanding of the literature base nor a way to
guide our professional behavior. By pooling together the competencies
from various sources of literature and incorporating competencies from
expert opinion, the aim was to obtain a comprehensive picture of the cross-
cultural competencies most important to the successful delivery of a wide
spectrum of school psychological services.
METHOD
Participants
The national pool of potential Delphi panelists consisted of school psy-
chologists identified for participation because of their active contributions
to and expertise within the field of cross-cultural school psychology (see
Procedure). Of the 65 Delphi panelists invited to participate, 34 (52%)
responded to the first round of questionnaires and 24 (71%) of the first
round respondents completed the second round of the questionnaire. The
final pool of panelists included 12 (50%) males and 12 (50%) females.
There were 9 (38%) Caucasian, 9 (38%) Hispanic/Latino, 2 (8%) African-
American, 2 (8%) Asian American, and 2 (8%) Native American Indian
panelists. The majority (N=20, 83%) of panelists held a doctoral degree,
1 (4%) panelist had completed post doctoral work, and 3 (13%) panelists
held a specialist degree in school psychology. Most panelists (N=13, 54%)
were faculty members, 9 (38%) were practicing school psychologists, 1 (4%)
was a supervisor and administrator of psychological services, and another
1 (4%) was an administrator of school psychological services. The panelists
came from 14 different states in the U.S. and were geographically dispersed:
9 (38%) were from the northeast, 6 (25%) were located in the midwest,
4 (17%) from the west, 4 (17%) from the southwest, and 1 (4%) located in
the southeast. Further information regarding the participating panelists’
expertise is discussed in the Results section.
Instrumentation
In the present study, the format of the questionnaires and the statistical
analysis employed were patterned after Delphi studies conducted by
Cannon, Idol, and West (1992) and West and Cannon (1988). A Delphi
questionnaire was designed and administered in two rounds. The question-
naire used in Round 1 was comprised of two parts: a background section
and the cross-cultural school psychology competency questionnaire. The
background section contained 12 questions about demographic character-
istics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity), primary professional position, relevant
professional contributions and products (e.g., publications, presentations,
committee work), total years of experience working with culturally and
linguistically diverse clients, professional activities involving cross-cultural
populations, and self-perceived areas of cross-cultural expertise.
Development of the cross-cultural school psychology competency

questionnaire. The second part of the Delphi questionnaire used in
Round 1 was the cross-cultural school psychology competency question-
naire and it was created based on an extensive literature review. To
perform the literature review, several key sources were consulted about
the science of conducting literature reviews (e.g., Cooper, 1982, 1989;
Light & Pillemer, 1984). Cooper (1989) suggests that researchers use
multiple search methods to locate relevant literature to protect and
enhance the validity of the review. We employed a combination of three
literature search strategies: A computerized search involving an abstract
data base, a manual search of relevant journals, books, and professional
and regulatory standards, and an ‘ancestry’ search approach. The ances-
try approach involved finding original sources cited in studies already
obtained (Cooper, 1989). The literature review was meant to be a
comprehensive examination of the relevant literature and was designed
to yield relevant articles, book chapters, books, and regulatory and
professional standards. The primary goal of the process was to engage
in a thorough review of the school psychology professional literature
about cross-cultural competencies and draw from that literature base in
constructing the competency items. A secondary objective was to cull
from other closely related specialties in psychology, namely clinical and
counseling psychology, and related disciplines including interpreters,
multicultural education, measurement, and second language develop-
ment to provide coverage of competencies most relevant to working with
a racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse clientele. The
cross-cultural competencies drawn from the literature were based on the
results of empirical studies, and formulations from theoretical, position,
and practice-oriented manuscripts. With the exception of four unpub-
lished manuscripts located through the ancestry approach, all other
literature sources were published. The literature review excluded disser-
tations, book reviews, and international articles.
The literature review was conducted in two major phases. In the first
phase, literature within the field of school psychology was examined for
coverage of cross-cultural competency content. The first step of this phase
was to conduct a computerized literature search using Psychlit to identify
articles published in 1975 – 1995 that specifically dealt with cross-cultural
school psychology competencies. The next step was to manually examine
the major school psychology journals (i.e., Journal of School Psychology,
Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology Quarterly, School Psychology Review)
for all articles published in 1975 –1995 that contained relevant content.
Also, major professional texts in school psychology (e.g., Children at Risk:
Poverty, Minority Status, and Other Issues in Educational Equity, Barona &
Garcia, 1990; Home–School Collaboration: Enhancing Children’s Academic and
Social Competence, Christenson & Conoley, 1992; Handbook of School Psychology,
Gutkin & Reynolds, 1990; Assessment of Children, Sattler, 1988; Best Practices in
School Psychology, Thomas & Grimes, 1985; Best Practices in School Psychology II,
Thomas & Grimes, 1990; Best Practices in School Psychology III, Thomas &
Grimes, 1995; Best Practices in Assessment for School and Clinical Settings, Vance,
1993) were located and chapters that contained relevant content were
identified and reviewed. Finally, published regulatory standards and pro-
fessional guidelines were also consulted (e.g., Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing, AERA, APA, & NCME, 1985; Guidelines for Providers of
Psychological Services to Ethnic, Linguistic, and Culturally Diverse Populations,
APA, 1991; Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, APA, 1992;
Principles for Professional Ethics, NASP, 1992).
The first phase of the literature review served as the basis for the second
phase of the literature review. Our examination of the school psychology
literature led us to seek out and find original sources from clinical psy-
chology, counseling psychology, interpreters, multicultural education,
measurement, and second language development. The search for original
sources from these related disciplines was conducted to clarify and verify
information and concepts found in the school psychology literature. For
every source examined in both phases of the literature review, there was
100% agreement between the study’s co-authors that the source addressed
competencies relevant to racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically
diverse populations.
Content analysis of the identified literature and construction of the

items. The text from each identified source was read in its entirety by
multiple readers (the study’s authors as well as two readers blind to the
purposes of the study). While reading the identified literature, the readers
underlined then transcribed concepts that described knowledge and skill
relevant to cross-cultural competencies in school psychological service
delivery. Specifically, the readers extracted concepts and statements that
the authors identified as areas of expertise and skills important to the
effective delivery of school psychology services to racially, ethnically, lin-
guistically, and culturally diverse individuals. The analysis of the literature
suggested two spheres of competencies: knowledge and skills. Statements in
the literature that referred to content knowledge that psychologists should
possess in working with diverse populations were defined as knowledge
competencies. Statements that communicated an action (e.g., statements
that contained action verbs like ‘‘assessing,’’ ‘‘delivering,’’ ‘‘planning’’) were
considered to be skill competencies. Two of the readers, uninformed of the
purposes of the study, independently identified and coded relevant con-
cepts from the identified literature. Interrater agreement for identifying
the knowledge and skill competency concepts from the literature was 0.88.
Based on the concepts extracted from the literature, individual items were
constructed so that each individual item represented a concept addressed
in the literature. Redundant items were eliminated from the final pool
of items.
Fourteen major categories of cross-cultural competencies emerged from
the text from each article, chapter, and book. In defining the categories,
the goal was to provide maximal coverage of the competencies delineated
in the literature. These major categories of competencies reflected not
only the major functions of school psychologists (i.e., assessment, consul-
tation, interventions, research methods; Fagan & Sachs Wise, 1994) but
also addressed competencies suggested in the literature as being needed
when working with specific groups (e.g., interpreters, parents, organiza-
tions) or competencies regarding specific areas of professional expertise
(e.g., culture, language, laws and regulations, professional characteristics,
report writing, theoretical paradigms). The 14 categories representing the
major domains of cross-cultural school psychology competencies included
Academic Interventions, Assessment, Consultation, Counseling, Culture,
Language, Laws and Regulations, Organizational Skills, Professional Char-
acteristics, Report Writing, Research Methods, Theoretical Paradigms,
Working with Interpreters, and Working with Parents. In defining the
categories it was not possible to create a classification scheme that was
entirely mutually exclusive as knowledge and skills relevant to one area of
expertise and one category were sometimes also related to another area
(e.g., competencies about the need to be aware of the impact of language
differences may pertain to the Professional Characteristic domain as well as
to the Language category). Therefore, in some instances, the content of
the categories were similar. The individual items were assigned to one of
the 14 competency categories. To determine the best fit between each item
and its corresponding category, two raters who were blind to the purpose
of the study independently classified the competencies into the categories.
Interrater agreement was calculated as number of agreements that an item
qualified as one of the categories divided by agreements plus disagree-
ments. Interrater agreement was 0.81. Using these procedures, 185 liter-
ature-derived items representing the 14 major categories of competencies
were developed.
In responding to the cross-cultural school psychology competency
questionnaire developed for Round 1, the panelists were instructed to
consider the critical knowledge and skills that a cross-culturally competent
school psychologist should have and rate the importance of each of the 185
competency items constructed from the literature. The 185 items were
scaled using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from very important (1) to very
unimportant (5). In addition to the 185 items, the questionnaire provided
additional space within each major category so that panelists could add
competencies that they considered to be critical that were not already
included in the existing items. That is, the questionnaire also included two
open-ended items per category (one for knowledge and one for skills) that
asked panelists to describe the cross-cultural knowledge or skill compe-

tencies that they thought school psychologists should have that were not
already presented in the literature based items. The open-ended items
accounted for an additional 28 open-ended items on the questionnaire.
The resulting Round 1 cross-cultural school psychology competency ques-
tionnaire contained a total of 185 literature-derived items and 28 open-
ended items.
The Delphi questionnaire for Round 2 was an expanded version of the
cross-cultural school psychology competency questionnaire administered in
Round 1. In response to the open-ended items on Round 1, the panelists
submitted an additional 75 competency items not already addressed in the
literature based items. Thus, the Round 2 cross-cultural school psychology
competency questionnaire contained a total of 260 items that included a
combination of literature-derived items and expert-derived items.
Procedure
Identification and selection of panelists. Participants in the study were
school psychologists who had expertise in the provision of psychological
services to racially, ethnically, culturally, and/or linguistically diverse pop-
ulations. The expertise of the panelists was defined in terms of professional
accomplishments in multiple domains of professional functioning relevant
to psychological service delivery with diverse clients. To qualify as a panelist
using this definition of expertise, each panelist met at least two of the
following five criteria: (a) was primary or secondary author of two or more
school psychology publications concerning racially, ethnically, culturally,
and linguistically diverse clients; (b) presented three or more presentations
on relevant cross-cultural topics at national school psychology conferences
(e.g., National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) and APA con-
ventions); (c) was a member or chair of an APA Division 16 (School
Psychology) or NASP committee about delivering services to racially,
ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse clients; (d) was employed
as a practicing or supervising school psychologist with at least 5 years
experience working primarily with racially, ethnically, culturally and/or
linguistically diverse populations; and (e) was employed as a school
psychology faculty member at a school psychology program that empha-
sized multicultural or bilingual training. Participants meeting at least two of
these criteria were considered to have expertise in providing school
psychology services to diverse populations and cross-cultural competencies
because of their combined professional accomplishments (i.e., publica-
tions, presentations, extended work experience, relevant committee work,
relevant faculty experience) and therefore eligible as an expert panelist.
To qualify as a panelist using the ‘author’ criteria, the author was a
primary or secondary author of two or more school psychology publications
(i.e., journal articles, books, book chapters) concerned with racially, ethni-
cally, culturally, and linguistically diverse clients during the 1990 – 1995
period. The publication outlets included major school psychology journals
(i.e., Journal of School Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology
Quarterly, School Psychology Review), relevant book chapters in a major school
psychology text (e.g., Best Practices in School Psychology III, Thomas & Grimes,
1995; Handbook of School Psychology, Gutkin & Reynolds, 1990), or relevant
books. Authors were identified by two members of the research team who
independently reviewed the contents of these publications for work in which
cross-cultural themes were the major focus or persons from diverse racial/
ethnic, cultural, or linguistic groups within the U.S. were the major focus.
Interrater agreement for identifying relevant publications/authors was
calculated as number of agreements divided by agreements plus disagree-
ments. Interrater agreement for this analysis was 0.96.
To qualify as a panelist using the ‘presenter’ criteria, panelists made
three or more relevant presentations at NASP or APA conferences
during the period 1990 – 1995. Two members of the research team
independently examined all APA and NASP convention programs pub-
lished 1990 – 1995 for relevant presentations sponsored by Division 16
(APA) and NASP. Interrater agreement for identifying relevant presenta-
tions/presenters was calculated as number of agreements divided by
agreements plus disagreements. Using this procedure, interrater agree-
ment was 0.98.
Potential panelists who were considered for participation in the study
because they were either practicing or supervising school psychologists
were identified through a nomination procedure. To identify the nomi-
nators, individuals who met two criteria for panel selection (e.g., author of
two or more relevant articles, book chapters or books, member of relevant
APA Division 16 or NASP committee) were contacted in writing. The
nominators were asked to identify school psychology practitioners or
supervisors with at least 5 years of experience providing services to racially,
ethnically, culturally, or linguistically diverse populations. Once the practi-
tioners and supervisors were nominated, they were contacted and asked to
provide background information that they met at least two of the ‘exper-
tise’ criteria in order to qualify as a panelist. Those who met at least two
criteria were included in the pool of panelists.
The final criteria for membership as a panelist was faculty membership at
school psychology training programs that emphasized multicultural or
bilingual training. To identify these faculty, we used the findings from
previous research about school psychology programs that represented
exemplary models of multicultural training (Rogers, Martin, & Druckman,
1994). The faculty members were nominated as ‘experts’ in multicultural
research by the participants in the Rogers et al. (1994) study and were
employed at the 17 doctoral and nondoctoral school psychology programs
examined in the Rogers et al. (1994) study. Using all of these procedures
for identifying panelists, we identified 128 school psychologists who met at
least two of the pre-established criteria. Out of that pool, a national sample
of 65 school psychologists were randomly selected as panelists for the
present study.
Questionnaire rounds. The Delphi procedure used in this study involved

two rounds of questionnaires. In Round 1, panelists were sent a packet
containing a cover letter, the first round Delphi questionnaire containing
the background questions and the cross-cultural school psychology com-
petency questionnaire, and a stamped pre-addressed return envelope. The
cover letter invited their participation, stated the criteria used to identify
them as panelists, and explained the Delphi procedure. Three weeks later,
a follow-up postcard was sent to all nonrespondents urging their partic-
ipation. Six weeks after the first mailing we sent a second reminder,
including the entire packet sent in the first mailing, to all those who still
had not responded. Out of the pool of 65 panelists, 34 (52%) responded to
the first round.
Once the Round 1 questionnaires were returned by the panelists, the
sample mean, standard deviation, and the range of consensus were
computed for each item. These statistics were calculated to gauge the
degree to which the panelists agreed about the importance of the com-
petency items. The range of consensus refers to the range of agreement the
group had about the rating for each item (West & Cannon, 1988). As
recommended by West and Cannon (1988), F1.64 standard deviation units
were added to the mean of each item to establish the range of consensus
for each item. Individual items rated within the range of consensus (mean
of itemF1.64 S.D.) were considered to be inside the established range of
consensus. Items outside the range of consensus were identified by
examining the panelists’ ratings for each individual item that fell outside
the established boundaries (i.e., outside of the meanF1.64 S.D. for an
item). Once the Round 1 questionnaires were returned, we also transcribed
and edited for clarity all additional items that were generated by the
participating panelists. The panelists generated 75 additional items so that
the total number of competency items fed back to the panelists in Round 2
was 260.
The Round 2 Delphi questionnaire contained the 260 competency items,
which included the 185 literature-derived items as well as the 75 items
supplied by the expert panelists. The Round 2 questionnaire was sent to all
panelists who responded to the first round. In Round 2, the panelists were
asked to rate the importance of the new items that were generated in
Round 1 and reconsider their initial ratings to each literature-derived item.
Following the mailing of the Round 2 questionnaire, two follow-up
reminders were sent approximately three weeks apart to non-responding
panelists. Using this procedure, 24 (71%) panelists from the first round
completed the second and final round of the questionnaire.
RESULTS
Panelists Expertise
The final pool of 24 panelists reported that the average number of years
they worked with diverse children, youth, and their families was 15.8.
Panelists indicated that they had cross-cultural expertise in a number of
different areas including cross-cultural interventions and counseling, bilin-
gual special education, cross-cultural assessment, and assessment of ELL
students. Table 1 contains a breakdown of the professional activities that
panelists reported being involved in about cross-cultural issues. The
activities that panelists engaged in most frequently were providing psycho-
logical services to diverse families or children/youth (100%), assessing
diverse children and youth (96%), delivering consultation services to a
diverse clientele (88%), and attending relevant conference presentations
(88%). The 24 panelists reported a range of involvement in cross-culturally
relevant professional activities from 2 activities to all 14 activities. The mean
number of activities per panelist was 10. This suggests that in addition to
Table 1
Panelists Professional Activities Involving Cross-Cultural School Psychology and Providing
Services to Racially, Ethnically, Culturally, and Linguistically Diverse Children
Activity N %
Providing psychological services to 24 100

diverse families or children/youth
Assessing diverse children and youth 23 96
Delivering consultation services 21 88
Attending relevant conferences 21 88
Conducting relevant inservice training 20 83
Supervising undergraduate and/or graduate 19 79
students in practicum and/or internship
Teaching multicultural course 17 71
Conducting relevant research 17 71
Mentoring undergraduate and/or graduate students 16 67
Providing counseling or therapeutic services 15 63
Participating in relevant local professional organizations 14 58
Publishing relevant work 13 54
Participating in departmental or university committees 11 46
Other 3 13
Panelists who indicated ‘Other’ included N = 1 led parent training classes in Spanish, N = 1
belonged to Asian Psychological Association, N = 1 developed a bilingual school psychology
training program.
meeting the criteria for selection as an expert panelist, the panelists on

average also engaged in a high level of participation in various other
professional activities about cross-cultural issues and diverse populations.
Critical Cross-Cultural Competencies

To identify the critical competencies, panelists ratings for each of the 185
items on the cross-cultural school psychology competency questionnaire
were used to calculate means, standard deviations, and range of con-
sensus following Round 1 and Round 2. Using West and Cannon’s (1988)
conceptualization, the amount of consensus for each cross-cultural com-
petency item was computed to be ‘‘. . .the percentage of panelist ratings
that fell within the established range of consensus (F1.64S.D.) on
Round 2’’ (p. 58). Out of the original 185 items, those that had a rating
between 1.00 and 1.49 on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very important,
5 = very unimportant) and reached 96% or greater consensus were
identified as critical cross-cultural school psychology competencies. All
items not meeting these two criteria were excluded from further analysis.
Using these criteria, 79 (43%) of the original 185 literature-derived
competency items were identified as critical and 106 (57%) items were
eliminated. Examples of eliminated items include ‘‘Cross-culturally skilled
school psychologists should have knowledge about critical pedagogy,’’
‘‘Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge
about general variables along which different languages vary (e.g., sound
systems, writing systems, syntax, vocabulary),’’ and ‘‘Cross-culturally skilled
school psychologists should have skills in accommodating to participation
structures in designing academic interventions.’’ A common feature of
many eliminated items appeared to be the degree the items reflected
domains of knowledge that perhaps are not central to the core knowl-
edge base of most school psychologists.
The means, standard deviations, and range of consensus were also
calculated for the additional 75 items that were generated by the expert
panelists in response to the open-ended questions in Round 1. Out of the
additional 75 items, 23 (31%) had mean ratings between 1.00 and 1.49
and achieved 96% consensus and were considered to be critical compe-
tencies. Fifty-two (69%) of the items generated by the panelists did not
attain mean ratings of less than 1.49 and reach 96% consensus and were
therefore excluded from further analysis. By combining the literature-
derived competencies and expert-derived competencies that met the pre-
established criteria, a total of 102 knowledge and skill competencies were
identified as critical cross-cultural school psychology competencies by the
panelists. The range of mean ratings for the critical cross-cultural com-
petency statements was 1.04 –1.47 with a median of 1.37, suggesting that
the panelists rated the 102 items as most important relative to the other
competencies. The amount of consensus among panelists for the critical

competencies ranged from 96% to 100% with a median consensus of
100%, indicating a high level of agreement among the panelists.
The mean rating for the critical cross-cultural competencies within
each competency category were also calculated. When only the critical
competencies (i.e., those rated as most important) were included in each
category, the Assessment category was the leader (M = 1.25), followed by
Report Writing (M = 1.30), Laws and Regulations (M = 1.35), Working with
Interpreters (M = 1.37), Working with Parents (M = 1.37), Theoretical
Paradigms (M = 1.37), Counseling (M = 1.38), Professional Characteristics
(M = 1.39), Consultation (M = 1.39), Culture (M=1.39), Academic Inter-
ventions (M = 1.40), Research Methods (M = 1.40), Working with Organiza-
tions (M = 1.41), and Language (M = 1.42). The Assessment category also
contained the two competencies rated as most important (M = 1.04) that
stated ‘‘School psychologists should have knowledge about nonbiased
assessment and the process of adapting available instruments to assess
linguistically and culturally diverse (LCD) students’’ and ‘‘School psycholo-
gists should have skills using instruments sensitive to cultural and linguistic
differences.’’ Table 2 contains, in order from most to least important, the
categories of critical knowledge and skill competencies with sample items
for each category.
The Working with Interpreters, Professional Characteristics, and Coun-
seling categories had the greatest number of critical competencies with 15,
14, and 13, respectively. The Working with Organizations and Theoretical
Paradigms categories had the fewest critical competencies with one each.
Following Round 2, the categories that retained the greatest percentage of
competencies as critical included Counseling (N = 13; 76%), Working with
Interpreters (N = 15; 65%), Consultation (N = 11; 65%), Culture (N = 9;
64%), and Professional Characteristics (N=14; 47%). The categories that
retained the fewest percentage of competencies as critical included Lan-
guage (N = 1; 6%), Working with Organizations (N = 1; 8%), Research
(N = 2; 8%), Theoretical Paradigms (N = 1; 10%), and Academic Interven-
tions (N = 7; 24%).
DISCUSSION
Previous examinations of cross-cultural school psychology competencies
have not provided a comprehensive understanding of the knowledge
and skills school psychologists need when working with racially, ethni-
cally, culturally, and linguistically diverse individuals (Figueroa et al.,
1984; Gopaul-McNicol, 1997; Rosenfield & Esquivel, 1985). This study is
unique as the first to combine a qualitative methodology with empirical
procedures to identify literature-derived and expert-derived critical cross-
Table 2
The Most Important to Least Important Categories of Critical Cross-Cultural School
Psychology Competencies, Item Means and Standard Deviations
Round 2
Competency category, ranking, and sample items Mean S.D.

Assessment (ranked 1)
Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have knowledge about:
1. nonbiased assessment and the process of adapting available instruments 1.04 0.20
to assess LCD students
2. alternative assessment methods (e.g., dynamic, ecological). 1.29 0.46
Cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have skills about:
3. using instruments sensitive to cultural and linguistic differences 1.04 0.20
4. using assessment results to formulate recommendations that facilitate 1.29 0.46
language acquisition.
Report Writing (ranked 2)

5. the importance of integrating cultural and language background of the 1.20 0.50
family and child, language proficiency, and learning style information
into the report.
6. incorporating information about family origins, family composition, 1.29 0.55
parental attitudes about education and handicapping conditions, and
level of acculturation into report (if relevant)
7. reporting the use of translations during assessment 1.20 0.65
8. reporting the use of an interpreter during the assessment process and 1.25 0.67
describing the scope of the interpreters involvement in the assessment.
Laws and regulations (ranked 3)

9. applying laws and regulations to protect LCD children from sources 1.33 0.48
of bias and discrimination
10. interpreting legal and regulatory decisions that are relevant to LCD 1.37 0.49
children and their families.
Working with Interpreters (ranked 4)

11. the dynamics of the translation procedure 1.33 0.48
12. the competencies needed by interpreters (e.g., language skills, 1.29 0.46
knowledge of intercultural communication, translation techniques,
professional conduct, school relevant knowledge).
13. assessing students through interpreters 1.33 0.56
14. interpreting information obtained through interpreters 1.33 0.56
15. speaking directly to the parents, not the interpreter. 1.31 0.56
Working with Parents (ranked 5)

16. differences in family structures across cultures (e.g., extended families) 1.37 0.57
17. differences in authority, hierarchies, communication patterns, belief 1.33 0.56
systems, values, and gender roles.
(continued )
Table 2
Continued
Round 2
Working with Parents (ranked 5)

18. the attitudes of culturally diverse parents towards different forms of 1.33 0.56
interventions and types of interventions
19. the attitudes that culturally diverse parents have toward educational 1.37 0.49
institutions and teachers.
20. implementing home – school collaboration programs and interventions. 1.33 0.48
Theoretical Paradigms (ranked 6)

21. the strengths and limitations of the major theoretical paradigms that 1.37 0.49
operate in school psychology and the appropriateness of their
applications to LCD individuals/groups.
Counseling (ranked 7)
22. differences that exist between counselor and client that can impact the 1.33 0.48
counseling relationship.
23. recognizing that helping styles and methods may be culture-bound 1.30 0.47
24. assessing acculturation of the client and responding to the client’s self- 1.29 0.46
presentation rather than the counselor’s inferred identity of the client.
Professional Characteristics (ranked 8)

25. the client’s culture, cultural context, values, worldview and social norms. 1.34 0.57
26. viewing clinical information within a contextual perspective 1.29 0.55
(i.e., depression among gay populations)
27. engaging in ongoing efforts to reduce and eliminate biased beliefs 1.30 0.47
and behaviors.
Consultation (ranked 9)
28. cultural and linguistic factors that can influence the input, process, 1.37 0.49
and outcome of consultation.
29. working with LCD parents, children, and school staff 1.29 0.46
30. using a variety of data collection techniques for problem identification 1.33 0.48
and clarification, and planning and implementing interventions that are
culturally and linguistically sensitive
31. recognizing prejudice and prevalent obstacles that may effect 1.30 0.47
consultation (e.g., racism, sexism).
Culture (ranked 10)

32. the cultural context of the client 1.37 0.49
33. the interaction of culture and assessment. 1.30 0.47
Table 2
Continued
Round 2
Culture (ranked 10)

34. assessing the norms of the cultural group that they work with and 1.39 0.49
modifying behavior to become culturally congruent when appropriate
35. working with all the cultural groups served. 1.39 0.49
Academic Interventions (ranked 11)

36. the most successful instructional strategies used with LCD students 1.29 0.46
37. the factors linked to high dropout rates among diverse students and 1.38 0.48
techniques aimed at retention
38. second language acquisition and its impact on acquisition of academic 1.37 0.49
skills.
39. making curriculum and classroom management recommendations that 1.41 0.50
are culturally relevant.
Research Methods (ranked 12)

40. the need to consider sociocultural variables and perspectives that impact 1.45 0.58
data analysis and interpretation.
41. translating traditional theoretical paradigms into relevant and sensitive 1.34 0.48
research that benefits LCD populations.
Working with Organizations (ranked 13)

42. applying institutional intervention skills and working to eliminate biases, 1.41 0.50
prejudices, and discriminatory practices.
Language (ranked 14)

43. second language acquisition process. 1.45 0.72
44. using culturally sensitive verbal and nonverbal communication styles 1.33 0.48
when communicating with LCD children and their families
45. the use of translators. 1.43 0.72
cultural competencies that school psychologists should have. Our use of

the Delphi technique brought together a geographically dispersed panel
of experts who provided their perceptions of the most important cross-
cultural school psychology competencies. This panel of experts, of whom
62% represent a racial/ethnic minority group member, informed their
ratings about critical cross-cultural competencies through an average of
almost 16 years experience per person working with diverse clients, and
represented not just one but three of the major career paths taken by
school psychologists (i.e., practitioner, supervisor/administrator, and fac-
ulty). In defining the scope and body of the competencies, we drew on
the expertise of the panelists to both rate the literature-derived com-

petencies and define and describe competencies not presented in the
empirical, practical, and theoretical literature but central to the services
delivered by school psychologists to diverse clients.
The present study advances our understanding of cross-cultural school
psychology competencies in a number of ways. A major contribution is
that it helps to operationally and comprehensively define cross-cultural
school psychology competencies. Previous researchers have identified
the cross-cultural counseling competencies future school psychologists
need when providing counseling services to a diverse clientele in the
schools (e.g., Rogers & Ponterotto, 1997) but none have examined the
competencies relevant to the full spectrum of psychological services (assess-
ment and intervention, consultation, counseling, report writing, research)
nor the specific groups (e.g., working with interpreters, working with
parents, working with organizations) or specific areas of professional
expertise (culture, language, laws and regulations, theoretical paradigms,
professional characteristics) that are vital to school psychologist’s work
using the present procedures. Thus, the 102 critical competencies identi-
fied in the present study provide a clear picture of the specific knowledge
and skill competencies that experts believe are most important to deliver-
ing effective, relevant, and sensitive services to multiethnic, multicultural,
and multilingual clients in the schools. The present study also adds to our
knowledge base by not focusing on a single minority group but by syn-
thesizing competencies relevant to a range of minority group members
(e.g., racial and ethnic minority, linguistic minority, etc.). Thus, the present
study not only subsumes the competencies addressed by Figueroa et al.
(1984) and Rosenfield and Esquivel (1985) but also goes beyond them by
articulating competencies relevant to working with a much broader range
of minority clients.
When considering the critical competencies, the three competency
categories with the lowest means (i.e., rated as most important) included
Assessment, Report Writing, and Laws and Regulations. Given that assess-
ment practices employed with minority students has been one of the
most hotly debated, legally contested, and readily identifiable issues about
minorities in the history of the profession of school psychology, the
salience of assessment and legal competencies here is not surprising. An
examination of the critical assessment competencies clarifies what the
panelists consider to be priorities for performing meaningful assessments
with diverse clients. Included as critical competencies were the need to
be knowledgeable about current research regarding the use of stand-
ardized and non-standardized measures used with diverse clients, how to
adapt available measures, the availability of alternative assessment meth-
ods such as dynamic and ecological approaches, and what constitutes a
nonbiased assessment. Critical assessment skills include using instruments
sensitive to linguistic and cultural differences, assessing language profi-

ciency in the first and second languages, and using assessment results to
formulate recommendations that facilitate language acquisition. Taken
together, these assessment competencies reflect a highly specialized
knowledge base with special attention to the impact of bilingualism
and English-as-a-Second-Language on the assessment process and knowl-
edge of alternatives to norm-referenced assessment methods. As impor-
tant as they are, it is quite possible that these competencies are absent
from the repertoire of many school psychologist’s delivering assessment
services to diverse clients today. For example, Ochoa et al. (1997)
reported that 80% of their sample of practicing school psychologists
had not been trained to perform bilingual psychoeducational assessments
and 97% indicated that no such coursework was available within their
training programs. The present findings underscore the need to develop
courses that teach these competencies and begin to illustrate what those
competencies could be.
Within the Laws and Regulations category, the panelists rated two
competencies as critical. They include ‘‘School psychologists should have
skills applying laws and regulations to protect LCD children from sources of
bias and discrimination’’ and ‘‘School psychologists should have skills
interpreting legal and regulatory decisions that are relevant to LCD
children and their families.’’ Interestingly, a common theme among the
Assessment, Consultation, Culture, Laws and Regulations, Professional
Characteristics, and Working with Organizations categories are competen-
cies highlighting the importance of school psychologists developing exper-
tise in identifying bias —its sources and various expressions — as well as
strategies aimed at addressing it. The fact that competencies about bias
repeatedly met the criterion as critical points to the priority that should be
placed within training programs on preparing future school psychologists
to identify and address its ubiquitous manifestations.
The Report Writing category contained critical cross-cultural competen-
cies that addressed a range of issues. Included in this category were skills
in reporting deviations from standardized test administrations (including
the use of translations and bilingual instructions, an interpreter, and test-
ing of limits), and in including information about language proficiency,
language background, acculturation, and family composition in reports.
Within this category, the focus of the critical competencies was twofold.
First, the experts identified report-writing competencies that highlight the
need to clearly, explicitly, and fully document the assessment process and
services as provided. A second theme among the report writing compe-
tencies was the need to include information collected during the assess-
ment process important to understanding the cultural context of the
client’s experiences. This second theme about the importance of under-
standing the client’s cultural context was also common to the Assessment,
Consultation, Counseling, Culture, Professional Characteristics, and

Research Methods categories.
Implications for Training

The present investigation has implications for the cross-cultural training of
future and existing school psychologists. In terms of the training of future
school psychologists, the training standards developed by APA (2000) and
NASP (2000) state that programs must provide a curriculum in diversity
issues that leads to the development of competencies relevant to a clientele
diverse in race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, nationality, and socioeconomic
status. Yet, a review of both the APA and the NASP training standards yields
little explicit information about the characteristics of the culturally com-
petent school psychologist. Without a clearer understanding of the cross-
cultural competencies that school psychologists should have, trainers will
not be able to fulfill the spirit of the training standards and will be limited
in their ability to design relevant and appropriate curricular and training
experiences. The present study enables trainers to have an explicit under-
standing of specific cross-cultural competencies most relevant to the
delivery of school psychological services. Trainers may wish to use the
present findings to identify and prioritize the knowledge and skill com-
petencies that they feel are most important and then develop training
modules and sequence training experiences that allow for the development
of both kinds of expertise. As one example, in the present study several
competencies within the Working With Interpreters category were identi-
fied as critical and may need to be addressed in the curriculum of school
psychology programs. Trainers wishing to develop a training module about
working with interpreters could use the identified competencies to develop
a didactic sequence that focuses on the dynamics of the translation
procedure, techniques of interpretation (e.g., simultaneous, consecutive),
the interpersonal aspects of the translation process, ethical issues when
working with interpreters (e.g., confidentiality), the competencies needed
by interpreters (e.g., language skills, knowledge of intercultural communi-
cation, translation techniques, professional conduct, school relevant knowl-
edge), and the potential liability of the psychologist for engaging in
questionable practices. Following the didactic module, a practicum to
develop applied skills in working with interpreters could be designed to
focus on learning to seek out bilingual clinicians, establish rapport through
interpreters, interview parents through interpreters, assess students and
interpret information obtained through interpreters, and report (in written
and verbal forms) test data obtained through interpreters. Using the com-
petencies as the basis for a sequence of didactic and applied training
experiences is likely to enhance the quality of educational and psycholog-
ical services delivered to children who speak English-as-a-Second-Language.
Another implication of the present findings concerns the cross-cultural

competency training of existing school psychologists. Ethically, all school
psychologists have the dual responsibility of providing informed and
relevant psychological services to all those with whom they work, and
understanding the limits of their own competencies. Although the present
study was not designed to assess the professional competencies or any per-
ceived limits in competencies of current school psychologists, it is quite
possible that a careful examination of the cross-cultural competencies
identified in the present investigation will help to more clearly define boun-
daries of professional competence for many school psychologists. Once this
occurs and gaps in skills are identified, trainers of school psychologists will
likely be faced with increased demands for preservice and inservice cross-
cultural competence training.
The development and implementation of cross-cultural training of
school psychologists requires careful planning. Some research (e.g., Carl-
son, Brack, Laygo, Cohen, & Kirkscey, 1998; Neville et al., 1996; Sodowsky,
Kuo-Jackson, Richardson, & Corey, 1998) suggest that enrollment in multi-
cultural courses helps psychologists to develop multicultural competencies.
Although a single course will help many to begin the skill development
process, it is likely that a single course alone will not provide enough
content and practical supervision to develop the full spectrum of identified
cross-cultural school psychology competencies. In fact, a single course
approach may be counter to the intent of the APA accreditation guidelines
(2000) which state that accredited programs must employ a systematic and
long-term approach to incorporating diversity issues into students’ training
experiences. The accreditation guidelines are clear in the requirement that
programs demonstrate how student’s cross-cultural competencies are being
developed over time and assessed. Trainers interested in learning more
about multicultural transformation efforts in psychology are referred to the
work of Green (1998), Ponterotto, Alexander, and Grieger (1995), and
Rogers, Hoffman, and Wade (1998) for a more complete understanding of
the various ways that multicultural training can be incorporated into the
curriculum, field experience, research activities, and training environment
of school psychology programs.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Despite its contributions, this study has limitations. One limitation concerns
the way we defined cross-cultural expertise. Although we employed a
systematic method involving multiple criteria to define expertness and
identify potential Delphi panelists, we recognize that using other criteria to
define expertness may have resulted in a different body of cross-cultural
school psychology experts who may have shared other perspectives on the
cross-cultural competencies that school psychologists should have. Scholars
in cross-cultural counseling psychology (e.g., Parham, 1993) have been

critical of the ways that cross-cultural experts have been identified in
previous research. For example, in their Delphi study on the future of
cross-cultural counseling psychology, the sole criteria used by Heath,
Neimeyer, and Pedersen (1988) to identify cross-cultural experts was to
select only those individuals who had published at least one relevant
refereed journal article or two book chapters during a specified time
period. Our study goes beyond the use of a single criteria in establishing
the expertise of the participating school psychologists by employing multi-
ple rigorous criteria (e.g., multiple relevant publications, multiple relevant
presentations at national conferences, membership on relevant professio-
nal organization committee, minimum of 5 years experience providing
services to diverse children, faculty member at training program that
emphasizes multicultural paradigms). By using a more stringent standard
than previous researchers, we hoped to improve the validity of the selection
process used to identify the participating experts.
A second limitation of the study concerns the task demands associated
with completing the Delphi questionnaire. By using a questionnaire that
included mostly a priori composed literature based items, it is possible
that we obtained different information than we would have if the
questionnaire was entirely open-ended and the panelists themselves
identified all of the critical cross-cultural competencies. Although open-
ended items were incorporated into the questionnaire and panelists
contributed numerous competencies given the open-ended option, it is
still possible that the resulting list of competencies would have been
slightly different if based solely on panelists’ expertise. Future studies
should employ other methods to identify cross-cultural school psychology
competencies as a way of establishing the concurrent validity of the
present results. Previous investigations in cross-cultural counseling com-
petencies have produced variations in the way that counseling psycholo-
gists have operationalized cross-cultural counseling competencies (e.g.,
D’Andrea et al., 1991; LaFromboise et al., 1991; Ponterotto et al., 1991;
Sodowsky et al., 1994). Therefore, it would not be surprising to observe
some degree of variability in future attempts to define and operationalize
cross-cultural school psychology competencies as well.
A third limitation concerns the ceiling effects observed in panelists’
ratings to the competency items on Round 1 and Round 2 of the Delphi
questionnaires. Several panelists rated virtually every individual compe-
tency item as very important on the Likert scale ranging from very im-
portant to very unimportant. Subsequently, the data analysis yielded a
high degree of equivalence in how the panelists were viewing the im-
portance of the competencies. All of the competency categories also had
mean ratings that fell between the very important and important points
on the Likert scale. This pattern made it difficult to distinguish the
relative importance of one individual competency statement over another

as well as one competency category over another. In an attempt to more
clearly distinguish the relative importance of the competencies, we em-
ployed a strict standard involving a measure of consensus (96% or above)
to more clearly delineate the most important competencies. Using a
combination of mean ratings and consensus, we found panelists to be
very consistent in their judgments about the importance of the critical
competencies. Thus, out of the 260 literature-derived and expert-derived
competencies, 102 were identified as critical. Although the final group of
critical competencies are large in number, they span 14 major domains of
service delivery that do not easily lend themselves to simple or pat des-
cription. In fact, when we consider all the skills and competencies
required for successful work in any one of the major areas identified in
the present study, it is not surprising that the present analysis should yield
numerous competencies as critical. The successful delivery of cross-
culturally competent school psychology services is a complex endeavor
not easily distilled into a small number of generic prescriptions. The very
nature of cross-culturally competent practice requires not only knowledge
and skill in the basic fundamentals of each of the major domains of
psychological service delivery, but also understanding and skill in the
complex ways those practices are influenced by the diverse backgrounds,
identities, and issues of the clientele served. To attempt to portray cross-
culturally competent practice across 14 major domains as best repre-
sented by a small number of competencies would deny the complexities
and realities of comprehensive school psychological services. Therefore,
while we acknowledge the presence of ceiling effects in the ratings of the
expert panel, we consider the possibility that those ceiling effects may be
more a reflection of the inherent difficulty in attempting to place im-
portance on a broad and complex spectrum of competencies and less a
reflection of the panelists tendency to inflate their ratings of the com-
petencies. Future research may explore this issue to determine the re-
lative merit of these possibilities.
Future research is needed that examines the degree of correspondence
between the cross-cultural skills and knowledge base that future school
psychologists are developing during training and the critical competencies
identified by the Delphi panelists. Observing significant gaps between
acquired competencies and critical cross-cultural competencies can lead
trainers to identify cross-cultural training experiences that need to be
incorporated into their program. On a programmatic level, the present
findings may also be used by programs to perform a self-study and program
evaluation of the competencies that are and are not being addressed within
the program. A top priority for school psychology training programs nation-
wide should be ensuring that future school psychologists are well-prepared
for the realities of delivering school psychological services to diverse clients.
It is interesting to note that more literature-derived competencies (43%)

than expert-derived (31%) competencies were retained in the final pool of
critical competencies. Although beyond the scope of the present article,
future studies could examine the literature-derived and expert-derived
competencies to see if they differed in some systematic way. Future studies
may also involve converting the competency statements into a self-report
measure for school psychologists interested in evaluating the strengths and
weaknesses of their own cross-cultural competencies. Performing a self-
assessment using such a scale would help to identify skill development needs
and help the professional to assess the limits of his/her own competencies.
Similarly, it would be useful to develop a measure of cross-cultural school
psychology competencies that could be used by supervisors to assess their
supervisee’s skill development and areas of expertise at various phases of
training. As professionals within school psychology improve their under-
standing of the cross-cultural competencies that they should have and take
action to develop them, it is likely that the services provided to diverse
children and youth will improve in relevance, sensitivity, and effectiveness.
Although this study was not designed to assess the perceptions of those who
receive services delivered by school psychologists, an important addition to
the literature would be an investigation that examines the cross-cultural
competencies that diverse clients (e.g., children, youth, parents, teachers,
administrators) consider to be important to the effective delivery of psy-
chological services in the schools. Not only is it important for us to under-
stand how cross-cultural experts define and articulate cross-cultural school
psychology competencies but it is also critical that we understand what
skills and behaviors diverse clients find culturally congruent, acceptable,
and relevant.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sincere appreciation and deepest gratitude are extended to the par-

ticipating Delphi panelists for contributing their time and thoughtful ex-
pertise during data collection. In addition, we would like to acknowledge
and extend a warm thanks to Harold Linstone, Murray Turoff, William E.
Halal, Dennis C. Pirages, and J. Frederick West for their advice and
thoughtful answers to questions about Delphi methodology. Finally, the
other members of our research team, Sherrie Borowsky, Lorie Hirsch-
field, and Paul Wilson, deserve heartfelt applause for their assistance with
this project.
A complete reference list of the literature employed as the basis for the
literature-derived cross-cultural competencies is available upon request. In
addition, the complete list of 102 critical cross-cultural school psychology
competencies is available upon request from the first author.
REFERENCES
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National

Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Testing linguistic minorities. In Standards for
educational and psychological testing ( pp. 73 – 75). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
American Psychological Association. (1991). Guidelines for providers of psychological services
to ethnic, linguistic, and culturally diverse populations. Washington, DC: American Psycholog-
ical Association.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
American Psychological Association. (2000). Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs
in professional psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Barona, A., & Garcia, E. E. (Eds.). (1990). Children at risk: Poverty, minority status, and other issues
in educational equity. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Cannon, G. S., Idol, L., & West, J. F. (1992). Educating students with mild handicaps in general
classrooms: Essential teaching practices for general and special educators. Journal of Learn-
ing Disabilities, 25, 300 – 317.
Carlson, M. H., Brack, C. J., Laygo, R., Cohen, R., & Kirkscey, M. (1998). An exploratory study
of multicultural competence of counselors in training: Support for experiential skills build-
ing. The Clinical Supervisor, 17, 75 – 87.
Christenson, S. L., & Conoley, J. C. (Eds.). (1992). Home – school collaboration: Enhancing children’s
academic and social competence. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Cookson, P. S. (1986). Charting the unknown: Delphi and policy Delphi strategies for interna-
tional co-operation. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 5, 3 – 13.
Cooper, H. M. (1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Review
of Educational Research, 52, 291 – 302.
Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews(2nd ed.). Newbury Park:
Sage.
D’Andrea, M., Daniels, J., & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating the impact of multicultural counseling
training. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 143 – 150.
Esquivel, G. B. (1985). Best practices in the assessment of limited English proficient and bilingual
children. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology ( pp. 113 – 123).
Kent, OH: National Association of School Psychologists.
Fagan, T. K., & Sachs Wise, P. (1994). School psychology: Past, present and future. New York:
Longman.
Figueroa, R. A. (1989). Psychological testing of linguistic minority students: Knowledge gaps
and regulations. Exceptional Children, 86, 111 – 119.
Figueroa, R. A., Sandoval, J., & Merino, B. (1984). School psychology and limited-English-
proficient (LEP) children: New competencies. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 131 – 143.
Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language-minority student and special education:
Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60, 310 – 322.
Gopaul-McNicol, S. (1997). A theoretical framework for training monolingual school psychol-
ogists to work with multilingual/multicultural children: An exploration of the major com-
petencies. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 17 – 29.
Green, R. J. (1998). Training programs: Guidelines for multicultural transformation. In M.
McGoldrick (Ed.), Re-visioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice
( pp. 111 – 117). New York: Guilford.
Gutkin, T. B., & Reynolds, C. R. (Eds.). (1990). Handbook of school psychology (2nd ed.). New
York: Wiley.
Heath, A. E., Neimeyer, G. J., & Pedersen, P. B. (1988). The future of cross-cultural counseling:
A Delphi poll. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 27 – 30.
LaFromboise, T. D., Coleman, H. L. K., & Hernandez, A. (1991). Development and factor
structure of the Cross-Cultural Competency Inventory—Revised. Professional Psychology: Re-
search and Practice, 22, 380 – 388.
Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (Eds.). (1992). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for
working with young children and their families. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
National Association of School Psychologists. (1992). Principles for professional ethics. Washington,
DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2000). Standards for training and field placement
programs in school psychology. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Neville, H. A., Heppner, M. J., Louie, C. E., Thompson, C. E., Brooks, L., & Baker, C. E. (1996).
The impact of multicultural training on White racial identity attitudes and therapy com-
petencies. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 83 – 89.
Ochoa, S. H., Rivera, B., & Ford, L. (1997). An investigation of school psychology training
pertaining to bilingual psycho-educational assessment of primarily Hispanic students:
Twenty-five years after Diana v. California. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 329 – 349.
Parham, T. (1993). White researchers conducting multicultural counseling research: Can their
efforts be ‘‘Mo better?’’ The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 250 – 256.
Ponterotto, J. G., Alexander, C. M., & Grieger, I. (1995). A multicultural competency checklist for
counseling training programs. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 23, 11 – 20.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Casas, J. M. (1991). Handbook of racial/ethnic minority counseling research.
Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Ponterotto, J. G., Rieger, B. T., Barrett, A., & Sparks, R. (1994). Assessing multicultural coun-
seling competence: A review of instrumentation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72,
316 – 322.
Ponterotto, J. G., Sanchez, C. M., & Magids, D. M. (1991, August). Initial development and
validation of the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale (MCAS). Paper presented at the
American Psychological Association conference, San Francisco, CA.
Ridley, C. R., Mendoza, D. W., & Kanitz, B. E. (1994). Multicultural training: Reexamination,
operationalization, and integration. The Counseling Psychologist, 22, 227 – 289.
Rogler, L. H., Malgady, R. G., Costantino, G., & Blumenthal, R. (1987). What do culturally sen-
sitive mental health services mean? The case of Hispanics. American Psychologist, 42, 37 – 45.
Rogers, M. R., Hoffman, M., & Wade, J. (1998). Notable multicultural training in APA--
approved counseling psychology and school psychology programs. Cultural Diversity and
Mental Health, 4, 212 – 226.
Rogers, M. R., Martin, J., & Druckman, L. (1994, March). Model multicultural training in school
psychology programs: An examination of program philosophy and characteristics. Paper presented at
the National Association of School Psychologists conference, Seattle, WA.
Rogers, M. R., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1997). Development of the Multicultural School Psychology
Counseling Competency Scale. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 211 – 217.
Rogers, M. R., Ponterotto, J. G., Conoley, J. C., & Wiese, M. J. (1992). Multicultural training in
school psychology: A national survey. School Psychology Review, 21, 603 – 616.
Rosenfield, S., & Esquivel, G. B. (1985). Educating school psychologists to work with bilingual/
bicultural populations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 199 – 208.
Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego: Author.
Sodowsky, G. R., Kuo-Jackson, P. Y., Richardson, M. F., & Corey, A. T. (1998). Correlates of self-
reported multicultural competencies: Counselor multicultural social desirability, race, social
inadequacy, locus of control racial ideology, and multicultural training. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 45, 256 – 264.
Sodowsky, G. R., Taffe, R. C., Gutkin, T. B., & Wise, S. L. (1994). Development of the Multi-
cultural Counseling Inventory: A self-report measure of multicultural competencies. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 41, 137 – 148.
Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and
standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 20,
64 – 88.
Sue, D. W., Bernier, J. E., Durran, A., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P., Smith, E. J., & Vasquez-Nuttall,
E. (1982). Position paper: Cross-cultural counseling competencies. The Counseling Psycholo-
gist, 10, 45 – 52.
Tarver Behring, S., & Ingraham, C. L. (1998). Culture as a central component of consultation:
A call to the field. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 9, 57 – 72.
Thomas, A., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (1985). Best practices in school psychology. Kent, OH: National
Association of School Psychologists.
Thomas, A., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (1990). Best practices in school psychology II. Washington, DC:
National Association of School Psychologists.
Thomas, A., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (1995). Best practices in school psychology III. Washington, DC:
National Association of School Psychologists.
Vance, B. (Ed.). (1993). Best practices in assessment for school and clinical settings. Brandon, VT:
Clinical Psychology.
Waggoner, D. (1994). Language minority school-age population now totals 9.9 million. National
Association for Bilingual Education, 18, 1.
Weatherman, R., & Swenson, K. (1974). Delphi technique. In S. P. Hencley & J. R. Yates (Eds.),
Futurism in education: Methodologies ( pp. 97 – 114). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
West, J. F., & Cannon, G. S. (1988). Essential collaborative consultation competencies for
regular and special educators. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 56 – 63.
Ysseldyke, J., Dawson, P., Lehr, C., Reschly, D., Reynolds, M., & Telzrow, C. (1997). School
psychology: A blueprint for training and practice II. Bethesda, MD: National Association of
School Psychologists.
Yutrzenka, B. A. (1995). Making a case for training in ethnic and cultural diversity in increasing
treatment efficacy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 197 – 206.
Zayas, L. H., Torres, L. R., Malcolm, J., & DesRosiers, F. S. (1996). Clinicians’ definitions of
ethnically sensitive therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 78 – 82.

Identifying Critical Cross Cultural

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Identifying Critical Cross Cultural

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp.

115 – 141, 2002

Identifying Critical Cross-Cultural School

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

To meet the needs of an increasingly diverse clientele, school psychologists

Accepted January 15, 2002.

not surprising given the significant demographic changes currently taking

relationship to the student’s true academic skill development needs. This

spectrum of professional functions and activities that characterizes their

Development of the cross-cultural school psychology competency

Content analysis of the identified literature and construction of the

asked panelists to describe the cross-cultural knowledge or skill compe-

Questionnaire rounds. The Delphi procedure used in this study involved

Providing psychological services to 24 100

meeting the criteria for selection as an expert panelist, the panelists on

Critical Cross-Cultural Competencies

competencies. The amount of consensus among panelists for the critical

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

Report Writing (ranked 2)

Laws and regulations (ranked 3)

Working with Interpreters (ranked 4)

Working with Parents (ranked 5)

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

Working with Parents (ranked 5)

Theoretical Paradigms (ranked 6)

Professional Characteristics (ranked 8)

Culture (ranked 10)

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

Culture (ranked 10)

Academic Interventions (ranked 11)

Research Methods (ranked 12)

Working with Organizations (ranked 13)

Language (ranked 14)

cultural competencies that school psychologists should have. Our use of

the expertise of the panelists to both rate the literature-derived com-

sensitive to linguistic and cultural differences, assessing language profi-

Consultation, Counseling, Culture, Professional Characteristics, and

Implications for Training

Another implication of the present findings concerns the cross-cultural

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

in cross-cultural counseling psychology (e.g., Parham, 1993) have been

relative importance of one individual competency statement over another

It is interesting to note that more literature-derived competencies (43%)

Sincere appreciation and deepest gratitude are extended to the par-

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National

Você também pode gostar