Assessment of implicit bias and self-reported multicultural counseling competencies among counseling trainees

Abstract

Research has shown that multicultural training increases competency among counselor trainees. However, these results have been obtained using self-report measures affected by social desirability. In contrast, implicit measures of bias have the advantage of being less susceptible to social desirability. Study 1 explored the reliability and validity of a measure of implicit bias. Study 2 examined self-reported multicultural counseling competency and implicit bias toward lesbian and gay men and African Americans at the start and end of a semester in a sample of counselor trainees {n = 124) enrolled in multicultural counseling or unrelated comparison courses. Results indicated that multicultural competency increased as a factor of time and that significant implicit bias was present at all assessments. Discovering implicit bias among counselor trainees who have completed multicultural training indicates that the topic of implicit bias should be included in multicultural course work.

The relationship between level of training, implicit bias, and multicultural competency among counselor trainees.

“…Researchers have explored the reliability of pen and paper IATs designed to measure bias toward homosexuality (Boysen, 2005;Lemm, 2001) and African Americans (Boysen, 2005;Lowery et al, 2001). Implicit measures tend to have lower reliability coefficients than self-report measures due to the lack of conscious control over the responses (i.e., conscious recall of previous responses on explicit measures leads to increased consistency).…”

“…In general, participants with high error rates (a) did not follow directions, (b) engaged in random responding, (c) attempted to use an unallowable response strategy such as skipping items, (d) responded as quickly as possible at the cost of accuracy, or (e) failed to complete a page of the IAT. While the pen and paper IAT appears to have reliability and validity comparable to the computerized version (Boysen, 2005), the number of critical trials completed on the typical pen and paper IAT is less than one fifth of those completed on the computerized version, making mistakes proportionally more detrimental and removal of participants more frequent.…”