A mixed-method study of psychologists’ use of multicultural assessment.

Abstract

Despite practice guidelines and ethical standards that provide imperatives for clinicians to utilize multicultural assessment (MCA), little is known about how the average psychologist actually conducts MCA. The current mixed-method study was designed to investigate clinicians' training and use of MCA practice strategies. Participants were 239 (107 male, 131 female, 1 other gender) licensed psychologists residing in the United States and Canada who were recruited from the American Psychological Association practice directory to complete an online survey. Quantitative items on the survey included questions about the number and utility of MCA-related graduate courses and supervision experiences, and strategies and frameworks used when conducting MCA. Open-ended questions provided expansion about factors that were helpful and not helpful in graduate training experiences. Findings suggested that only 75% of participants had taken a course that included MCA-related content, but almost all of those participants found the material they learned to be helpful. Graduate courses with MCA-related content were perceived as more helpful than graduate supervision, and the most helpful aspects of courses and supervision were related to increasing knowledge and awareness about MCA. Almost 40% of the sample reported using no theory or framework for conducting MCA, and participants differed in their use of MCA strategies. Findings are discussed in relation to the training and continuing education of clinicians and future directions for research.

The Cultural Formulation Interview: Progress to date and future directions

“…3 If more in-depth cultural assessment is needed, what is the role of alternative cultural assessments? Can the core CFI be used as a screening evaluation, to be expanded not only by employing the CFI supplementary modules, but additionally or alternatively by longer cultural assessments, such as the Brief Cultural Interview (Groen, Richters, Laban, & Devillé, 2017), the Cultural Interview (Rohlof, Groen, van Dijk, & Knipscheer, 2017), the Bloomsbury Cultural Formulation Interview (Jadhav, 2013), 4 the McGill Illness Narrative Interview (Groleau, Young, & Kirmayer, 2006), or other approaches (Edwards et al., 2017)?…”

“…Many clinical training programs have incorporated the CFI in teaching cultural competence (e.g., Díaz, Armah, Linse, Fiskin, Jordan, & Hafler, 2016; Mills et al., 2016) and the CFI is often included in grant rounds and continuing education programs for practicing clinicians. This level of acceptance likely has occurred because the CFI meets a need in the field for a brief, skills-based, teachable method of carrying out cultural assessment with individual patients (Edwards, Burkard, Adams, & Newcomb, 2017). Evidence so far holds promise for the wide applicability of the CFI; for example, several independent studies have shown that clinicians, patients, and family members find it feasible and acceptable, and that they expect it would be useful to care provision (Lewis-Fernández et al., 2017; Paralikar et al., 2015; Skammeritz, Lindberg, Mortensen, Norredam & Carlsson, 2020; Wallin, Dahlin, Nevonen, & Bäärnhielm, 2020).…”

Contributing Towards a Cultural Neuropsychology Assessment Decision-Making Framework: Comparison of WAIS-IV Norms from Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Spain, United States, and Canada

“…A number of ethical and practice guidelines and standards providing recommendations for assessment practices with culturally diverse populations have been put forth (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014;APA, 2003APA, , 2017Clauss-Ehlers, Chiriboga, Hunter, & Roysircar, 2019; see also Suzuki & Ponterotto, 2008;Uzzell, Ponton, Ardila, 2007) and the professional and ethical obligation to develop competency in cross-cultural assessment, including consideration of cultural and sociodemographic factors and use of appropriate norms, has been widely discussed in the literature (Boone, Victor, Wen, Razani, & Pontón, 2007;Brickman, Cabo, & Manly, 2006;Judd et al, 2009;Rivera Mindt, Byrd, Saez, & Manly, 2010). Despite this, a recent study found that almost 40% of psychologists surveyed do not use any multicultural assessment theories or frameworks in their assessments, and many clinicians omit basic strategies such as consulting the literature on a client's cultural background (Edwards, Burkard, Adams, & Newcomb, 2017). Further, a survey of neuropsychologists who provide services to Hispanic populations found that most are not adequately prepared and lack the appropriate tools to work with this population (Echemendia & Harris, 2004;Echemendia, Harris, Congett, Diaz, & Puente, 1997).…”

“…First, education and supervision appear to be a significant factor. Edwards et al (2017) found that younger clinicians tend to incorporate more multicultural assessment approaches in their work, which they suggest is likely a function of changing accreditation standards. Another barrier may simply be a scarcity of assessment resources to put cross-cultural information to meaningful use.…”

“…Further, when conducting culturally informed assessments, clinicians routinely encounter scenarios that fall within the gray-area of ethical standards and practice guidelines and psychometric resources often force clinicians to make assumptions or prioritize some sociodemographic variables over others (e.g., age, sex, education, primary language, native language, country of origin, and country of residence). These factors likely add to the self-reports of clinicians feeling ill-equipped to adequately address complexity of these cases (Echemendia et al 1997;Edwards et al, 2017;Elbulok-Charcape et al, 2014;Fernandez et al, 2016;Fonseca-Aguilar et al, 2015;Olabarrieta-Landa et al, 2016).…”