Examining Internationalization in U.S. Counseling Psychology Training Programs

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to gather more information about the process of internationalization in U.S. counseling psychology programs. Participants included 26 training directors and 83 doctoral students, representing 32 of the 63 APA-accredited counseling psychology programs. Results suggested that the presence of international training opportunities did not increase from 2007 to 2010, with the exception that internationalism was increasingly being incorporated into the definition of multiculturalism. Results also suggested that in several areas, training directors and doctoral students differed in their knowledge of whether international training opportunities were present in their programs, and the degree to which they believed such opportunities were integrated. Finally, results suggested that respondents’ attitudes were generally favorable toward internationalization. The implications for counseling psychology training programs as well as recommendations for improving internationalization efforts are discussed.

Keywords

training international counseling psychology programs competencies

Globalization is rapidly changing the world in which we live, and as a result, significant changes need to be addressed within the field of counseling psychology. Not only does globalization necessitate that U.S. counseling psychologists address the growing international diversity within the United States, but it also provides more opportunities for counseling psychologists to act on an international scale (e.g., collaborating with international colleagues in research, working with internationally focused nongovernmental organizations).

It is imperative that counseling psychologists be able to address the changes and challenges of living in a globalized society, yet the extent to which training programs are preparing students to do so remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to gather more information about the process of internationalization in U.S. counseling psychology programs. Specifically, we examined the presence of international training opportunities in U.S. counseling psychology programs, the difference between doctoral students’ and training directors’ perceptions of international training opportunities, and students’ and training directors’ attitudes toward internationalizing the curriculum in U.S. counseling psychology programs. For the purposes of this study, internationalization refers to the “nurturance of a global perspective in counseling scholarship through [our] teaching, research, and service” (Leung et al., 2009, p. 112), while international training opportunities refers to the specific educational strategies implemented in training programs to facilitate the internationalization process. Nurturance in this regard is viewed as supporting and encouraging activities such as, for instance, conducting research studies outside the United States, infusing academic literature from around the globe into course syllabi, and joining and participating in non-U.S.-based professional organizations.

Recently, there has been an increase in the number of publications on the importance of internationalizing counseling psychology programs, which have included specific recommendations for how to do so (e.g., Ægisdóttir & Gerstein, 2010; Heppner, Leong, & Gerstein, 2008; Leong & Ponterotto, 2003; Marsella & Pedersen, 2004). Yet the extent to which training programs are implementing these recommendations remains largely unknown. Thus far, a few case studies have been published about counseling psychology programs that have offered international immersion experiences (e.g., Friedlander, Carranza, & Guzman, 2002; Wang & Heppner, 2009). While such studies are encouraging, faculty members may be hesitant to rely solely on such immersion opportunities for international training because financial and logistical barriers are likely to limit the number of trainees who are able to participate in them (Gerstein & Ægisdóttir, 2007). Additionally, case studies provide little information regarding the overall status of internationalization in U.S. counseling psychology doctoral programs.

To date, only one study has examined the status of international training across multiple counseling psychology programs. Turner-Essel and Waehler (2009) surveyed training directors (n = 47) of these programs in 2007 using Leong and Ponterotto’s (2003) eight recommendations for internationalizing the curriculum. Results suggested that a number of counseling psychology programs demonstrated a commitment to internationalization by considering international experience in the admissions process (89.2%), promoting travel to international conferences (71.1%), including international issues as part of multicultural content (70.2%), and employing other strategies (i.e., incorporating non-U.S. readings into the curriculum, providing training with an international focus, inviting international guests, offering an international exchange).

Efforts aimed at enhancing international initiatives have continued to increase since Turner-Essel and Waehler (2009) surveyed training directors. For example, the American Psychological Association (APA) began hosting an annual Psychology Day at the United Nations in 2007 as a way to highlight the emerging role of psychology in international affairs and to facilitate dialogue among psychologists and diplomats (Denmark, 2007). In addition, the International Section of Division 17 was founded in 2007 to promote counseling psychology in international contexts. Most recently, this increased focus on international issues has been highlighted with the publication of the International Handbook of Cross-Cultural Counseling: Cultural Assumptions and Practices Worldwide (Gerstein, Heppner, Ægisdóttir, Leung, & Norsworthy, 2009). Because of the continued emphasis on international issues within the APA and more specifically Division 17, a follow-up study to Turner-Essel and Waehler’s project is warranted to determine whether any changes have occurred over time regarding the presence of international training opportunities.

Although Turner-Essel and Waehler’s (2009) study was an important first step in assessing the availability of international training opportunities, their methodology had some limitations. First, they utilized a yes/no response format in their survey, which did not allow for an assessment of varying degrees of the endorsement of the items. That is, the extent to which international training opportunities were being offered was unclear. Therefore, in the current study a Likert-type scaling method was used to assess international training opportunities in counseling psychology programs. Another limitation of Turner-Essel and Waehler’s study was that it relied on only eight items to assess the availability of international training opportunities. To address this limitation, the current study utilized a larger array of items to investigate efforts to internationalize the training curriculum. In constructing these additional items, we relied on the APA’s (American Psychological Association Commission on Ethnic Minority Recruitment, Retention, and Training in Psychology, 1997) outline of how to prepare counseling psychology students to work with diverse populations. These included (a) the recruitment and training of culturally competent faculty, (b) the recruitment and training of culturally competent students, (c) promoting multicultural research, (d) demonstrating an institutional commitment to multicultural values, (e) incorporating specific multicultural learning opportunities in the curriculum, and (f) providing direct multicultural learning experiences through practica and internships. Moreover, we modified the terminology from “multicultural” to “international” when describing these areas because of the increasing literature that suggests multicultural training does not fully encompass international training (e.g., Heppner et al., 2009; Hurley & Gerstein, in press). For instance, while increased attention to multicultural competencies and training has coincided with higher utilization rates of psychological services for U.S. ethnic minority persons (e.g., Asian Americans, Mexican Americans), the usage of these services by international persons in the United States still remains significantly lower (Abe-Kim et al., 2007; Vega, Kolody, Aguilar-Gaxiola, & Catalano, 1999). Such evidence highlights the need for an examination of international training opportunities to ensure that the lower frequency of psychological help-seeking among international persons is not related to a lack of international competencies among U.S. counseling psychologists.

One other limitation of Turner-Essel and Waehler’s (2009) is that they only surveyed counseling psychology training directors when examining current international opportunities in the curriculum. Ideally, while training directors should be knowledgeable about the international training opportunities provided within their programs and departments, past research on multicultural training opportunities has suggested that faculty members and students may perceive the availability of such opportunities differently. For instance, Constantine, Ladany, Inman, and Ponterotto (1996) compared student and faculty member responses to the Multicultural Competency Checklist (MCC; Ponterotto, 1997) and found that faculty members as compared to students perceived more multicultural training opportunities being offered. Thus, it is possible that students and faculty members from the same program may have different perceptions of international training opportunities. It is also conceivable that more faculty members from programs that incorporated multicultural training opportunities responded to the survey, whereas a greater number of students from programs that incorporated fewer multicultural training opportunities responded. For these reasons, it was considered important to include responses from both students and faculty members to determine whether the two groups perceived international training opportunities differently.

In addition, to address the aforementioned limitations of Turner-Essel and Waehler’s (2009) study, we extended their effort by also examining students’ and training directors’ attitudes toward internationalization. This information was considered important given that Heppner, Leong, and Chiao (2008) stated that few major U.S. institutions currently support the internationalizing of the profession and others have suggested that some U.S. counseling psychologists are altogether opposed to internationalization efforts (Marsella & Pedersen, 2004). Moreover, while certain scholars have advocated for the international movement as the next step in the multicultural movement (e.g., Douce, 2004; Leong & Blustein, 2000), others have observed that some U.S. counseling psychologists may be concerned that an international focus would take resources away from a multicultural focus (Heppner et al., 2009).

The Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) may help explain this difference in opinion. This theory postulates that the intent to engage in a behavior is largely determined by a person’s attitude toward the behavior and subjective norms (i.e., expectations of others about the behavior). Thus, one important factor that may contribute to the availability of international training opportunities, or the lack thereof, may be attitudes toward internationalizing counseling psychology programs. Namely, unless faculty members and students are supportive of internationalization efforts, such opportunities may be less available to counseling psychology students.

In summary, because more than a decade has passed since scholars have increasingly called upon the field of U.S. counseling psychology to internationalize, a more comprehensive body of research examining the internationalization process is warranted. Such accountability is imperative when one considers that approximately 20 years passed before APA in 2002 formally adopted the “Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists” that had been proposed for working with cultural groups within the United States (APA, 2003). It is anticipated that by examining the status of the internationalization process, counseling psychologists may better evaluate whether current internationalization efforts are sufficient, and if not, they can implement appropriate changes to the training curriculum.

Given the increased interest in the counseling psychology profession in international topics, it was expected that there would be a greater number of international opportunities in U.S. counseling psychology training programs in 2010 compared to 2007. Furthermore, it was predicted that training directors would perceive international training opportunities integrated to a greater extent to their program than the students. Since there has been no previous research on students’ and training directors’ attitudes toward internationalizing U.S. counseling psychology doctoral programs, we expected no difference in their attitudes.

Method

Participants

Participants included training directors and counseling psychology doctoral students of APA-accredited, currently active counseling psychology doctoral programs in 2010 (N = 63). The final sample of training directors consisted of 26 participants (41.3% response rate). Thirteen of the training directors that responded were men and 13 were women. Their mean age was 49.9 (SD = 9.5), ranging from 35 to 64 years. The sample was 73.1% Caucasian (n = 19), 3.8 % African American/Black (n = 1), 7.7% Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander (n = 2), 3.8% Hispanic/Latino (n = 1), and 11.5% multiracial (i.e., identified with more than one ethnic group) (n = 3). Two participants indicated that they were born outside the United States (7.7%).

The final sample of doctoral students consisted of 83 respondents from 22 programs. This represented 34.9% of the eligible counseling psychology doctoral programs. The number of students from a given program ranged from 1 to 7 (M = 3.8, SD = 2.0). This sample was 68.7% Caucasian (n = 57), 2.4% African American/Black (n = 1), 7.2% Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander (n = 6), 10.8% Hispanic/Latino (n = 9), 2.4% Middle Eastern/Middle Eastern American (n = 2), and 8.4% multiracial (n = 7). Eleven participants reported they were international students (13.3%). Twenty-two students stated they were in their first year of their doctoral program (26.5%), 14 in their second year (16.9%), 11 in their third year (13.3%), 20 in their fourth year (24.1%), and 16 in their fifth year or beyond (19.3%).

A total of 32 counseling psychology programs were represented, with 10 programs represented by training directors only (31.3%), 6 programs represented by doctoral students only (18.7%), and 16 programs represented by both training directors and doctoral students (50.0%). The number of counseling psychology doctoral students in departments represented in this study ranged from 25 to 65 (M = 41.5, SD = 11.64), while the number of international students, as reported by training directors (n = 25), ranged from 0 to 20 (M = 4.04, Mode = 3; SD = 4.06). The number of faculty members in these programs, as reported by the directors (n = 26), ranged from 4 to 11 (M = 6.88, SD = 2.12), while the number of international faculty members ranged from 0 to 4 (M = .69, SD = .88). Four counseling psychology programs were geographically located in the Northeast region of the United States (12.5%), 15 in the Midwest (46.9%), 7 in the South (21.9%), and 5 in the West (15.6%). The geographic location could not be determined for one training director who did not identify his or her university affiliation (3.1%).

Measures

A survey was developed by the first author based on the specific recommendations set forth by leaders of the international counseling psychology movement for internationalizing graduate programs. The survey gathered (a) demographic information, (b) information on current international training opportunities as measured by a previous survey (Turner-Essel & Waehler, 2009), (c) current international training opportunities based on additional recommendations for internationalization found in the literature, and (d) attitudes toward internationalization in counseling psychology training programs.

Current International Training Opportunities Survey

In this section of the survey, training directors were asked to respond to questions regarding current international training opportunities provided in their program. This section of the survey consisted of the eight items used by Turner-Essel and Waehler (2009) to measure international training opportunities. These items were based on Leong and Ponterotto’s (2003) recommendations (e.g., “Does your department offer a course specifically in global/international topics?”). The response format and wording of the items was the same used by Turner-Essel and Waehler to ensure consistency between the previous and current study.

Perceptions of International Training Opportunities Scale

This section also assessed current international training opportunities but was expanded to include additional recommendations for internationalizing the curriculum (e.g., Ægisdóttir & Gerstein, 2010; Marsella & Pedersen, 2004) and the six main areas identified by APA (American Psychological Association Commission on Ethnic Minority Recruitment, Retention, and Training in Psychology, 1997) on how to prepare students to work with diverse populations. Both training directors and their doctoral students were asked to respond to this section. This section initially consisted of 35 items grouped into the six categories recommended by APA: (a) training and inclusion of internationally competent faculty (e.g., “Counseling psychology faculty members with international experience serve as resources for educating U.S.A. counseling psychology students about international topics.”), (b) training and inclusion of internationally competent students (e.g., “Counseling psychology students with international experience serve as resources for educating U.S.A. counseling psychology students about international topics.”), (c) promoting internationally relevant research (e.g., “My counseling psychology doctoral program collaborates with a non-U.S.A. institution in conducting research.”), (d) institutional commitment for international training (e.g., “My doctoral program embraces a definition of multiculturalism that includes an international perspective.”), (e) international curriculum initiatives (e.g., “My department offers specialization in cross-cultural training.”), and (6) direct international training experiences (e.g., “Students in my doctoral program have international experiences [e.g., travel, working with non-U.S.A. populations, etc.].”). An Overall Perception of International Training Initiatives subscale was also included in this part of the survey (e.g., “My doctoral program is successful in providing international learning opportunities.”). Each subscale was comprised of five items. The initial response format was a Likert-type scale in which participants were asked to rate each of the 35 items from (1) not at all to (6) a very great extent.

The items linked with assessing perceptions of international training opportunities were sent to a jury panel consisting of three experts in the subject of international counseling psychology. Candidates for the jury panel were considered “experts” based on their contribution of three or more research publications in the area of international counseling psychology. The panel was asked to provide feedback on the content validity and overall usefulness of the survey for measuring internationalization efforts in counseling psychology programs. The panel was also asked to rate each item for clarity of wording on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) vague to (5) clear/concise. The mean rating for the 35 items was 4.62 (SD = 1.22), which suggested that jury panelists rated items as “somewhat clear” or “clear and concise.” The seven items that received less than a four rating were revised based on the experts’ feedback. One jury panelist submitted an additional item to include in the International Curriculum Initiatives subscale. Furthermore, it was recommended by a panelist to include an “I don’t know” response option for participants. Thus, the section of the entire survey connected to measuring perceptions of international training opportunities consisted of 36 items. In the final version, participants could respond to each of these items using the 6-point Likert-type scale described above, or by answering “I don’t know.”

Both training directors’ and students’ responses were used to calculate reliability. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the summation of the 36 items on the Perceptions of Internationalization Scale was .97 (n = 43). Cronbach’s alphas for the subscales were as follows: .80 for training and inclusion of internationally competent faculty (n = 89), .90 for training and inclusion of internationally competent students (n = 93), .76 for promoting internationally relevant research (n = 66), .91 for institutional commitment for international training (n = 68), .77 for international curriculum initiatives (n = 85), .86 for direct international training experiences (n = 87), and .90 for overall perceptions of international initiatives (n = 106). Corrected item-total correlations ranged from .32 to .87. In addition, it should be noted that “I don’t know” responses were not calculated in the reliability statistics because “I don’t know” was a qualitatively different response than the Likert-type scale responses of 1-6 (i.e., measuring whether one knows the information compared to the degree to which one perceives an international opportunity to be present). Because of this, the sample size on which reliability coefficients were calculated differed. The frequency of “I don’t know” responses to the subscales was as follows: 6.2% for training and inclusion of internationally competent faculty, 4.4% for training and inclusion of internationally competent students, 13.8% for promoting internationally relevant research, 11.7% for institutional commitment for international training, 6.7% for international curriculum initiatives, 6.6% for direct international training experiences, and 5.0% for overall perceptions of international initiatives. Because the reliability for all subscales was sufficiently high, all 36 items were retained.

Attitudes toward internationalization

Both training directors and doctoral students were asked to respond to this section. This section initially consisted of 15 items that assessed general attitudes toward internationalizing counseling psychology doctoral programs. Examples of items included “U.S.A. counseling psychology programs have a responsibility to internationalize the curriculum” and “counseling psychology students should be trained to address international issues.” Participants were asked to rate each item on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (6) strongly agree. Eight items were positively worded and seven were negatively worded to minimize potential response bias.

This section of the survey was also sent to the jury panel for review. The panel was again asked to rate each item for clarity of wording on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = vague to 5 = clear/concise). The mean rating for items on this scale was 4.98 (SD = 1.13), suggesting on average the items were rated by panelists as being “clear and concise.” One panelist responded that three of the items did not adequately measure an attitude and these items were eliminated.

Reliability analyses were conducted to examine internal consistency. One of the 12 items had a corrected item-total correlation of .25 and was eliminated. Corrected item-total correlations for the remaining 11 items ranged from .59 to .79. Cronbach’s alpha was .93.

Pearson correlations were calculated to examine the relationship between responses to the various subscales and the attitudes measure. For the training directors, all correlations were moderate and significant (rs .45 to .75; p < .01). This implied that to some extent, training directors who claimed that international opportunities were available in one aspect of their program were likely to report that international opportunities were provided in other areas of their programs as well. The moderate correlations also suggested that training directors who had positive attitudes toward internationalization were more likely to have international training opportunities offered in their programs.

For doctoral students, only correlations in responses to the Perceptions of International Training Opportunities subscales were significant (p < .01; rs .49 to .80). These moderate correlations implied that to some extent, doctoral students who stated that international opportunities were available in one aspect of their program were likely to report that international opportunities were provided in other areas of their programs as well. Unlike training directors, however, responses to the Attitude scale were not significantly correlated with responses to these subscales (p > .05). This suggested that doctoral students’ attitudes toward internationalization were not associated with their perception of the international training opportunities offered in their program.

Procedure

All training directors of APA-accredited, active counseling psychology programs were emailed requesting their participation in the study. The email included a brief description of the study, description of the incentive to participate, link to the survey on a website, and request that directors forward the email to their doctoral students after they completed the survey. The stated purpose of the study was to gather participants’ views about their doctoral training program’s involvement in international training opportunities. The sections of the survey were administered in a counterbalanced order to minimize any ordering effect as a threat to internal validity.

Participants were not asked to provide their names, but responses were tracked by university name and affiliation to determine which training directors needed to be contacted for a follow-up request. Directors who did not respond were emailed a reminder approximately two weeks later. Persons who did not respond to the first two emails received a follow-up survey packet via postal mail approximately 3 weeks later. Because of the initial low response rate, a request was then sent to all training directors of APA-accredited counseling psychology programs via a listserv. In a final attempt to increase response rates, one of the co-authors of this article emailed training directors requesting their participation.

Results

To test the hypothesis that there would be a greater number of international opportunities in U.S. counseling psychology training programs in 2010 as compared to 2007, a series of chi-square analyses were performed. The effect of time (2007 and 2010) on current international training opportunities as measured by the eight items on Turner-Essel and Waehler’s (2009) survey was investigated in the analyses. One item (i.e., “Are your graduate students required to take a foreign language course/sequence as part of their training?”) was excluded from these analyses because no respondents positively endorsed it. Responses to five of the remaining seven items met all the assumptions associated with the Pearson’s chi-square test. Responses to two of the items (i.e., “Is international experience considered an important part of admissions?” and “Does your department offer an international exchange?”), however, violated an assumption associated with the Pearson’s chi-square test because they had a cell count of less than five. Thus, the significance for Fisher’s Exact Test is reported for these two items. Of the seven chi-square analyses, only one was significant. A significantly higher percentage of training directors in 2010 (92.3%) compared to 2007 (70.2%) reported that internationalization was included in their definition of multiculturalism (χ² = 4.78, p < .05). Thirty-three of the 47 training directors in 2007 positively endorsed this item, while 24 of the 26 training directors in 2010 endorsed this item. For the six other aspects of internationalization, no differences were found between the presence of international training opportunities in 2007 and 2010. A post hoc power analysis revealed that the sample size of training directors for 2007 and 2010 (N = 73) had adequate power (1 – β = .80) to detect effect sizes greater than .35 at α = .05 (two-tailed).

To test the second hypothesis that training directors of U.S. counseling psychology programs would perceive international training opportunities integrated to a greater extent in the program compared to students, responses to the items associated with the Perceptions of International Training Opportunities Scale were used. Because respondents could answer “I don’t know” or they could rate the extent to which an opportunity was present (i.e., Likert-type scale 1 to 6), the frequencies of responses for training directors and doctoral students were first examined. This was necessary because the “I don’t know” response could not be incorporated into a mean response but was nonetheless important information regarding whether perceptions of international training opportunities differed between doctoral students and training directors.

Responses were organized into two categories of “known” and “unknown” opportunities. Likert-type scale responses (i.e., 1 to 6) were recoded as “known” opportunities, while “I don’t know” responses were coded as “unknown” opportunities. Chi-square tests of independence were conducted on responses to each of the seven Perceptions of International Training Opportunities subscales to determine whether training directors and doctoral students responded differently. Results suggested that for the Promoting Internationally Relevant Research subscale, training directors endorsed “known” responses (96.1%) significantly more often than doctoral students (83.1%) (χ² = 14.02, df = 1, p < .05). Similarly, training directors endorsed “known” responses (96.2%) significantly more often than doctoral students (90.4%) for the International Curriculum Initiatives subscale (χ² = 5.11, df = 1, p < .05). For the Overall Perceptions of International Initiatives subscale, however, doctoral students endorsed significantly more “known” responses (97.8%) compared to the training directors (86.2%) (χ² = 28.21, df = 1, p < .05). For the remaining subscales, there was no significant difference between doctoral students’ and training directors’ responses. Responses for known opportunities of doctoral students and training directors were, respectively, training and inclusion of internationally competent faculty (92.8% vs. 97.0%), training and inclusion of internationally competent students (95.9% vs. 94.6%), institutional commitment for international training (86.8% vs. 83.1%), and direct international training experiences (92.3% vs. 97%). Thus, there was partial support for the second hypothesis that training directors compared to doctoral students would perceive international training opportunities integrated to a greater extent in programs.

Next, to compare the responses of training directors and doctoral students specifically within their programs, participants’ mean responses to the items were calculated. Mean item responses for the subscales (i.e., Likert-type scale 1 to 6) were reported rather than raw subscale scores to aid in interpretation of the results. In instances where participants responded “I don’t know,” those items were excluded from the calculation of the mean score. For training directors (n = 26), the mean responses for the Perceptions of International Training Opportunities Scale ranged from 1.84 (i.e., responses between not at all and rarely) to 5.14 (i.e., responses between to a great extent and to a very great extent). Overall, the mean response for training directors was 3.41 (SD = .83), which suggested that, on average, training directors responded most often that international training opportunities were integrated to a small extent and to some extent.

The doctoral students’ scores from a program were combined to create an average student score within that program to prevent the responses of doctoral students from any given program being overrepresented in the sample. For the programs from which doctoral students responded, the mean scores for the scale ranged from 2.44 to 5.49. The mean score for doctoral students within programs was 3.38 (SD = .74). This suggested that, on average, doctoral students most often responded that international training opportunities were integrated to a small extent and to some extent.

A repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was also conducted to test the second hypothesis that training directors of U.S. counseling psychology programs compared to doctoral students would perceive international training opportunities integrated to a greater extent in the program. Specifically, the analysis was performed to examine the effect of status within the program (training director and doctoral students) on responses to the subscales of the Perceptions of International Training Opportunities measure. This second analysis was necessary to examine the differences in training directors’ and doctoral students’ perceptions of international training opportunities within their own programs.

A repeated measures MANOVA was conducted rather than a between-subjects MANOVA because the data violated the assumption of independence that is associated with a between-subjects MANOVA. Namely, training directors’ and doctoral students’ perceptions of available international training opportunities were dependent upon their counseling psychology program. For this reason, responses from training directors were matched with responses of doctoral students within programs. This served as the repeated measures variable. Each matched pair consisted of the training director score and an average student score within a program. Response sets in which only a director or a doctoral student from a program were present were not included in this analysis. The final sample for this analysis consisted of 16 programs. Three programs were located in the Northeast region of the United States (18.8%), six in the Midwest (37.5%), three in the South (18.8%), and four in the West (25.0%). The mean response per program was 4.8 (SD = 2.0).

The data were first examined to ensure that the assumptions associated with the repeated measures MANOVA were met. The distribution of training directors’ responses (skewness = .45, kurtosis = –.04) and the distribution of doctoral students’ responses (skewness = .50, kurtosis = –.7) were within the normal range, and thus, the assumption of normality was met. Additionally, the moderate correlations among responses to the subscales suggested that the assumption regarding the linearity of the dependent variables was met.

As hypothesized, the multivariate effect for responses to the Perceptions of International Training Opportunities subscales for within subjects (i.e., within programs) was significant with training directors (M = 3.43, SD = .72) reporting international training opportunities being integrated to a greater extent than doctoral students (M = 3.35, SD = .62) (Pillai’s Trace = .794, F(1, 15) = 4.97, p < .05, partial eta-squared = .79).

Univariate analyses suggested that there were significant differences between the responses of training directors and doctoral students for two subscales. For the Direct International Training Experiences subscale, training directors reported significantly more international opportunities (M = 3.77, SD = 1.08) compared to their doctoral students (M = 3.31, SD = .73), F(1, 15) = 4.74, p < .05. For the Institutional Commitment for International Training subscale, however, training directors reported significantly less international opportunities (M = 2.50, SD = .92) compared to their doctoral students (M = 3.09, SD = .78), F(1, 15) = 6.82, p < .05. No significant difference (p > .05) was found between training directors’ and doctoral students’ responses to the other five subscales. For these five subscales, training directors’ and doctoral students’ perceptions were, respectively, training and inclusion of internationally competent faculty (3.97 vs. 3.73), training and inclusion of internationally competent students (3.87 vs. 3.56), promoting internationally relevant research (3.80 vs. 3.73), international curriculum initiatives (3.19 vs. 2.97), and overall perceptions of international initiatives.

In summary, the results of the chi-square analysis and the repeated measures MANOVA provided partial support for the second hypothesis that training directors would perceive international training opportunities to a greater extent than doctoral students. Directors reported having significantly more knowledge about international research opportunities and international curriculum initiatives. Additionally, specifically within programs, training directors stated that direct international training experiences were integrated into their programs to a significantly greater extent compared to their doctoral students.

Responses to the Attitudes Toward Internationalization Scale was used to test the third hypothesis that there would be no difference in the attitudes of doctoral students and training directors toward the internationalizing of counseling psychology programs. For training directors (n = 26), the mean was 4.60 (SD = 1.02), suggesting that training directors had somewhat positive attitudes toward the internationalization of U.S. counseling psychology programs. For doctoral students (n = 83), the mean was 4.92 (SD = .76), implying a somewhat positive attitude toward internationalizing counseling psychology programs.

An independent-samples t test was conducted to examine differences between students’ and training directors’ attitudes. In this analysis, training directors and students were treated as independent samples because respondents were being asked to report their personal attitudes toward internationalization rather than being asked to evaluate an aspect of their respective programs. The distribution of responses for training directors (skewness = –.55, kurtosis = –.62) and doctoral students (skewness = –.72, kurtosis = –.06) were both within normal limits, indicating normality. The assumption of equal variance was not met because Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances was significant, F(1, 107) = 4.10, p < .05. Thus, a correction in the degrees of freedom was applied before interpreting the significance of the finding. With this correction, the difference in attitudes toward internationalization between training directors (M = 4.60) and doctoral students (M = 4.92) was not significant, t(34.13) = 1.50, p > .05, Cohen’s d = .35. This finding supported the hypothesis that training directors and doctoral students would have similar attitudes toward internationalizing U.S. counseling psychology programs. To determine whether the nonsignificant results were due to a lack of statistical power, we conducted a post hoc power analysis with d = .35 and α = .05 (two-tailed). This analysis revealed the statistical power was .34, which suggested that there was inadequate power to detect the small effect size that was observed.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to gather more information about the process of internationalization in U.S. counseling psychology programs. Specifically, this study examined the presence of international training opportunities over time, investigated differences in doctoral students’ and training directors’ perceptions of international training opportunities, and researched attitudes toward internationalizing U.S. counseling psychology programs.

Perception of International Opportunities

In contrast to what we expected, the presence of international training opportunities was not greater in 2010 compared to 2007, with the exception of one aspect of international training (i.e., the incorporation of international issues into the definition of multiculturalism). Seven areas in which international opportunities did not increase included (a) considering international experience as an important part of the admissions process, (b) promoting international conferences, (c) incorporating non-American readings, (d) promoting training experiences with an international focus, (e) inviting international guests, (f) offering an international exchange, and (g) requiring a foreign language. These findings parallel Heppner et al.’s (2009) observations that although the multicultural movement has advanced considerably since its inception, the changes brought forth by the multicultural movement did not come easily. Namely, although there has been an increase in the literature supporting internationalization, establishing international opportunities within counseling psychology programs is a relatively slow process. Therefore, expecting a significant increase in the presence of diverse international training opportunities after only three years may have been unrealistic.

Although the presence of international training opportunities did not significantly increase in the majority of the domains that were examined, international issues were increasingly integrated into the definition of multiculturalism. Because the multicultural movement brought the issue of cultural relevance to the foreground (Arredondo & Perez, 2003; Pedersen, 1999), it is not surprising that internationalization may be conceptualized within the multicultural context. Furthermore, Leong and Blustein (2000) stated that the multicultural movement should occur at two levels: exploring diversity within and beyond the U.S. borders. Therefore, it appears that internationalization was perceived not as a radical shift from what was already in place in counseling psychology training but as the next step in developing a more inclusive and culturally relevant discipline of counseling psychology.

While the multicultural and international movements may be compatible in some respects, it should be noted that there is also potential for complications to arise when conceptualizing international issues from within the U.S. multicultural paradigm (Heppner et al., 2009). Leung and Chen (2009) stated that the U.S. multicultural movement developed from U.S. social and political realities. Thus, complications may occur when persons from other cultures do not share similar definitions of social justice, equality, and human rights that are prevalent among U.S. counseling psychologists. For example, Leung and Chen (2009) explained that in traditional Chinese societies, social relationships are hierarchical rather than lateral, individual rights are granted rather than assumed, and social responsibility ranks above individual freedom. Therefore, counseling professionals who apply social justice principles related to multicultural diversity developed in the United States could incite resistance in China and might even risk sanctioning or prosecution if the behaviors are considered to be a challenge to the current Chinese political system. These observations highlight the need for counseling psychologists to further dialogue about the relationship between the multicultural and international movement, acknowledge the potential limitations of conceptualizing international issues within a U.S. multicultural training paradigm, and incorporate the perspectives of non-U.S. colleagues when conceptualizing international issues.

Moreover, as previously mentioned, uneasy tensions have existed between the multicultural and international movements in counseling psychology (Heppner et al., 2009). These tensions have arisen as counseling psychologists within the two movements compete for limited financial resources as well as compete for attention within the discipline. Heppner et al. (2009), therefore, encouraged counseling psychologists to explore how the two movements might complement one another in the areas of research, training, and practice. It is unclear at this time whether the two movements are indeed complementing one another or competing. Thus, the relationship between counseling psychologists in the multicultural movement and international movement needs further examination. Similarly, research is needed examining the relationship between multicultural and international competencies among counseling psychologists.

One final possible explanation for the lack of growth in international training opportunities from 2007 to 2010 should be mentioned. The current study coincided with the Great Recession (December 2007 to July 2009), in which the United States endured its worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s (Zumeta, 2010). Moreover, 32 of the 50 states reported decreases in state and federal funding of higher education during the Great Recession (Zumeta, 2010). Thus, there may have been enhanced interest in expanding international training opportunities, but programs may have experienced financial difficulties that hindered this process. While financial difficulties may limit the extent to which programs offer certain opportunities such as international immersion experiences or travel to international conferences, it should again be emphasized that several international training opportunities do not require faculty or students to travel outside of the United States. These include, for instance, encouraging students to be involved in activities with international students on campus, “Skyping” with counseling professionals outside of the United States, and hosting discussions related to international topics in the department. These suggestions further highlight the necessity of examining internationalization efforts beyond the eight recommendations established by Leong and Ponterotto (2003) to include strategies that can be implemented within the United States. Indeed, we encourage U.S. counseling psychology faculty and students to embrace this broader perspective when assessing internationalization efforts. More specifically, we recommend that future researchers also rely on APA’s (American Psychological Association Commission on Ethnic Minority Recruitment, Retention, and Training in Psychology, 1997) document about the major areas for preparing students to work with diverse populations (i.e., training and inclusion of culturally competent faculty, multicultural research initiatives, etc.) to systematically measure international training opportunities.

Our second prediction, that training directors and doctoral students within their respective counseling psychology programs would perceive the presence of international training opportunities differently, was partially supported. First, directors perceived direct international training experiences to be integrated into the curriculum to a significantly greater extent compared to their doctoral students. That is, training directors believed that there was more encouragement for students to engage in international immersion experiences, engage in international conferences, and work with international populations than the students.

One explanation for these findings is that while international training opportunities were available in programs, students were often unaware of them. Given this possibility, there are several ways in which faculty members can make international opportunities more salient to their students. For instance, departmental newsletters might include an international section in which faculty and students discuss current international training opportunities that are available (e.g., opportunities to collaborate with international colleagues, current research focused on international issues, upcoming international events on campus). Departments may also choose to include a page on their websites that provides current information about available international training opportunities. By making the availability of current international opportunities more explicit, it is expected that doctoral students could become more knowledgeable of such opportunities and thus participate more frequently in them.

Another possibility for the difference in perceptions between training directors and students is that the two groups used different criteria for rating the extent to which the opportunities were provided. For instance, one participant may have rated an opportunity provided once a month as being present “to a small extent,” whereas another participant may have rated this opportunity as being present “to a great extent”. Therefore, future researchers might need to be more explicit about operationalizing the response criteria (e.g., “a very great extent is equivalent to the opportunity being present once per week”) to minimize the possibility that differences reflect different criteria for responses rather than true differences in perceptions between groups.

Although there was an overall effect of training directors perceiving more international training opportunities available than students, it should be noted that the opposite occurred specifically in their perceptions of the institutional commitment to international training. Doctoral students perceived institutional commitment to international training to be present to a significantly greater extent than their respective training directors. This suggests that at least conceptually, doctoral students believed that there was an institutional commitment to internationalization. One potential explanation for this finding is that because the international movement is relatively new, doctoral students may have been exposed to this issue from the time they began their training. Training directors, however, may perceive less institutional commitment because of their familiarity with their institution and the challenges of internationalization. Of note is that institutional commitment was perceived by doctoral students and training directors as the least internationalized area. Respondents most often reported that international opportunities in this area were rarely present or only present to a small extent.

Training directors and doctoral students also differed in their knowledge of whether international training opportunities were present in their programs. When responses were categorized into known and unknown opportunities, directors were significantly more knowledgeable in the areas of international research and international curriculum initiatives. Students, however, reported being more knowledgeable about their overall international training experiences. Thus, it may be that while training directors had more knowledge about opportunities that were available, they were uncertain as to whether these opportunities were effective in enhancing the international competencies of students. In light of this disparity, it appears that it may be important for students to offer feedback to their program director and instructors about their experiences of the international training opportunities provided in their programs. That is, students need to communicate about whether current international training opportunities are indeed effective in increasing their motivation, knowledge, awareness, and skills related to international competencies (Ægisdóttir & Gerstein, 2010).

The only areas in which training directors and students reported being equally knowledgeable and reported similar perceptions of the degree to which international training opportunities were incorporated into their programs included the training and inclusion of internationally competent faculty members (i.e., faculty who have traveled outside of the United States, served in a professional capacity outside of the United States, demonstrated an interest in international topics, etc.), as well as the training and inclusion of internationally competent students. While it is promising that there is some agreement among students and directors, these results further illustrate the need for more meaningful communication between training directors and students regarding international training opportunities.

The scale that was created for this study to measure perceptions about international training opportunities warrants further discussion. This scale demonstrated adequate reliability and good content validity for the purposes of this study. The construct validity of the Perceptions of International Training Opportunities Scale, however, requires further examination. More specifically, a factor analysis is needed to determine whether there is statistical evidence for the rationally derived subscales. It is recommended this be accomplished before this scale is used again. Upon further validation, this measure can be used in future studies on internationalization efforts, which may help create a constructive dialogue between faculty members and students regarding international training opportunities.

Attitudes Toward Internationalization

Results indicated that training directors’ and doctoral students’ attitudes toward internationalizing U.S. counseling psychology programs were similar and in a positive direction. The Theory of Reasoned Action suggests that in light of the overall support for internationalization (i.e., a high subjective norm) doctoral students with positive attitudes toward internationalization will be likely to engage in international training opportunities if they were available. Counseling psychology programs should, therefore, continue to provide international training opportunities, as it is highly probable that students will participate in them.

In addition, it can be derived from the Theory of Reasoned Action that training directors may be likely to promote international training opportunities because of their favorable attitudes toward internationalization. Indeed, there were moderate correlations between training directors’ responses to the Attitudes scale and their responses to the Perceptions of International Training Opportunities subscales. These moderate correlations suggested that attitudes had some association with the perceptions of international opportunities being provided in programs. In contrast, no relationship was found between students’ responses to the Attitudes scale and their responses to the Perceptions of International Training Opportunities subscales. This lack of a link between attitudes toward internationalization and perception of training opportunities makes sense, as (a) students may have less input regarding the international opportunities present in programs and (b) students were being asked to respond to opportunities available in their programs rather than their participation in international opportunities. Research is needed to examine how students’ involvement in international training opportunities is associated with their attitudes toward internationalization.

Given the overall positive attitudes toward internationalization endorsed by both training directors and doctoral students, information about how satisfied they are with internationalization efforts in their programs remains somewhat unclear. Responses from the Perceptions of International Training Opportunities Scale suggested that, on average, programs provided international opportunities “to a small extent” and “to some extent,” which implies that there is potential to enhance international training efforts in programs. Thus, it remains uncertain whether training directors and doctoral students considered current efforts sufficient. Future researchers should examine training directors’ and doctoral students’ satisfaction regarding international training opportunities. Furthermore, the Theory of Reasoned Action suggests that training directors would be more inclined to promote international training opportunities if they perceived that their colleagues were also supportive of such opportunities. Therefore, it is important that the positive attitudes toward internationalization among directors be made explicit to all training directors and faculty members, which might ultimately result in training directors taking more action in implementing international training opportunities within their programs.

Finally, we determined that the Attitudes Toward Internationalization Scale had good psychometric properties. Reliability was sufficiently high, and content validity was established by a jury panel. Despite these initial results, the scale’s construct validity needs further examination. Researchers are encouraged to gather more rich and statistically driven evidence for the validity of this scale before it is used again.

Limitations and Conclusion

Some limitations of this study must be mentioned. Caution should be used when generalizing the results of the current study to the status of internationalization for all APA-accredited, active counseling psychology programs as the current study reflected responses from only 50.8% of the programs. Moreover, the response rates of training directors represented only 41.3% of the population, and the response rates of doctoral students represented even less. In addition, the uneven sample sizes between the 2007 and 2010 studies may limit valid comparisons. Because fewer training directors responded in 2010, it is possible that the apparent increase regarding international issues being incorporated in multicultural training from 2007 to 2010 may reflect a lack of participation from those programs not including international opportunities rather than a true increase in the number of programs providing such experiences. Similarly, one also should be cautious when generalizing the findings of training directors’ and students’ attitudes toward internationalization because of the low power associated with the analyses.

It should be noted that the primary researcher in the current study made several attempts to contact training directors, but these efforts were only somewhat successful. Increasing the response rate was especially difficult because the population of eligible training directors for this study was quite small (N = 63). Nonetheless, given that our literature review yielded only one study examining internationalization efforts across programs in the last 10 years in which calls for internationalization have been made, we believe that the current study warrants consideration and provides important information regarding the internationalization efforts of some U.S. counseling psychology programs.

There were also some limitations related to the findings involving training directors’ and doctoral students’ perceptions of international training opportunities. Including an “I don’t know” response option resulted in difficulties when interpreting the results, as this response had to be excluded when assessing the extent of international opportunities. This also resulted in lower sample sizes when calculating the reliability of the various scales. Yet an “I don’t know” response option was included because it was decided that doing so would be more accurate than forcing respondents to rate the extent to which opportunities were present in case they did not know. Therefore, given the rate of the “I don’t know” responses, the findings of training directors’ and doctoral students’ perceptions of international training opportunities should be interpreted with caution.

Finally, certain limitations exist when applying the Theory of Reasoned Action to explain the relationship between attitudes and the internationalization process examined in this study. It is conceivable that the respondents’ positive attitudes did not necessarily relate to high subjective norms. That is, although the participants held positive attitudes toward internationalization, they may not have believed that the faculty or students of counseling psychology training programs should implement programmatic changes connected to internationalization (e.g., requiring a foreign language, providing international training opportunities). Future researchers should survey training directors and doctoral students to better understand what actions, if any, are linked with the subjective norms tied to internationalization.

Although limitations were present, the current study provides invaluable information about the process of internationalization in U.S. counseling psychology programs and has several implications. Given the results of this study, an opportunity has been created for those who are responsible for training U.S. counseling psychologists to critically evaluate whether the current rate of internationalization is sufficient. Moreover, our development of a comprehensive scale to measure perceptions of international training opportunities could further aid in this evaluation process. That is, results from this study could be used to assess areas of strengths and weaknesses within programs regarding international training opportunities.

Lastly, it is hoped that by gathering data from both training directors and doctoral students one may better address any gaps that may exist between those responsible for implementing international training opportunities and those that are the recipients of such opportunities. Therefore, results of this and future studies employing similar designs may be used to evaluate the success of international training opportunities and, if necessary, implement changes to enhance the curriculum.

In general, it appears that counseling psychology programs could benefit most from being more reflective about their current internationalization efforts. This might involve more communication from faculty members about the availability of international training opportunities. Additionally, doctoral students should communicate how these opportunities impact their overall ability to address international issues. Counseling psychology in the United States has come a long way in its ability to address the needs of different populations. It is hoped that through a thoughtful reflection on the internationalization process, the field will be able to further address international issues in a culturally appropriate and responsible manner.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The first author acknowledges Dr. Kenneth Holland for his contribution to this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Erica J. Hurley is a doctoral student in the Department of Counseling Psychology and Guidance Services at Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. This article is based on the work of her master’s thesis.

Lawrence H. Gerstein is a George and Frances Ball Distinguished Professor of Psychology-Counseling, director of the doctoral program in counseling psychology, and director of the Center for Peace and Conflict Studies at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana. He is coeditor of the International Handbook of Cross-Cultural Counseling: Cultural Assumptions and Practices Worldwide and the Handbook for Social Justice in Counseling Psychology: Leadership, Vision, and Action. He is a fellow of the American Psychological Association. He has published extensively on international and social justice issues as well as on loneliness, self-monitoring, and employee assistance programs. He received his PhD in counseling and social psychology from the University of Georgia in 1983.

Stefanía Ægisdóttir is a native of Iceland and an associate professor in the Department of Counseling Psychology and Guidance Services at Ball State University, Indiana. She is a former Fulbright scholarship recipient for pursuing doctoral studies in the United States and recently completed a 3-year grant from the Iceland Research Fund to study psychological help-seeking patterns of Icelanders. She is coeditor of the International Handbook of Cross-Cultural Counseling: Cultural Assumptions and Practices Worldwide. She has written about cross-cultural research methods, attitudes and expectations about counseling, clinical judgment, and international and cross-cultural issues and competencies in counseling research and training. She received her doctorate in counseling psychology in 2000 from Ball State University.

References

Abe-Kim

Takeuchi

D. T.

Hong

Zane

Sue

Spencer

Appel

Nicdao

Alegría

(2007). Use of mental health-related services among immigrant and U.S.-born Asian Americans: Results from the National Latino and Asian American Study. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 91-98.

Ægisdóttir

Gerstein

L. H.

(2010). International counseling competencies: A new frontier in multicultural training. In Ponterotto

J. G.

Casas

J. M.

Suzuki

L. A.

Alexander

C. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (3rd ed., pp. 175-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 377-402.

American Psychological Association Commission on Ethnic Minority Recruitment, Retention, and Training in Psychology. (1997, January). Diversity and accreditation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Arredondo

Perez

(2003). Expanding multicultural competence through social justice leadership. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 282-289.

Constantine

M. G.

Ladany

Inman

A. G.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(1996). Students’ perceptions of multicultural training in counseling psychology programs. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 24, 241-253.

Denmark

F. L.

(2007). APA representatives participate in first annual Psychology Day at the United Nations. Psychology International, 18(4), 2.

Douce

L. A.

(2004). Society of Counseling Psychology Division 17 of APA Presidential Address: Globalization of counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 142-152.

10.

Friedlander

M. L.

Carranza

V. E.

Guzman

(2002). International exchanges in family therapy: Training, research, and practice in Spain and the U.S. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 314-329.

11.

Gerstein

L. H.

Ægisdóttir

(2007). Training international social change agents: Transcending a U.S. counseling paradigm. Counselor Education & Supervision, 47, 123-139.

12.

Gerstein

L. H.

Heppner

P. P.

Ægisdóttir

Leung

S. A.

Norsworthy

K. L.

(Eds.). (2009). International handbook of cross-cultural counseling: Cultural assumptions and practices worldwide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

13.

Heppner

P. P.

Ægisdóttir

Leung

S.- M. A.

Duan

Helms

J. E.

Gerstein

L. H.

Pedersen

P. B.

(2009). The intersection of multicultural and cross-national movements in the United States: A complementary role to promote culturally sensitive research, training, and practice. In Gerstein

L. H.

Heppner

P. P

Ægisdóttir

Leung

S. M. A.

Norsworthy

K. L.

(Eds.), International handbook of cross-cultural counseling: Cultural assumptions and practices worldwide (pp. 3-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

14.

Heppner

P. P.

Leong

F. T. L.

Chiao

(2008). A growing internationalization of counseling psychology. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 68-85). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

15.

Heppner

P. P

Leong

F. T. L.

Gerstein

L. H.

(2008). Counseling within a changing world: Meeting the psychological needs of societies and the world. In Walsh

W.B.

(Ed.), Biennial review of counseling psychology (1st ed., pp. 231-258). New York: Taylor & Francis Book Group.

16.

Hurley

E. J.

Gerstein

L. H.

(in press). The multi-culturally and internationally competent mental health professional. In Lowman

R. L.

(Ed.), What every professional needs to know to be multiculturally and internationally competent. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

17.

Leong

F. T. L.

Blustein

D. L.

(2000). Toward a global vision of counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 28, 5-9.

18.

Leong

F. T. L.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2003). A proposal for internationalizing counseling psychology in the United States: Rationale, recommendations, and challenges. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 381-395.

19.

Leung

S.- M. A.

Chen

P.- W.

(2009). Developing counseling psychology in Chinese communities in Asia: Indigenous, multicultural, and cross-cultural considerations. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 944-966.

20.

Leung

S. M. A.

Clawson

Norsworthy

K. L.

Tena

Szilagyi

Rogers

(2009). Internationalization of the counseling profession: An indigenous perspective. In Gerstein

L. H.

Heppner

P. P.

Ægisdóttir

Leung

S. M. A.

Norsworthy

K. L.

(Eds.), International handbook of cross-cultural counseling: Cultural assumptions and practices worldwide (pp. 111-124). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

21.

Marsella

A. J.

Pedersen

P. B.

(2004). Internationalizing the counseling psychology curriculum: Toward new values, competencies, and directions. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 17, 413-423.

22.

Pedersen

(1999). Multicultralism as a fourth force. Washington, DC: Taylor and Frances.

23.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(1997). Multicultural counseling training: A competency model and national survey. In Pope-Davis

D. B.

Coleman

H. L. K.

(Eds.), Multicultural counseling competencies: Assessment, education and training, and supervision (pp. 111-130). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

24.

Turner-Essel

Waehler

(2009). Integrating internationalization in counseling psychology training programs. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 877-901.

25.

Vega

W. A.

Kolody

Aguilar-Gaxiola

Catalano

(1999). Gaps in service utilization by Mexican Americans with mental health problems. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 928-934.

26.

Wang

Heppner

P. P.

(2009). Cross-cultural collaboration: Developing cross-cultural competencies and yuan-fen. In Gerstein

L. H.

Heppner

P. P.

Ægisdóttir

Leung

S. A.

Norsworthy

K. L.

(Eds.). International handbook of cross-cultural counseling: Cultural assumptions and practices worldwide (pp. 141-154). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

27.

Zumeta

(2010). The great recession: Implications for higher education. In Wechsler

H. S.

(Ed.), NEA 2010 almanac of higher education (pp. 29-42). Washington, DC: National Education Association.