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

net/publication/350840630

Rethinking Multicultural Counseling Competence:

An Introduction to the Major Contribution

Article in The Counseling Psychologist · May 2021

DOI: 10.1177/0011000020986543

CITATIONS READS

18 3,129

2 authors, including:

Debra Mollen
Texas Woman's University
35 PUBLICATIONS 670 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Debra Mollen on 28 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

986543
research-article2021
TCPXXX10.1177/0011000020986543The Counseling PsychologistMollen and Ridley

Major Contribution
The Counseling Psychologist

Rethinking Multicultural
2021, Vol. 49(4) 490­–503
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
Counseling Competence: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0011000020986543
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000020986543
An Introduction to the journals.sagepub.com/home/tcp

Major Contribution

Debra Mollen1 and Charles R. Ridley2

Abstract
In this introductory article of the Major Contribution, we explore the
construct of multicultural counseling competence, particularly its inception
and the early social movements from which it evolved. We posit that
although the intentions of early pioneers and professional organizations
were admirable and the subsequent body of work impressive, progress has
stalled. A conceptual and operational impasse now impedes advancement of
the discourse and ultimately hinders our ability to adequately serve clients,
supervisees, and consultees who are the beneficiaries of our efforts. In this
article, we lay the foundation for an analysis of the impasse, a proposal for
an alternative model of the construct, and a case conceptualization that
demonstrates usage of the model. We conclude by providing an overview
of the Major Contribution, including a synopsis of the subsequent three
articles and our intention to rejuvenate this dialogue with our colleagues
and students.

Keywords
multicultural counseling competence, diverse populations, research, training,
practice

1
Texas Woman’s University, TX, USA
2
Texas A & M University, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:
Charles R. Ridley, Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A & M University, 4225
TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4225, USA.
Email: cridley@tamu.edu
Mollen and Ridley 491

Significance of the Scholarship to the Public

Multicultural counseling competence has stalled at an impasse. To
progress onwards, scholars and practitioners need to understand the
history, development, and status of this construct. This article provides
a foundation for rethinking multicultural counseling competence and
prepares readers for subsequent articles in this Major Contribution, the
purpose of which is to rejuvenate dialogue about the construct.

Multicultural counseling competence, as a construct, has stalled at a conceptual

and operational impasse. The major models offer inexplicit guidance to trans-
late multicultural research and scholarship into practice. Clinicians generally
have to surmise for themselves how to engage in this process of translation.
Since the early 1980s, although scholars have taken notable strides, the ongo-
ing proliferation of research and scholarship erroneously gives the impression
that we continue to advance knowledge at a similar pace. However, the actual
advancement is not commensurate with the proliferation. Worthington and
Dillon (2011) observed that theoretical and methodological limitations con-
cerning multicultural counseling competencies constrain conclusions we can
draw from investigations. Furthermore, clinicians experience gaps between
their multicultural beliefs and practices, while educators struggle to articulate a
consistent standard of training (Metzger et al., 2010). There is even disagree-
ment on the meaning of multicultural counseling competence within the field
of counseling psychology (Ridley, Mollen, et al., 2021 [this issue]).
The most disconcerting evidence of the impasse surprisingly arises more
from what psychologists do not know than that which they do know. Upon their
review of the current scholarship, for example, Chu et al. (2016) insightfully
surmised: “Despite the progress, little is known about why cultural competency
works. Research has been insufficient in identifying psychotherapy compo-
nents of change based on theoretical explanations of the mechanisms of cul-
tural competency” (p. 18). Frisby and O’Donohue (2018) similarly evaluated
the construct in their statement “that some fundamental and basic questions are
often left unexplored” (p. v). How can psychologists advance their understand-
ing of the construct if they are unable to explain why and consequently how
multicultural counseling competence works? The profession needs answers.
The impasse obstructing advancement is especially challenging because
there is generally little awareness of its existence. In the physical world, impasses
usually are discernible, making it possible to formulate a plan of action to
remove, surmount, or bypass them. In the world of ideas and concepts, where
the theory-into-practice translation may be ambiguous, impasses often are not as
apparent. For this reason, removing, surmounting, or bypassing them presents a
492 The Counseling Psychologist 49(4)

daunting challenge. How can psychologists formulate a plan of action if they do

not know there is an impasse? They cannot. The foremost need, therefore, is the
realization of an invisible impasse situated within the expansive literature.
Unless one dives deeply into the literature, sorts through the voluminous amount
of information, and evaluates where the field of multicultural counseling is now
relative to where it has been in the past, the impasse will remain an insidious
obstruction to progress. How did psychologists arrive at this place?
Sue et al. (1982, 1992) formally started the conversation on the topic
through their pioneering and widely cited scholarship. In their initial position
paper, Sue et al. (1982) presented a conceptualization now known as the tri-
partite model. The model provides a general description of three multicul-
tural counseling competencies: beliefs/attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Ten
years later, Sue et al. (1992) followed up on their original work and issued a
directive to the profession: Implement multicultural counseling competen-
cies and standards in counseling practice and education. In issuing their call,
the authors argued for multicultural perspectives in the areas of assessment,
practice, training, and research.
In addition, Sue et al. (1992) offered five reasons for the need to adopt their
proposed competency standards. The first is the diversification of the U.S. popu-
lation, as indicated by a decrease in the proportion of the White population and a
concomitant increase in the combined populations of People of Color. The sec-
ond is the shifting emphasis from monocultural to multicultural training in gradu-
ate programs, with greater affirmation and accountability of cultural diversity.
The third is the sociopolitical reality of the linkage of counseling professionals to
racism and oppression, as well as counseling psychologists’ responsibility to par-
ticipate in social change. The fourth is the historically harmful models positing
that cultural differences are a type of deviance. The fifth involves ethical implica-
tions such as malpractice, resulting from the lack of sufficient preparation,
research, and supervision in the multicultural competencies.
During the ensuing years since Sue et al.’s (1992) landmark publications,
there has been an explosion of interest in multicultural counseling compe-
tence (Arredondo & Tovar-Blank, 2014; Trimble, 2014). Scholars, research-
ers, practitioners, and trainees have tried to explicate what it means to counsel
clients competently in consideration of their cultural backgrounds. The enor-
mous body of work on the topic includes articles, chapters, monographs,
books, conference presentations, instruments, and training resources, all of
which have yielded compelling, thought-provoking discussions on the topic.
Yet the fundamental definition of multicultural counseling competency
remains unclear, and the extant models to translate it into practice have seri-
ous limitations. A quote attributed to William James comports with this pre-
dicament. “There are a great many people who think they are thinking when
they merely are rearranging their prejudices” (Platt, 1989, p. 240). Heeding
Mollen and Ridley 493

the observations of Chu et al. (2016), Debra Mollen and Charles Ridley
acknowledge that the field is at risk for merely rearranging, rewording, and
repackaging its views about multicultural counseling competence to the det-
riment of the advancement of this construct. The paucity of explanations of
why and how the construct works give us a reason for pause. Should psy-
chologists rethink their thinking?
The purpose of this article is to introduce a Major Contribution dedicated to
revisiting and reconceptualizing multicultural counseling competence. We
endeavor to demarcate the inadequacies of current definitions and models, rede-
fine the construct in a way that overcomes existing definitional problems, pro-
pose a new model of the construct, and illustrate the implementation of our
proposed model. We offer this contribution based on the dual premises that (a)
research and scholarship cannot make significant advancements without a
sounder conceptualization of multicultural counseling competence as a construct
and (b) most professionals need better guidance to meet the pressing challenges
of meaningfully applying multicultural research and scholarship to practice.
To achieve this objective, we have organized this introductory article into
three major sections. In the first section, we explain the historical context in
which the movement in multicultural counseling competence emerged. In the
second section, we discuss the perplexing status of multicultural counseling
competence in professional psychology. In the third section, we describe the
organization of this Major Contribution. We conclude the article by calling
on counseling psychologists and other professionals to join us in advancing
the conversation in the movement.

Historical Context of the Birth of Multicultural

Counseling Competence
Like many movements, the initial inertia relative to multicultural counsel-
ing competence occurred in a sociopolitical context. The movement of
competent multicultural counseling began in earnest during the postcivil
rights era in the United States, that reflected the preceding decades where
activists fought and won fierce legal battles, theoretically ensuring justice,
equality, and freedom for all peoples in the nation. For example, Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it unlawful to discriminate in person-
nel selection, placement, and promotion based on sex, race, color, religion,
or national origin (Aamodt, 2010). Gaining a sense of empowerment from
the act, ethnic minorities and international psychologists began to urge the
American Psychological Association (APA) for a paradigm shift (Arredondo
& Perez, 2006; Trimble, 2014). As Arredondo et al. (2008) explained, the
sociopolitical climate of the 1960s and 1970s “spilled over into counseling
and psychology professional organizations that were in disfavor with a
494 The Counseling Psychologist 49(4)

self-empowered racial/ethnic minority membership” (p. 267). Then, the

Civil Rights Act of 1991 amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and strength-
ened other federal civil rights laws. This legislation further served as an
impetus for the ethical necessity of integrating cultural considerations into
clinical practice, and it helped spark a shift toward skill-based, culture-
centered counseling (Chin, 2003).
Nevertheless, as discourse concerning the ideals of social justice, equality,
and freedom continued into the postcivil rights era, mental health profession-
als struggled to translate these ideals into improved practice. For instance,
they faced the formidable challenge of providing equitable service delivery
to underserved populations, while simultaneously overcoming cultural
oppression and racism (Ridley, 2005; Sue, 1978). Compounding this chal-
lenge was psychology’s traditional pattern of reacting to, as opposed to step-
ping into, the forefront of social change. Atkinson and Hackett (1998) inferred
that these changes in society exposed the inadequacy of training in the pro-
fession, stating, “counselors and other mental health professionals soon dis-
covered that their training did not prepare them to work with such issues as
discrimination, alienation, and basic survival” (p. 4).
Although the profession was slow to react to social change, it did acceler-
ate its momentum, and empowerment for marginalized clients became a
popular and enduring theme in the psychological literature (APA, 2017b;
Helms, 1984; Ponterotto & Casas, 1991). As Arredondo and Tovar-Blank
(2014) suggested, the movement was not an accident. The reaction was long
overdue, but the slow reactivity did not diminish the movement’s contribu-
tions, or its importance to the profession.

Status of the Construct

The status of multicultural counseling competence signifies a liberation of
the profession from its historical and pervasive inattention to culture.
Accompanying this liberation are benefits and challenges. The construct has
risen to a place of prominence in the profession, but it perplexingly still lacks
a consensus definition. This contradiction occurs within the context of emerg-
ing scholarship and research that is influencing the discourse in multicultural
counseling competence.

Prominence in the Profession

Striking descriptions of the construct in the literature reveal its prominence. Sue
et al. (1999) described multicultural competence as a “defining feature of psy-
chological practice, education and training, and research” (p. 1061), and
Delgado-Romero (2003) referred to it as “appropriate ethical conduct” (p. 316).
Mollen and Ridley 495

Betancourt et al. (2003) described the construct as a “key cornerstone in efforts

to eliminate racial/ethnic disparities in health and health care” (pp. 299–300),
whereas Arredondo and Tovar-Blank (2014) called it a “dynamic paradigm for
the 21st century” (p. 19). Barden et al. (2017) asserted that demonstrating this
construct is “paramount for counselors” (p. 203). In what sense do these phrases
capture the ethos of multicultural counseling competence? Consider the position
of the APA as indicated in four of its official documents.
First, in the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct,
there is the following statement regarding the ethics of treating diverse
populations:

Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences,
including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture,
national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socio­
economic status, and consider these factors when working with members of such
groups. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on
those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone activities of
others based upon such prejudices (APA, 2017a, p. 4).

Second, in the Standards of Accreditation for Health Service Psychology

and Accreditation Operating Procedures, is the following statement regard-
ing criteria of accreditation for doctoral programs:

The program recognizes the importance of cultural and individual differences

and diversity in the training of psychologists. The Commission on Accreditation
defines cultural and individual differences and diversity as including, but not
limited to, age, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, language, national
origin, race, religion, culture, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.
(APA, Commission on Accreditation, 2019, p. 7)

Third, in the Guidelines for Psychological Practice in Health Care

Delivery Systems, is the following statement regarding service to diverse
populations:

It is important that [psychologists] maintain cultural competence for healthcare

delivery to diverse patient groups, including specific competence for working
with patients of varying gender, race and ethnicity, language, culture,
socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, religious orientations, and disabilities.
(APA, 2013, p. 5)

Fourth, in the Multicultural Guidelines: An Ecological Approach to

Context, Identity, and Intersectionality, the following statement is written as
Guideline 2:
496 The Counseling Psychologist 49(4)

Psychologists aspire to recognize and understand that as cultural beings, they

hold attitudes and beliefs that can influence their perceptions of and interactions
with others as well as their clinical and empirical conceptualizations. As such,
psychologists strive to move beyond conceptualizations rooted in categorical
assumptions, biases, and/or formulations based on limited knowledge about
individuals and communities. (APA, 2017b, p. 4)

In unison, the voices of thought leaders in the field and official statements
from APA clearly have elevated multicultural counseling competence. It
stands in a place of prominence in the training and practice of practitioners of
the profession. In contrast to the profession’s previous inattention to culture,
no psychologists or other mental health providers today can justifiably excuse
themselves from the multicultural and diversity mandates put before us.

Lack of a Consensus Definition

Although multicultural counseling competence enjoys prominence in the
profession, confusion persists around the meaning of the construct.
Regrettably, the concern about a lack of consensus on the meaning of the
construct is not novel (Constantine & Ladany, 2000; Ridley et al., 2001).
Constantine and Ladany’s (2000) admonition two decades ago, for instance,
continues to resonate: “counselors and counseling psychologists may wish to
consider whether the current definition of ‘multicultural counseling compe-
tence’ sufficiently captures its presumed meaning” (p. 162).
The lack of a consensus definition stems from many fundamental ques-
tions that remain unanswered: “How is multicultural counseling competence
manifested in actual practice?” “Is multicultural counseling competence cul-
turally-specific or culturally-general?” “How does multicultural counseling
competence contribute to therapeutic change?” “Is multicultural counseling
competence distinguishable from counseling competence in general?” “How
does multicultural counseling competence differ from incompetence in mul-
ticultural counseling?”
Both authors of this introductory article have extensive experience teach-
ing multicultural courses, conducting workshops, giving invited lectures,
and presenting at professional conferences. Anecdotal data from our experi-
ences suggest that often some attendees at these events have struggled to
translate the extensive body of multicultural knowledge into competent pro-
fessional practice, which is the manifestation of the impasse in the field.
Informal and unsolicited comments by puzzled workshop or conference
attendees about their own training as graduate students frame sentiments
along these lines: “After amassing all this multicultural information in our
courses, I still am uncertain in how to proceed in my counseling with
Mollen and Ridley 497

culturally diverse clients.” “I learned about the values, attitudes, and beliefs
of various cultural and racial groups, but when I counsel a client from one of
those groups, I still feel stuck.” “There must be more to multicultural coun-
seling than what I learned in class.”
The above questions beg for cogent answers. On the one hand, the answers
could have extensive and positive implications for theory explication,
research, practice, training, ethics, and policymaking. Given the priorities set
by the profession, a sound conceptualization of multicultural counseling
competence benefits the total spectrum of mental health provision. Educators
and trainers could better train, advise, supervise, and evaluate students.
Practitioners could truly claim that they are culturally competent. On the
other hand, leaving the above questions unanswered exacerbates the confu-
sion and contributes to the identified impasse. This leaves practitioners
unable to state definitively which multicultural competencies to use, why
they are useful, when to use them, how to use them, or whether using the
competencies equate to competence.
It is of interest that a profession that elevates multicultural counseling
competence to a prominent status also struggles to clarify its meaning.
Professional psychology as a field should hold itself accountable for this con-
tradiction, as continuing this state of affairs is unacceptable.

Emerging Scholarship and Research

An impartial rethinking of multicultural counseling competence is not pos-
sible without contextualizing the construct within the current multicultural
theory and research. Since the early 2000s, a number of counseling psycholo-
gists have moved to the forefront of explaining newer conceptualizations
meant to attend to cultural dynamics in counseling as well as address flaws in
multicultural competence models (e.g., Davis et al., 2018; Hook et al., 2013;
Kivligan et al., 2019; Owen, 2013; Owen et al., 2016; Pérez-Rojas et al.,
2019). For example, Owen et al. (2011) argued that the concept of multicul-
tural counseling competence does not fit well with the ever-evolving, incre-
mental, and contextual nature of the therapeutic process. Instead, they
suggested the approach of multicultural orientation (MCO) as an alternative
to the language surrounding competence. They differentiated MCO from
multicultural competencies as a “way of being” with clients in therapy rather
than “a way of doing” therapy. They concluded that clients viewed therapists
as more credible when the therapists showed an interest in cultural issues,
resulting in a strengthened alliance facilitative of change.
Owen (2013) subsequently delineated three pillars of MCO: cultural
humility, cultural opportunities, and cultural comfort. Cultural humility,
which is other-oriented, manifests itself in clinicians’ openness, curiosity,
498 The Counseling Psychologist 49(4)

lack of arrogance, and genuine desire to understand clients’ cultural identities

(Hook et al., 2013). Cultural opportunities, as opposed to missed opportuni-
ties, occur when therapists explore clients’ cultural heritage and integrate
their findings into therapy. Cultural comfort of therapists influences the like-
lihood that they will seize cultural opportunities. There is also initial evidence
associating MCO with positive therapeutic outcomes (Hook et al., 2013;
Owen et al., 2016).
The scholarship in counseling psychology on cultural humility emanates
from the earlier work of Tervalon and Murray-García (1998), who proposed
this construct for training physicians. They also distinguished cultural humility
from cultural competence. Arguing that cultural competence is not a “discrete
endpoint,” they opined that cultural humility better connotes the lifelong com-
mitment and engagement needed to treat patients from diverse backgrounds.
Another important extension in the multicultural field is social justice,
which emphasizes empowerment and activism for historically marginalized
and underrepresented groups (DeBlaere et al., 2019; Speight & Vera, 2008;
Vera & Speight, 2003). This movement has directed attention to several
important concepts, such as intersectionality, power and privilege, and oppres-
sion. Intersectionality refers to multiple overlapping identities (e.g., race, gen-
der, religion, sexual orientation, social class, etc.), that can compound the
discrimination, prejudice, and systemic disadvantages a person experiences
(Cole, 2009; Crenshaw, 1993). Power, privilege, and oppression contribute
additional complexity to a person’s lived experiences, as well as to the dynam-
ics within the counseling relationship (Chan et al., 2018). The social justice
approach advocates for making these dynamics and intersecting identities
known and challenging the systemic disadvantages that individuals experi-
ence. Despite this advancement in theory, research, and practice, a recent cri-
tique of intersectionality is that it shifts attention to merely recognizing the
identities a person holds away from social justice’s original intention of chal-
lenging systemic, intersecting forms of oppression and privilege (Moradi &
Grzanka, 2017).
These emerging conceptualizations invigorate the rethinking of multicul-
tural counseling competence by showing a continued high interest in cul-
ture’s involvement in counseling. Given the flaws of the construct, it is also
understandable that researchers and scholars would begin to conceptualize
other ideas about its involvement. These ideas present formidable challenges
that merit serious consideration. It is important to also consider the extent to
which new ideas forge new ground, repackage old ideas into new language,
or simply step in to occupy the vacuum left by the many unanswered ques-
tions of the field. Is multicultural counseling competence becoming outdated
and supplanted? Or is it underdeveloped and in need of refinement? We invite
a rethinking of this matter.
Mollen and Ridley 499

Organization of This Major Contribution

We organized this Major Contribution into four sequential articles, each
building on the foundation of the preceding article(s). Following this intro-
ductory article, the second article is titled “Multicultural Counseling
Competence: A Construct in Search of Operationalization” (Ridley, Mollen,
et al., 2021). We analyze the major definitional problems with the construct
of multicultural counseling competence, followed by an explanation and cri-
tique of its three major models. The third article, titled “The Process Model
of Multicultural Counseling Competence,” redefines the construct. Based on
this definition, we propose a process model (Ridley, Sahu, et al., 2021 [this
issue]) that builds on the conceptualizations of the skills-based, adaptation,
and process-oriented models of the construct in addition to some news fea-
tures. In so doing, it seeks to overcome the limitations of existing models and
provide better guidance for the demonstration of competence. In the fourth
article, “A Case Using the Process Model of Multicultural Counseling
Competence,” we describe a case based upon the model set forth in the third
article (Sahu et al., 2021 [this issue]). The purpose of this article is to demon-
strate how clinicians can apply the model to actual clinical practice.

Conclusion
Few constructs in the mental and behavioral health care professions have
garnered as much attention over the past several decades as multicultural
counseling competence. To say the least, the interest has been staggering, and
the ideas have been thought provoking. The movement, whose challenge and
scrutiny has extended across the spectrum of healthcare professions, has
changed the very essence of professional psychology. In the current climate,
the importance of the ethical mandate to serve diverse populations cannot be
overstated (APA, 2017a, 2017b). At the same time, the need for sound opera-
tionalization of the construct cannot be ignored. Without addressing the
invisible impasse of inexplicit guidance, professionals cannot presume to
demonstrate multicultural counseling competence. Without a sound defini-
tion and model, the professional practice of this competence is presumptu-
ous. Therefore, existing thinking must give way to rethinking. In this Major
Contribution, we hope that our ideas will help advance the conversation of
this important movement. Most importantly, we hope that clients, supervis-
ees, and consultees will be the ultimate beneficiaries of this work.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
500 The Counseling Psychologist 49(4)

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

ORCID iD
Charles R. Ridley https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2259-376X

References
Aamodt, M. G. (2010). Industrial/organizational psychology: An applied approach
(6th ed.). Wadsworth.
American Psychological Association. (2013). Guidelines for psychological practice
in health care delivery systems. American Psychologist, 68(1), 1–6. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0029890
American Psychological Association. (2017a). Ethical principles of psychologists
and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
American Psychological Association. (2017b). Multicultural guidelines: An eco-
logical approach to context, identity, and intersectionality. https://www.apa.org/
about/policy/multicultural-guidelines.pdf
American Psychological Association, Commission on Accreditation. (2019).
Standards of accreditation for health service psychology and accreditation
operating procedures. https://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/policies/stan-
dards-of-accreditation.pdf
Arredondo, P., & Perez, P. (2006). Historical perspectives on the multicultural guide-
lines and contemporary applications. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 37(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.37.1.1
Arredondo, P., & Tovar-Blank, Z. G. (2014). Multicultural competencies: A dynamic
paradigm for the 21st century. In F. T. L. Leong, L. Comas-Díaz, G. C. Nagayama
Hall, V. C. McLoyd, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), APA handbook of multicultural psy-
chology: Applications and training (Vol. 2; pp. 19–34). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14187-002
Arredondo, P., Tovar-Blank, Z. G., & Parham, T. A. (2008). Challenges and promises
of becoming a culturally competent counselor in a sociopolitical era of change
and empowerment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 86(3), 261–268.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00508.x
Atkinson, D. R., & Hackett, G. (1998). Counseling diverse populations (2nd ed.).
McGraw Hill.
Barden, S. M., Sherrell, R. S., & Matthews, J. J. (2017). A national survey on mul-
ticultural competence for professional counselors: A replication study. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 95(2), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jcad.12132
Betancourt, J. R., Green, A. R., Carrilli, J. E., & Ananeh-Firempong, O., II. (2003).
Defining cultural competence: A practical framework for addressing racial/eth-
nic health disparities in health and health care. Public Health Reports, 118(4),
293–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3549(04)50253-4
Mollen and Ridley 501

Chan, C. D., Cor, D. N., & Band, M. P. (2018). Privilege and oppression in counselor
education: An intersectionality framework. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
and Development, 46(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmd.12092
Chin, J. L. (2003). Multicultural competencies in managed health care. In D. B. Pope-
Davis, H. L. K. Coleman, W. M. Liu, & R. L. Toporek (Eds.), Handbook of
multicultural competencies in counseling and psychology. Sage.
Chu, J., Leino, A., Pflum, S., & Sue, S. (2016). A model for the theoretical basis of
cultural competency to guide psychotherapy. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 47(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000055
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American
Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564
Constantine, M. G., & Ladany, N. (2000). Self-report multicultural counseling com-
petence scales: Their relation to social desirability attitudes and multicultural
case conceptualization ability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(2), 155–
164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.2.155
Crenshaw, K. (1993). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black femi-
nist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist poli-
tics. In D. K. Weisbert (Ed.), Feminist legal theory: Foundations (pp. 383–395).
Temple University Press. (Original work published 1988).
Davis, D. E., DeBlaere, C., Owen, J., Hook, J. N., Rivera, D. P., Choe, E., Van
Tongeren, D. R., Worthington, E. L., & Placeres, V. (2018). The multicultural
orientation framework: A narrative review. Psychotherapy, 55(1), 89–100.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000160
DeBlaere, C., Singh, A. A., Wilcox, M. M., Cokley, K. O., Delgado-Romero, E. A.,
Scalise, D. A., & Shawahin, L. (2019). Social justice in counseling psychology:
Then, now, and looking forward. The Counseling Psychologist, 47(6), 938–962.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000019893283
Delgado-Romero, E. A. (2003). Ethics and the multicultural counseling competence.
In D. B. Pope-Davis, H. L. K. Coleman, W. M. Liu, & R. L. Toporek (Eds.),
Handbook of multicultural competencies in counseling and psychology (pp. 313–
329). Sage.
Frisby, C. L., & O’Donohue, W. T. (Eds.). (2018). Cultural competence in applied
psychology: An evaluation of current status and future directions. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78997-2
Helms, J. E. (1984). Toward a theoretical explanation of the effects of race on coun-
seling: A Black and White model. The Counseling Psychologist, 12(4), 153–165.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000084124013
Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Utsey, S. O. (2013).
Cultural humility: Measuring openness to culturally diverse clients. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 60(3), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032595
Kivlighan, D. M. III, Adams, M. C., Drinane, J. M., Toa, K. W., & Owen, J. (2019).
Construction and validation of the Multicultural Orientation Inventory—
Group Version. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(1), 45–55. https://doi.
org/10.1037/cou0000294
502 The Counseling Psychologist 49(4)

Metzger, L. L. H, Nadkarni, L. I., & Cornish, J. A. E. (2010). An overview of mul-

ticultural counseling competencies. In J. A. E. Cornish, B. A. Schreier, L. I.
Nadkarni, L. H. Metzger, & E. R. Rodolfa (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural
counseling competencies (pp. 1–21). Wiley.
Moradi, B., & Grzanka, P. R. (2017). Using intersectionality responsibly: Toward
critical epistemology, structural analysis, and social justice activism. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 64(5), 500. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000203
Owen, J. (2013). Early career perspectives on psychotherapy research and practice:
Psychotherapist effects, multicultural orientation, and couple interventions.
Psychotherapy, 50(4), 490–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034617
Owen, J., Tao, K. W., Drinane, J. M., Hook, J., Davis, D. E., & Kune, N. F. (2016).
Client perceptions of therapists’ multicultural orientation: Cultural (missed)
opportunities and cultural humility. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 47(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000046
Owen, J. J., Tao, K., Leach, M. M., & Rodolfa, E. (2011). Clients’ perceptions of
their psychotherapists’ multicultural orientation. Psychotherapy, 48(3), 274–282.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022065
Pérez-Rojas, A. E., Bartholomew, T. T., Lockard, A. J., & González, J. M. (2019).
Development and initial validation of the Therapist Cultural Comfort Scale.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(5), 534–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/
cou0000344
Platt, S. (Ed.). (1989). Respectfully quoted: A dictionary of quotations requested from
the Congressional Research Service. Library of Congress.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Casas, J. M. (1991). Handbook of racial/ethnic minority counsel-
ing research. Charles C. Thomas.
Ridley, C. R. (2005). Overcoming unintentional racism in counseling and therapy: A
practitioner’s guide to intentional intervention (2nd ed.). Sage.
Ridley, C. R., Baker, D. M., & Hill, C. L. (2001). Critical issues concerning cul-
tural competence. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(6), 822–832. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0011000001296003
Ridley, C. R., Mollen, D., Console, K., & Yin, C. (2021). Multicultural counsel-
ing competence: A construct in search of operationalization. The Counseling
Psychologist, 49(4), 504–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000020988110
Ridley, C. R., Sahu, A., Console, K., Surya, S., Tran, V., Xie, S., & Yin, C. (2021).
The process model of multicultural counseling competence. The Counseling
Psychologist, 49(4), 534–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000021992339
Sahu, A., Console, K., Tran, V., Xie, S., Yin, C., Meng, X., & Ridley, C. R. (2021). A case
using the process model of multicultural counseling competence. The Counseling
Psychologist, 49(4), 568–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000021990762
Speight, S. L., & Vera, E. M. (2008). Social justice and counseling psychology: A
challenge to the profession. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of
counseling psychology (pp. 54–67). John Wiley & Sons.
Mollen and Ridley 503

Sue, D. W. (1978). Eliminating cultural oppression in counseling: Toward a gen-

eral theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25(5), 419–428. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0167.25.5.419
Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling
competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling
& Development, 70(4), 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1992.
tb01642.x
Sue, D. W., Bernier, J. E., Durran, A., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P., Smith, E.
J., & Vasquez-Nuttall, E. (1982). Position paper: Cross-cultural counsel-
ing competencies. The Counseling Psychologist, 10(2), 45–52. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0011000082102008
Sue, D. W., Bingham, R. P., Porché-Burke, L., & Vasquez, M. (1999). The diversifi-
cation of psychology: A multicultural revolution. American Psychologist, 54(12),
1061–1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.12.1061
Tervalon, M., & Murray-García, J. (1998). Cultural humility versus cultural com-
petence: A critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multi-
cultural education. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 9(2),
117–125. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2010.0233
Trimble, J. E. (2014). Advancing understanding of cultural competence, cultural sen-
sitivity, and the effects of cultural incompetence. In M. J. Prinstein (Ed.), The
portable mentor: Expert guide to a successful career in psychology (2nd ed., pp.
57–80). Springer.
Vera, E. M., & Speight, S. L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and
counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist,
31(3), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000003031003001
Worthington, R. L., & Dillon, F. R. (2011). Deconstructing multicultural counseling
competencies: Comment on Owen, Leach, Wampold, and Rodolfa. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 58(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022177

Author Biographies
Debra Mollen, PhD, is a licensed psychologist, professor in the counseling psychol-
ogy graduate program at Texas Woman’s University, and a certified sexuality educa-
tor with the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists.
With Brian Baird, she coauthored The Internship, Practicum, and Field Placement
Handbook: A Guide for the Helping Professions (8th edition; Taylor & Francis) and,
with Sharon Lamb and Lillian Comas-Díaz, is cochair of the revised APA Guidelines
for Psychological Practice with Girls and Women. She is a Fellow in APA Division
17 (Society of Counseling Psychology).
Charles R. Ridley, PhD, is a professor in the counseling psychology program at Texas
A&M University. He received his doctorate from the University of Minnesota. His
research interests include multicultural counseling competence, thematic mapping in
case conceptualization, and the scientist–practitioner model. He is a Fellow of the APA
(Divisions 17 and 45) and licensed psychologist in a part-time private practice.

View publication stats