This article describes the development of the Counseling Self-Estimate Inventory through 5 studies. A factor analysis (N = 213) yielded 5 factors that reflect counselor trainees' confidences in using microskills, attending to process, dealing with difficult client behaviors, behaving in a culturally competent way, and being aware of one's values. Reliability estimates indicate that the items are internally consistent (a = .93) and stable over time. Initial validity estimates show that the instrument is (a) positively related to counselor performance, self-concept, problem-solving appraisal, performance expectations, and class satisfaction; (b) negatively related to state and trait anxiety; (c) minimally related to aptitude, achievement, personality type, and defensiveness; and (d) sensitive to change over the course of master's practicum and across different levels of counselors. Also, trait anxiety and counseling self-efficacy were significant predictors of counselor trainee performance. The development of a reliable and valid counseling self-efficacy instrument has training and research implications.

Using Consensual Qualitative Research, 12 licensed psychologists' overall experiences addressing race in psychotherapy were investigated, as were their experiences addressing race in a specific cross-racial therapy dyad. Results indicated that only African American psychologists reported routinely addressing race with clients of color or when race was part of a client's presenting concern. European American psychologists indicated that they would address race if clients raised the topic, and some reported that they did not normally address race with racially different clients. When discussing a specific cross-racial dyad, African American therapists more often than European American therapists addressed race because they perceived client discomfort. Only European American therapists reported feeling uncomfortable addressing race, but therapists of both races perceived that such discussions had positive effects.

In this article, issues pertaining to racial-ethnic differences in intelligence are addressed with regard to groupdiscrepancy misconceptions, profiles of abilities, historical context, factors associated with racial-ethnic differences, educational implications, and alternative methods of assessment. It appears that although numerous studies have been conducted to address this area, the focus on group differences has provided inconclusive data given that within-group differences exceed between-group differences. Variables associated with intelligence include measures of genetic influences, socioeconomic status, home intellectual climate, and educational attainment. Educational implications of racial-ethnic differences are noted, including concerns regarding cultural bias and percentages of minority group members in specialservices categories. The development of new alternative methods of assessment and theory-driven measures is supported.~ttu e subject of racial-ethnic differences in intellecal performance as measured by standardized inlligence tests has been fraught with debate from the seminal years of intelligence testing during the 1920s up to the present. In this article, we examine some of the issues that are germane to an understanding of racialethnic differences. Our primary focus is on implications for educational theory and practice in the United States, and we present brief discussions of (a) misconceptions about racial-ethnic group differences in intelligence, (b) racial-ethnic profiles of abilities, (c) the historical context of racial-ethnic differences in intelligence, (d) factors associated with racial-ethnic differences, (e) educational implications of racial-ethnic differences, and (f) alternative methods of intelligence assessment. In this article, intelligence is operationally defined by scores on individually administered standardized intelligence tests. Although recognizing the limitations of this definition, our discussion focuses primarily on the testing literature.gratuitous assumption that all human populations are essentially identical or equal in whatever trait or ability the

This article provides an overview of issues related to the development and evaluation of competency in psychological assessment. Specifically, we delineate the goals, ideas, and directions identified by the psychological assessment work group in the Competencies Conference: Future Directions in Education and Credentialing in Professional Psychology. This is one of a series of articles published in this issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychology. Several other articles that resulted from the Competencies Conference will appear in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice and The Counseling Psychologist. The psychological assessment group was charged with the tasks of: (a). identifying the core components of psychological assessment competency; (b). determining the central educational and training experiences that will aid competency development; (c). explicating strategies for evaluating competence; and (d). establishing future directions for furthering the identification, training, and evaluation of competence in psychological assessment. We present a set of eight core competencies that we deemed important for achieving psychological assessment competency and discuss four guidelines for training in the domain of psychological assessment. A variety of methods for evaluating competencies in this domain are suggested, with emphasis on using a collaborative model of evaluation. Recommendations for future directions include strengthening the academic prerequisites for graduate school training; increasing training in culturally sensitive measures; incorporating innovative assessment-related technologies into training; and addressing discontinuities between academic training, internship, and practice environments.

In this chapter, the authors present a multifaceted treatment of the persistent controversy over ethnic bias in ability tests. After introducing the controversy and the widely misunderstood concept of bias, we address objections to tests and testing raised by minority advocacy groups and explore the origins of such objections. We touch upon proposed sources of test bias, such as differential predictive validity and inequitable social consequences of testing. Next, we distinguish bias from similar concepts: unfairness, offensiveness, culture fairness, and culture loadedness. We also distinguish similar controversies, such as the etiology of putative ethnic differences. The crux of the test bias debate is intergroup score differences observed for over a century. Authors have proposed numerous explanations for these differences, primarily social inequalities, genetic potential, an interaction between the two, and test bias. Some authors have assumed a priori that any mean ethnic difference in ability scores must result from bias. We evaluate the merits of these approaches, particularly the latter, before reviewing the bias literature. Our review includes predictive, construct, and content bias and related issues such as situational bias. Results provide little evidence for substantial ethnic test bias. We conclude, in part, with recommendations for clinicians, researchers, and others.