Georgia State University Georgia State University
ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University
Counseling and Psychological Services
Dissertations
Department of Counseling and Psychological
Services
10-2-2009
Quantifying Social Justice Advocacy Competency: Development Quantifying Social Justice Advocacy Competency: Development
of the Social Justice Advocacy Scale of the Social Justice Advocacy Scale
Jennifer Kaye Dean
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cps_diss
Part of the Student Counseling and Personnel Services Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Dean, Jennifer Kaye, "Quantifying Social Justice Advocacy Competency: Development of the Social
Justice Advocacy Scale." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2009.
doi: https://doi.org/10.57709/1061384
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Counseling and Psychological
Services at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Counseling and
Psychological Services Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University.
For more information, please contact [email protected].
ACCEPTANCE
This dissertation, QUANTIFYING SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY COMPETENCY:
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY SCALE, by JENNIFER
KAYE DEAN, was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s Dissertation Advisory
Committee. It is accepted by the committee members in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Education, Georgia
State University.
The Dissertation Advisory Committee and the student’s Department Chair, as
representatives of the faculty, certify that this dissertation has met all standards of
excellence and scholarship as determined by the faculty. The Dean of the College of
Education concurs.
_________________________ _______________________
Greg Brack, Ph.D. Julie R. Ancis, Ph.D.
Committee Chair Committee Member
_________________________ _______________________
Catherine Y. Chang, Ph.D. Michele B. Hill, Ph.D.
Committee Member Committee Member
_________________________
Date
_________________________
JoAnna F. White, Ed.D.
Chair, Department of Counseling and Psychological Services
_________________________
R. W. Kamphaus, Ph.D.
Dean and Distinguished Research Professor
College of Education
AUTHOR’S STATEMENT
By presenting this dissertation as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
advanced degree from Georgia State University, I agree that the library of Georgia State
University shall make it available for inspection and circulation in accordance with its
regulations governing materials of this type. I agree that permission to quote, to copy
from, or to publish this dissertation may be granted by the professor under whose
direction it was written, by the College of Education’s director of graduate studies and
research, or by me. Such quoting, copying, or publishing must be solely for scholarly
purposes and will not involve potential financial gain. It is understood that any copying
from or publications of this dissertation which involves potential financial gain will not
be allowed without my written permission.
_______________________________
Jennifer K. Dean
NOTICE TO BORROWERS
All dissertations deposited in the Georgia State University library must be used in
accordance with the stipulations prescribed by the author in the preceding statement. The
author of this dissertation is:
Jennifer Kaye Dean
2558 Asbury Court
Decatur, GA 30033
The director of this dissertation is:
Dr. Greg Brack
Department of Counseling and Psychological Services
College of Education
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30303-3083
VITA
Jennifer Kaye Dean
ADDRESS: 2558 Asbury Court
Decatur, Georgia 30033
EDUCATION:
Ph.D. 2008 Georgia State University
Counseling Psychology
M.S. 2001 Georgia State University
Professional Counseling
B.A. 1998 Georgia State University
Psychology
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
2008- Present Adjunct Faculty
Argosy University, Atlanta, GA
2007- 2008 Pre-doctoral Psychology Intern
Texas Woman’s University, Denton, TX
2006- 2007 Psychometrist
Lifespan Psychological Services, College Park, GA
2005- 2007 Graduate Teaching Assistant
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
2001- 2005 Graduate Research Assistant
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
2001- 2002 Counselor
Odyssey Family Counseling Center, Hapeville, GA
SELECTED PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS
Dean, J, K. (2001, October). A social constructivist approach to fostering cultural
sensitivity in white counselors. Southern Association for Counselor Education and
Supervision Conference, Athens, Georgia.
Dean, J. K., Chaney, M., Singh, A. A., Suprina, J., & Birckbichler, L. (2005, April).
Hidden resources, hidden rewards: Starting a departmental AGLBIC chapter and
bringing LGBTQI-client advocacy to life. American Counseling Association Annual
Conference Atlanta, Georgia.
Dean, J. K., Hays, D. G., & Chang, C. Y. (2003, August). Cultural identity, white
practitioners, and cross-cultural counseling practices. Poster session presented at the
American Psychological Association Annual Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Dean, J. K., Singh, A. A., & Hays, D. G. (2003, September). Preparing counselors for
social advocacy. Southern Association for Counselor Education and Supervision
Conference Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Dean, J. K., Singh, A. A., & Lassiter, P. (2004, April). The role of advocacy in trauma
counseling: A narrative and feminist approach. American Counseling Association
Annual Conference Kansas City, Missouri.
Hays, D. G., Chang, C. Y., & Dean, J. K. (2004). White counselors’ conceptualizations of
privilege and oppression: Implications for counselor training. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 43, 242- 257.
Hays, D. G., Dean, J. K., & Chang, C. Y. (2003, March). Addressing white privilege,
oppression, and racism: Challenges and rewards. American Counseling Association
Annual Conference. Anaheim, California.
Hays, D. G., Dean, J. K., & Chang, C. Y. (2007). Addressing privilege and oppression in
counselor training and practice: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 85, 317-324.
Singh, A., Chung, Y. B., & Dean, J.K. (2006). Ethnic and sexual identity attitudes of
Asian American lesbian and bisexual women: An exploratory analysis. Journal of GLBT
Issues in Counseling, 1, (2).
ABSTRACT
QUANTIFYING SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY
COMPETENCY: DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL
JUSTICE ADVOCACY SCALE
by
Jennifer K. Dean
Social justice advocacy has been a force throughout the history of Counseling
Psychology and has been described as more critical to the field than any other time in its
long history (Toporek & McNally, 2006). Accordingly, in 2002, the American
Counseling Association endorsed the Advocacy Competencies in an effort to advance the
status of social advocacy by defining competency for counselors engaged in social
advocacy (Lewis, Arnold, House, & Toporek, 2002). However, at the writing of this
article, these competencies had not yet been operationalized. Therefore, a comprehensive
review of the multidisciplinary literature was conducted and seventy- three skills
consistent with these competencies were identified and used to further describe what it
means to be a competent social justice advocate. These skills were then used to create a
measure of social justice advocacy. Content validity of the items was addressed through
the use of expert ratings. One hundred participants were recruited to take this measure.
Exploratory factor analysis yielded a four-factor model of social justice advocacy skills:
Collaborative Action, Social/Political Advocacy, Client Empowerment, and
Client/Community Advocacy. Evidence for construct validity was found in the expected
positive correlations between the social advocacy survey and the Multicultural
Knowledge and Awareness Scale (Ponterotto et al., 2002) and the Miville-Guzman
Universal-Diverse Orientation Scale- Short Form (Fuertes et al., 2000). The resulting 43-
item survey serves as a starting point for operationalizing and assessing counselors’
competence in social justice advocacy.
QUANTIFYING SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY
COMPETENCY: DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL
JUSTICE ADVOCACY SCALE
by
Jennifer K. Dean
A Dissertation
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Counseling Psychology
in
the Department of Counseling and Psychological Services
in
the College of Education
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA
2008
Copyright by
Jennifer K. Dean
2008
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am eternally grateful for the support and challenge from my teachers and
mentors. My advisor, Dr. Greg Brack, and my committee members, Drs. Julie Ancis,
Catharina Chang, and Michele Hill, are my models for academic excellence, integrity,
living a balanced life, and social justice advocacy. I am grateful for the expertise and
assistance provided by Drs. Barbara Gormley, Michele Hill, Will Liu, Karia Kelch-
Oliver, Jonathan Orr, Damafing Thomas, and Rebecca Toporek. The thoughtful
comments and questions raised by Drs. Jeff Ashby and Roger Weed and my fellow
Prospectus students were instrumental. I also want to thank my mentors, Drs. Denise
Lucero- Miller, Carmen Cruz, and the rest of the women at the Texas Woman’s
University Counseling Center who taught me first-hand the meaning of empowerment.
As for Dr. Shane Blasko, Dr. Brigitt Lamothe- Francois, Dr. Riddhi Sandil and the
Dissertation Support Group led by Dr. Barbara Gormley, you made this a relational
process for me and, therefore, helped me to maintain my sanity.
I thank my family, Linda, John, Teresa, and Andrea for always being there for me
and for teaching me the meaning of compassion and fairness. I thank David, my husband,
partner, and friend, for lovingly and patiently listening to me, helping me to put things in
perspective, and making so many sacrifices. Lastly, I thank you, Isabel. You make
everything, especially this, more meaningful.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables ..…………………………………………………………………… iv
Abbreviations .……………………………………………………………………. v
Chapter
1 SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY: COUNSELING
PSYCHOLOGY’S TOOLS FOR SOCIAL CHANGE…………...
1
Introduction……………………………………………………….. 2
Conceptualizing Social Justice Advocacy………………………... 4
Advocacy Skills…………………………………………………... 5
Conclusions……………………………………………………….. 27
References………………………………………………………… 30
2 DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE SOCIAL
JUSTICE ADVOCACY SKILLS SURVEY……………………... 41
Advocacy Skills…………………………………………………... 45
Related Constructs………………………………………………... 46
Methodology……………………………………………………… 51
Results…………………………………………………………….. 60
Discussion………………………………………………………… 72
References………………………………………………………… 83
Appendixes …………………………………………………………………….. 94
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Corrected Item- Total Correlations.………………………………………. 61
2 Factor Structure, Eigenvalues, and Total Variance Explained…………… 68
3 Pattern Matrix…………………………………………………………….. 69
4 Factor Correlations……………………………………………………….. 71
5 Construct Validity Correlations…………………………………………... 72
iv
ABBREVIATIONS
ACA American Counseling Association
APA American Psychological Association
EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis
GLBT Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender
MCKAS Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale
MC Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
MGUDS-S Miville-Guzman Universal-Diverse Orientation Scale- Short Form
NCHEC National Commission for Health Education Credentialing
PBJW Personal Belief in a Just World Questionnaire
SPA Scientist-Practitioner-Advocate
WHO World Health Organization
v
CHAPTER 1
SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY:
COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY’S TOOLS FOR SOCIAL CHANGE
1
2
SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY:
COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY’S TOOLS FOR SOCIAL CHANGE
Social justice advocacy has been described as being more critical to counseling
psychologists at this time than at any other point in its history (Fouad, Gerstein, &
Toporek, 2006; Hage, 2003; Hartung & Blustein, 2002; Ivey & Collins, 2003; Kiselica &
Robinson, 2001; Toporek & McNally, 2006). This is evidenced by several major steps
taken to institute social justice advocacy as a central professional activity, including
several recent professional publications on the topic, the endorsement of the Advocacy
Competencies by the American Counseling Association (ACA), the development of new
professional organizations (e.g., Counselors for Social Justice, Psychologists for Social
Responsibility), and a professional journal, Journal for Social Action in Counseling and
Psychology, devoted to social justice and advocacy (Foaud et al., 2006). As traditional
and individualized models of helping have been criticized for their failure to take into
account the influence of oppression on human problems (Albee, 2000; Prilleltensky,
1997), a return to counseling psychology’s social justice foundation has been called for
by a several authors (Fouad et al., 2004; Fouad et al., 2006). A social justice advocacy
approach involves working to end the effects of oppression on clients’ lives rather than
solely addressing its psychological consequences (Benjamin & Baker, 2004; Speight &
Vera, 2004). As such, it has been described as more efficient and as more relevant to a
multicultural society (Helms, 2003). Some counseling psychologists have projected that
the future of assessing counseling students’ competence will extend beyond knowledge
3
of human diversity to skills for advocacy (Fassinger & Gallor, 2006). Similarly, some
scholars are calling for social justice, which is the goal of social advocacy, to become
operationalized as a researchable construct (Crethar, 2004; Hutchins, 2006; Rivera,
2006).
In 2002, the American Counseling Association published a set of competencies
for advocacy (Lewis, Arnold, House, & Toporek, 2002). Defining competence is needed
to ensure ethical advocacy practice (Toporek, 2006). Although this is a crucial step for
ensuring competency in advocacy interventions, there is a need to operationalize these
competencies. To that end, this paper will present a review of the multidisciplinary
literature and describe the advocacy skills and behaviors that fall within the advocacy
competencies.
Working Definitions
Advocacy has been defined as “action a mental health professional, counselor, or
psychologist takes in assisting clients and client groups to achieve therapy goals through
participating in clients’ environments. Advocacy may be seen as an array of roles that
counseling professionals adopt in the interest of clients, including empowerment,
advocacy, and social action” (Toporek & Liu, 2001, p.387). Social justice advocacy
includes action aimed at the realization of a just society, which respects and is protective
of human rights, is inclusive of a plurality of interests, and is responsive to the most
marginalized members of a society (Cohen, 2001). A distinction must be made between
professional advocacy and social advocacy, whereby professional advocacy efforts refer
4
to those aimed at greater influence of the Counseling Psychology profession and social
advocacy is directed toward the achievement of social justice (McCrea, Bromley,
McNally, O’Byrne, & Wade, 2004; Toporek & Liu). Consistent with Toporek and Liu,
the term “advocacy” will refer to the roles and behaviors aimed at client empowerment,
social advocacy, and social change. The purpose of delineating these skills is to help
further the integration of advocacy training into counseling and counseling psychology’s
curriculum and practical training by describing the specific behaviors to be included in
training.
Conceptualizing Social Justice Advocacy
Advocacy Competencies
Lewis and her colleagues (2002) have articulated forty-three competencies needed
for counselors with an advocacy-orientation. The advocacy competencies are classified
along three levels: the client or student level, the organizational/school or community
level, and the sociopolitical level (see Appendix A). Along these three levels, the
competencies are split into empowerment and advocacy domains, whereby empowerment
refers specifically to acting with the client and advocacy refers to acting on behalf of a
client or client group. The competencies are divided into empowerment and advocacy
activities across these three levels. This results in six separate domains with the three
levels split into empowerment and advocacy skills, which are (1) client/student
empowerment, (2) client/student advocacy, (3) community collaboration, (4) systems
advocacy, (5) public information, and (6) social/political. In order to operationalize these
5
competencies, the literature was reviewed for advocacy behaviors, which expand on these
competencies and, thus, can guide counselors in implementing competency advocacy
practice.
Advocacy Skills
Becoming an advocate often involves the process of being personally impacted by
social injustice and becoming empowered to work toward social change targeted at this
specific issue or population (Gerstein & Kilpatrick, 2006; McWhirter & McWhirter,
2006). These can range from local grass-roots efforts to larger scale organized endeavors
conducted with professional associations such as the American Counseling Association
and the American Psychological Association. The first step in describing the skills
needed for advocacy is to examine the multidisciplinary literature for thematic content in
the types of competencies and skills needed for advocacy. A review of the
multidisciplinary literature yielded 74 specific behaviors that were organized into the
domains and competencies specified by the Advocacy Competencies (Appendix B).
Client/Student Empowerment
McWhirter (1994) defined empowerment as the following:
Empowerment is the process by which people, organizations, or groups who are
powerless or marginalized (a) become aware of the power dynamics at work in
their life context, (b) develop the skills and capacity for gaining some reasonable
control over their lives, (c) which they exercise, (d) without infringing on the
6
rights of others, and (e) which coincides with actively supporting the
empowerment of others in their community. (p. 12).
Empowerment within a social advocacy context has a specific reference to the
client’s socioeconomic, sociocultural, and sociopolitical context, rather than simply
referring to increasing clients’ self-efficacy in a more general sense (Toporek & Liu,
2001). This is similar to the distinction between personal and social empowerment made
by Cowger (1994), where personal empowerment refers to self-determination and social
empowerment refers to the possession of resources and opportunity to place a significant
role in one’s environment and in shaping that environment. Sixteen counselor behaviors
consistent with this definition of empowerment were identified in the literature. This
occurred as a result of conducting a thorough literature review of “empowerment” and
“social advocacy”, using PsychInfo, and identifying specific counselor behaviors, which
were described and were consistent with McWhirter’s (1994) definition (see Appendix
B).
Lewis and colleagues (2002) have included the ability to identify the strengths
and resources of clients as an important skill for client empowerment. Consistent with
this competency, interventions that identify and utilize client resources, such as
spirituality, religious affiliation, and kinship networks have been recommended (Vera &
Shin, 2006). Empowerment research focused upon women consumers of social services
agencies suggests that recognizing the ways in which clients already exert power within
their environments is a necessary skill for client empowerment (Trethewey, 1997).
7
Empowerment counseling has also been applied to other marginalized groups, such as the
gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) community (Norsworthy & Gerstein,
2003).
The identification of social, political, and cultural factors affecting the client is
another competency included under client empowerment (Lewis et al., 2001). Toporek
and Liu (2001) urged counselors to recognize the intersection of multiple oppressions and
their effects on clients. Related to this competency, Kiselica and Robinson (2001) have
asserted the need for the basic skills of listening, understanding, and responding
empathically to clients impacted by social problems. These skills direct the counselor to
listen carefully for the presence of these issues in clients’ narratives and to respond to
these experiences in a therapeutic manner. Additionally, research has highlighted the
need for clinicians to examine the power relationships between clients and the institutions
with which they interact (Trethewey, 1997). Cowger (1994) also urged clinicians
explicitly to include the role of social structures when assessing clients.
Similarly, recognizing the effects of systemic or internalized oppression on a
client is also a competency for social empowerment (Lewis et al., 2002). Several
researchers have more specifically urged practitioners to assess for and attend to the
predictable psychological effects of racism on persons of color (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo,
2005; Vera & Shin, 2006; Wyatt, 1990). Therefore, counselors would need to be attuned
to symptoms which are correlated with internalized racism such as: cardiovascular and
psychological reactivity, psychological distress, depressive symptoms, increased alcohol
8
consumption, low self-esteem, a lack of socioemotional development in children, and
chronic health problems (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo). The ability to identify these effects
would entail the ability to use critical thinking to understand how multiple sources of
oppression are interlocking and how they impact clients (Aspy & Sandhu, 1999; Chen-
Hayes, 2001; Rudolf, 2003; Toporek & Liu, 2001).
Assisting clients in identifying the external barriers to their development is
another competency within the category of client empowerment (Lewis et al., 2002).
Furthermore, Cowger (1994) asserts that client problems rarely result from a single cause,
but rather from a myriad of events, therefore, clinicians need to be skilled in viewing
problems from this perspective. A related skill in this domain is the ability to assist
clients in giving meaning to the social contextual factors that impact their situations
(Cowger).
Training clients to become their own advocates is an additional competency
within the empowerment domain (Lewis et al., 2002) and some preliminary empirical
data exists to support the therapeutic effectiveness of these skills (Epstein, West, &
Riegel, 2000; Stringfellow & Muscari, 2003). Stringfellow and Muscari used formal self-
advocacy training for clients and families of those with psychiatric disabilities to serve as
their own organized advocates and noted positive psychological benefits. Although these
formal advocacy training programs were quite specific to the groups and contexts with
which these clinicians dealt, common themes, such as assisting clients in developing
communication skills needed for advocacy have been recommended (Trethewey, 1997).
9
Furthermore, connecting clients with organizations that advocate for the issues affecting
them can also aid them in accessing more formal training as an advocate.
To facilitate client empowerment, assisting clients in developing self-advocacy
plans has been recommended (Lewis et al., 2002). Developing such plans might involve
assessing clients’ understanding of laws and policies that apply to them (Toporek & Liu,
2001). This would also involve collaborating with clients in deciding upon appropriate
actions needed for environmental changes in a client’s life (Toporek & Liu).
A final competency for client empowerment is to assist clients in carrying out
their self-advocacy plans (Lewis et al., 2001). Although this is dependent upon the plan
that is created collaboratively between the client and counselor, this could involve such
actions as assisting clients in calling state and federal agents and in navigating other
bureaucracies (Toporek & Liu, 2001).
Client/Student Advocacy
Client advocacy encompasses the use of a counselor’s power to act on behalf of a
client (Lewis, Arnold, House, & Toporek, 2005). Although this differs from client
empowerment, which entails using one’s power to act with a client or group, counselors
are cautioned to balance advocacy actions with empowerment activities to decrease
dependency on the counselor when possible and, thus, prevent unintended oppression
(Lewis et al., 2005). Intervening at this level is recommended when counselors are aware
of external factors that act as barriers to development (Lewis et al., 2002). Although
client empowerment is a generally preferred mode of intervention, client-level advocacy
10
is critical when clients are “overwhelmed by a multitude of problems or so
disenfranchised or lacking in information or skills” to advocate for themselves in the
present (Kiselica, 2004, p. 848).
According to the Advocacy Competencies, the client-level advocate is able to
negotiate for relevant services and education systems on clients’ behalf (Lewis et al.,
2002). Communicating with local, state, and federal representatives on behalf of clients’
needs is one way in which counselors can serve as advocates (Toporek & Liu, 2001).
This involves the ability to communicate effectively with those in positions of power who
can improve clients’ situations (Kiselica, 1995; Kiselica & Pfaller, 1993). More
specifically, knowing one’s audience and understanding how to own one’s power in these
situations, such as identifying oneself as a constituent, voter and member of local mental
health advocacy groups when communicating with local legislators have been suggested
(Hoefer, 2006). In some situations, the counselor is urged to serve as a mediator between
clients and institutions (Dinsmore, Chapman, & McCollum, 2000).
Assisting clients in accessing needed resources is an additional competency for
client advocacy (Lewis et al., 2002). This involves forming collaborations with
professionals to meet client needs (Brabeck, Walsh, Kenny, & Comilang, 1997; Toporek
& Liu, 2001). This can also include communicating with local, state, and federal
representatives on behalf of clients’ needs to assist them in accessing needed resources
(Toporek & Liu, 2001). As a professional, one is sometimes afforded more social power
11
and other resources, such as relationships with other professionals, when interacting with
other professionals and or legislators, which can be used to benefit those with less power.
Identifying barriers to the wellbeing of individuals and groups is a competency for
the client-level advocate (Lewis et al., 2002). Being a client advocate involves evaluating
client complaints of prejudice within a counselor’s organizational context (Toporek &
Liu, 2001). A counselor must have the ability to think critically and to understand the
interlocking and multiple sources of oppression (Chen- Hayes, 2001). Lee (1998) has
also described a systemic level of awareness, which allows counselors to assess
environmental barriers on development and to become skilled in challenging these
barriers. The cognitive ability to accurately assess multiple environmental influences and
forces has been found elsewhere in the literature (Aspy & Sandhu, 1999; Rudolf, 2003).
The ability to develop initial plans of action to confront client barriers is another
indication of a competent social justice advocate (Lewis et al., 2002). Although the
literature is largely absent in regards to how to go about developing a client advocacy
action plan, collaborating with clients in deciding what environmental changes are
necessary, as one would do with a client self-advocacy plan, would also apply (Toporek
& Liu, 2001). Thus, although the literature lacks specifics with regard to developing
action plans to confront client barriers, the guidelines of collaborating with the client in
identifying barriers and strategically working to remove or work around those barriers
can help the counselor to create such plans.
12
In regard to carrying out those plans of action (Lewis et al., 2002), several
specific actions are present in the literature. The ability to effectively persuade targets of
advocacy to act on behalf of client or issue is a potential skill needed for such action
(Hoefer, 2006). The ability to speak out against inequities, such as discriminatory
processes that affect clients is also necessary (Toporek & Liu, 2001). Kiselica (2004, p.
851) has offered direction for doing so by pointing out that effectively challenging
inequities involves skilled “empathic-confrontation” in an effort to minimize
defensiveness or withdrawal and instead to engage the person being challenged.
According to Kiselica, counselors should develop empathy for the person being
challenged by understanding the systemic-contextual influences on prejudice while
sharing one’s own struggles with overcoming biases and modeling continued efforts to
behave in a more just manner. Further, the continuous assessment of the progress of one’s
advocacy interventions within the context of the client’s environment is necessary to
understand the impact of the counselor’s actions (Vacc, 1998).
The identification of potential allies for confronting these barriers is critical for
achieving social justice advocacy for an individual client and is necessary for setting the
stage for community-level advocacy (Lewis et al., 2002). Serving as a visible ally for
issues that affect clients is another way in which power as a counselor can be used to
advocate for social justice (Toporek & Liu, 2001).
13
Community Collaboration
Although communities are not traditional targets of counseling and psychological
interventions, an exclusive focus on the individual without attention to the community or
social/political group to which the client belongs and may inadvertently lead to blaming
the individual for problems. Because of this potential for blame, failure to take into
account the community context of a client has been described as an oppressive process
(Fraser, 1987). Within this vein, Vera and Shin (2006) have pressed for the need to
intervene directly in environments that place children at risk for future psychological
problems based on socially toxic environments. These actions include helping
community parents organize themselves and participate in public hearings and, when
working within the school system, organizing meetings in which parents can speak to
school administrators. Further, a collaborative approach to advocacy is necessary in
order to develop and implement community interventions with cultural awareness and
knowledge that is provided by the community group to prevent disempowerment and
failure (Goodkind, 2005).
Lewis and colleagues (2002) recognize the ability to identify environmental
factors that impinge upon students’ and clients’ development as a competency for
community collaboration. This includes obtaining information regarding the
sociohistorical context of the problems from the community (Toporek, Gerstein, Fouad,
Roysircar, & Israel, 2006).
14
Alerting community groups with common concerns to the issue for which one is
advocating is another indicator of competent empowerment work with a community
(Lewis et al., 2002). Similarly, Rudolf (2003) has recommended that the advocate
identify key stakeholders in the problem to accomplish this task. Identifying key
stakeholders urges the counselor to look beyond the client or community group and to
understand the systemic nature of problems and to work at building relationships among
the groups who are impacted by a given policy or practice.
Similarly, developing alliances with other groups working for change has been
recommended (Lewis et al., 2002). Relationship- building has been described as a vital
component to community collaboration (Thompson, Alfred, Edwards, & Garcia, 2006;
Vera, Daly, Gonzales, Morgan, & Thakral, 2006). More specifically, these authors have
stressed the importance of building an affiliation with a trusted community member or
establishment within the community one plans to work, as well as honoring that trust by
ensuring that the community work is designed to meet the needs of the community group
rather than the sole needs of the counselor or researcher. Community collaboration also
involves establishing relationships with civic organizations and businesses within the
community. Successful collaborations, such as the Heritage Project in Bloomington,
Indiana depend upon the financial support of community organizations (Thompson et al.,
2006). This project initiated by the Black residents of this community was successful in
improving the quality of their children’s educational and socialization experiences. Their
activities have resulted in increased racial consciousness and the building of a community
15
of Black activists and allies across social classes. In this example, counselors’ skills in
community collaboration mobilized a community to make major systemic changes to
promote the healthy development of its children.
Effective listening skills to gain an understanding of the groups’ goals have been
highlighted as necessary for competency as a counselor working within a community
(Lewis et al., 2002). This entails the ability to conduct formal and informal needs
assessments that are inclusive of community members’ perspectives (Vera et al., 2006).
Such accurate understanding is necessary to ensure a collaborative working relationship
with the community and to establish one’s credibility.
The competency of identifying the strengths and resources of a community also
attends to the importance of relationship building (Lewis et al., 2002). More specifically,
other authors, (i.e., Toporek & Liu, 2002), have pointed out that the counselor needs to
assess and point out strengths and resources that community members bring to the change
process. To facilitate relationship- building with community members, counselors are
urged to identify the strengths and resources of communities that its members bring to the
process of systemic change (Toporek & Liu). For example, Goodkind (2005) has
emphasized the need for mutual learning in her advocacy work with Hmong refugees.
This is accomplished through the use of Learning Circles, in which they discuss social
justice issues, share ideas and resources with one another, and plan for addressing unfair
institutional or systems collectively.
16
Once these skills are identified, the counselor needs to effectively communicate
recognition and respect for the strengths and resources of a community’s members
(Lewis et al., 2002). Other advocates have stressed the need to engage the community
and to recognize them as experts on their situations by engaging them in providing a
history of previous problem-solving attempts (Toporek, Gerstein, Foaud, Roysircar, &
Israel, 2006). Furthermore, respect can be communicated by participation in community
functions of the client populations served (Toporek & Liu, 2002).
The competent social advocate also needs to identify and offer the skills that he or
she can bring to the collaboration (Lewis et al., 2002). This can involve publishing
qualitative studies focused on giving voice to silenced communities (Goodman et al,
2004; Morrow, 2007), as well as working with community members to disseminate their
ideas to the media (Goodman et al.).
Lastly, it is important to assess the effects of the counselor’s interaction with the
community (Lewis et al., 2002). This is an area that lacks attention in the counseling
literature; therefore, no specific skills were identified for this competency.
Systems Advocacy
Acting on behalf of clients within the organizational or systems domain entails the
ability to identify environmental factors that thwart clients’ development (Lewis et al.,
2002). Toward this end, Hoefer (2006) has highlighted the need to determine who is
positively and who is negatively affected by any given organizational policy or decision
(Hoefer). If it is determined that a policy or decision is unjust or biased, the systems
17
advocate must teach his or her colleagues to recognize this (Hendricks, 1994; Williams &
Kirkland, 2001). The Advocacy Competencies also include the ability to develop a vision
to guide change in collaboration with other stakeholders (Lewis et al.). More specifically,
this can include the ability to negotiate with employers for changes in institutional policy
that are conducive to positive growth and development of clients (Brown, 1988).
The ability to analyze the sources of political power and social influence within
systems is a requirement for acting as an effective social advocate (Lewis et al., 2002).
Toporek (2001) has proposed that multicultural competence involves understanding one’s
relationship to power, not only within personal and professional contexts, but also in
institutional contexts. According to Toporek, the institutional context has often been
omitted from counselor training, so that counselors who take on roles of institutional
power are left without guidance in examining and challenging organizational policies that
adversely affect clients or students of color. Therefore, an understanding of institutional
power and one’s professional power is essential to acting as an agent of change within
systems or organizational contexts. Of importance to the study of systems advocacy in
the field of counseling is that organizations focused on human services are severely
understudied in the literature (Trethewey, 1997). Those that have been particularly
ignored and underfunded are those agencies that serve poor women (Hasenfeld, 1992).
Trethewey has examined the ways in which poor women exercise their power and effect
change within human services organization and has recommended that this be
acknowledged in any analysis of power within systems.
18
The development of a step-by-step plan for implementing the change process is
critical to ensuring that the advocacy is carried out as agreed upon by collaborators
(Lewis et al., 2002). In carrying out plans to rectify an injustice, the ability to
communicate the environmental changes needed for just treatment of clients to agencies
has been recommended (D’Andrea & Daniels, 1999; Hendricks, 1994; Williams &
Kirkland, 1971).
The ability to develop a plan for dealing with probable responses to change is also
specified as a necessary competency for social justice advocacy (Lewis et al., 2002);
however, no skills for doing so were identified in the literature. Thus, this is an area in
need of dialogue in regards to how organizations typically react to change and how an
advocate can fruitfully address those reactions.
Lewis and her colleagues have also included the need to recognize and deal with
resistance to change as a guideline for competent advocacy (Lewis et al., 2002). This may
involve contacting funding agencies when oppressive practices or inadequate services are
observed (Dinsmore et al., 2000). Further, the National Board of Certified Counselors’
(2008) code of ethics has provided guidelines regarding the termination of one’s
professional affiliations when injustice continues and when options for organizational
change have failed.
As with other levels of advocacy, an essential competency is the ability to assess
the effects of one’s advocacy efforts on the targeted system and those it serves (Lewis et
al., 2002). Likewise, Toporek and Williams (2006) have highlighted the need to examine
19
the effects of interventions, such as projects designed to reduce depression, anxiety, and
impulsive behavior in a community. They suggest the possibility that these efforts could
inhibit social justice, as these efforts may unintentionally serve as social control by
helping persons to adapt to unfair life circumstances, which they might otherwise
challenge. For example, designing programs to assist individuals in managing anger
associated with oppressive environments without addressing the environment can
actually help to maintain that oppressive system by relieving individual’s pain that may
prompt social action. Methods of critically evaluating the effects of such interventions are
clearly needed to ensure that such interventions are aimed at empowering community
members to engage in social change rather than thwarting social justice efforts.
Additionally, the ability to provide and interpret data to show the urgency for change is a
professional competency (Lewis et al.). This competency has also not yet been described
adequately in the professional literature; therefore, strategies for researching advocacy
represent an area in need of attention.
Public Information
A critical component of advocacy practice is the ability to bring attention to the
issue or concern for which one is advocating. Some psychologists have even attributed
most of the practice advances within the field to intensive efforts to educate
administrators and policymakers about the benefits of psychology (Faltz, 2001). In order
to achieve this, counselors’ recognition of the impact of oppression and other barriers to
healthy development is primary (Lewis et al., 2001). Keeping abreast of the literature
20
regarding the effects of oppression on human development is, therefore, essential (Vera
& Shin, 2006).
Furthermore, in an effort to understand which policies for which to advocate, the
identification of environmental factors that are protective of healthy development is
another competency (Lewis et al., 2002). This necessitates being familiar with the
research that not only documents the effects of oppression, but also articulates protective
factors (see Vera & Shin, 2006).
Once these factors are identified, the effective preparation of written and multi-
media materials providing clear explanations of the role of these specific environmental
factors in healthy development is needed (Lewis et al., 2002). These include the ability to
prepare press releases, to write effective letters to the editor, and to write newspaper
articles (Brawley, 1997; Rudolf, 2003). Mental health advocacy is an example of one
type of advocacy that relies on public information efforts to combat the stigma and
prejudice toward persons with mental disorders (Funk, Minoletti, Drew, Taylor, &
Saraceno, 2005). The World Health Organization (WHO; 2005) has taken the position
that ignorance about mental disorders contributes to a perspective that the government’s
primary responsibility is to protect the public from persons with mental disorders rather
than promoting access to quality treatment and protecting their human rights. In the case
of mental health advocacy, persons with mental illness and their families have undertaken
efforts at educating the public and influencing the government, which has had the added
21
mental health benefits of increased empowerment and self-esteem (Goering et al., 1998;
Wahl, 1999).
Within the public information domain, a competent advocate can communicate
information in ways that are ethical and appropriate for the target population (Lewis et
al., 2002). Health educators have long recognized this need and explain that advocates
providing public information need to be able to demonstrate proficiency and accuracy in
oral and written presentations (National Commission for Health Education Credentialing
[NCHEC], 1999). They also include the use of culturally sensitive communication
methods and techniques as a competency within this domain (NCHEC).
Competent advocates are also able to disseminate information through a variety of
media (Lewis et al., 2002). The effective use of the media has been cited several times as
a skill for social justice advocacy (Brawley, 1995, 1997; Duncan, Rivlan & Williams,
1990; Dworak-Peck & Battle, 1988). Borshuk and Cherry (2004) have recommended
using creative means to bring attention to client issues and perceived injustices. Further,
the ability to write public service announcements and to capture the attention of the
broadcast media for issues related to social justice and their impact on mental health and
human development are skills that can influence the development of social policies and
services (Brawley, 1997; Rudolf, 2003).
The ability to identify and collaborate with other professionals who are involved
in disseminating public information is also essential (Lewis et al., 2001). Effective
advocates, such as those holding leadership positions in professional organizations, have
22
articulated the need to bring about awareness of a problem or issue to other professionals
(Ritvo et al, 1999). These groups rely on accessing newsletters, professional journals,
websites, and professional meetings to educate their colleagues about the issue at hand.
Finally, the ability to assess the influence of public information efforts undertaken
is necessary to ensure the efficacy of public information (Lewis et al., 2001). Although
no specific skills for public information assessment were found in the literature,
counselors are well prepared to apply their knowledge of research methods to outcome
assessment of their efforts. Furthermore, there is a wealth of public information outcome
research instruments in use by those working in public health promotion fields designed
for both well-resourced and less resourced countries and communities (Saxena, et al.,
2007). These could be adapted to assess the efficacy of public information efforts
designed to publicize the mental health effects of oppression and the environmental
factors that are protective of healthy psychological development.
Social/Political Advocacy
An initial competency for engaging in action at this level is to first have the
ability to distinguish problems that can best be resolved through social/political advocacy
(Lewis et al., 2002). Rudolf (2003) includes training in determining the level in which
advocacy efforts would be best directed in advocacy training curriculum for pediatricians.
More specifically, she trains pediatricians in the United Kingdom to examine whether
patient barriers exists on an individual level, a public health level within community, a
public health level within city, or a public health level nationally. These levels parallel
23
the three levels of advocacy and empowerment that are described by the Advocacy
Competencies, whereby the individual level corresponds to the client level of advocacy,
the community level corresponds to the systems level, and the city and national levels
correspond to the social/political levels. To further aid in one’s ability to accurately
assess the level on which advocacy efforts are needed, it has been recommended that
counselors have an understanding of state laws and relevant policies pertaining to the
populations they are likely to see (Toporek & Liu, 2001). This knowledge is necessary in
order to understand the larger social political context in which clients’ function and can
aid the counselor in more readily identifying the macrolevel influences on client
concerns. Furthermore, staying abreast of proposed legislations and examining them for
fairness to underrepresented groups is essential to acting as a social justice advocate
(Shullman et al., 2006).
George Mason University has also instituted collaborative efforts through
partnership building at local, state, national, and international levels (Talleyrand et al.,
2006). Furthermore, professional advocacy groups have recognized the importance of
building collaborations between professional groups and funding agencies in an effort to
gain funding for training and research of psychotherapy services for clients, in addition to
advocating for reimbursement for clinicians who offer these services (Ritvo et al., 1999).
From an ecological systems theory perspective, social/political advocacy occurs at
the macrolevel and includes social policies and the larger culture in which the individual
exists (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). It has been noted that the majority of interventions take
24
place within client or organizational levels rather than within the larger social political
arena (Lewis et al., 2001; Rudolf, 2003). However, psychologists’ social justice advocacy
efforts at this broader level have resulted in major cultural shifts toward social justice. A
primary example is Mamie Clark and colleagues’ research, which documented the effects
of segregation on the self-esteem of African American children and had a strong
influence on the outcome of the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education decision (Pickren,
2004). Furthermore, the impact of psychological research regarding the detrimental
effects of conversion therapy on GLBT persons and the impact of sexual harassment in
the workplace have helped to shape laws and social policies regarding these practices
(Shullman, Celeste, & Strickland, 2006).
Once it has been determined whether a problem can best be resolved through
macrolevel advocacy, the competency to identify the appropriate mechanism for
addressing it is considered necessary (Lewis et al., 2002). This is facilitated by
understanding the political framework and processes to effect change (Rudolf, 2003). The
American Psychological Association has published documents for aiding psychologists in
understanding how to participate in the federal advocacy process and recommends that
advocates know the roles of their legislators (APA, 2006). Further, an understanding of
how to target one’s actions has been considered an additional element of this competency
in advocacy training (Rudolf, 2003).
In conducting social/political advocacy, the authors of the Competencies
underscore the importance of acting with allies (Lewis et al., 2002). They include seeking
25
out and joining with potential allies as a competency. Other advocates have urged
counselors to persuade other colleagues to become involved in social justice advocacy
and to train others in social/political advocacy (Shullman et al., 2006). In addition, they
have written about sending out electronic action alerts to colleagues regarding social
justice issues as a way of collaborating with potential allies (Shullman et al.).
Similarly, it is recommended that counselors support existing alliances for change
(Lewis et al., 2002). Forms of support can include making and/or soliciting financial
contributions to social justice groups that influence public policy (Shullman et al., 2006).
Additionally, the literature has pointed out that support for national, state, territorial, and
provincial professional organizations in their public policy serves a social advocacy in
this capacity (Shullman et al.)
A competent social justice advocate- counselor should also be trained to prepare
convincing data and rationales for change with allies (Lewis et al., 2002). From the
earliest stages, this includes orienting one’s research toward influencing public policy
toward social justice (Bingham, 2003; Enns, 1993). Also, using research data to influence
public policy has been described elsewhere as a skill (Toporek & Liu, 2001). One
specific way in which this is accomplished is through the development of research
summaries for policy makers (Shullman et al., 2006).
Competent advocate-counselors acting at the social/political level have the ability
to lobby legislators and other policy makers with allies (Lewis et al., 2002). This has been
described as working to change existing laws and regulations that negatively affect
26
clients (Toporek & Liu, 2001). On a more proactive level, social advocates work with
others to develop policy initiatives (Shullman et al., 2006). Social advocate-counselors
also engage in legislative and policy actions that affect marginalized groups (Toporek &
Liu). Such lobbying can take the form of communicating with policy makers via letters,
emails, or telephone calls to express positions on social justice issues that impact mental
health (Shullman et al.). Another form of communication with legislators, which is
underutilized by counselors, includes attending town hall meetings and/or forums
organized by legislators (Shullman et al.) Using such forums, counselors are urged to
advocate for psychological knowledge and practice to be included in public policy
debates (Shullman et al.). Lastly, knowledge of the views, responsibilities, and needs of
policymakers is essential to effective lobbying (Galer-Unti & Tappe, 2006).
Finally, the social advocate acting within the social/political arena is encouraged
to maintain open dialogue with communities and clients to ensure that social/political
advocacy efforts are consistent with initial goals (Lewis et al., 2002). This can occur in
by conducting large- scale empirical investigations of advocacy work (Sexton &
Whiston, 1998). Ensuring that social/political advocacy is consistent with the goals of
those for whom one is advocating also necessitates the support of policies that
institutionalizes the perspectives of oppressed persons, such as affirmative action
(Adams, O’Brien, & Nelson, 2006).
27
Conclusions
A review of the multidisciplinary literature on advocacy skills yielded 74 skills
that can be classified according to the advocacy competencies set forth by the ACA
(Lewis et al., 2002). These behavioral skills were taken from the social justice research
and practice literature and can help to clarify and articulate training goals needed for
social advocates, and can help to assess the impact of various training methods on
facilitating counselors’ development of advocacy skills. Additionally, the wealth of skills
related to the competencies that were documented in the literature and easily classified
according to the ACA model demonstrates that many counselors and psychologists are
practicing social justice advocacy consistent with the guidelines. Overall, it also supports
the framework used for the Advocacy Competencies.
However, there was one area in which the advocacy literature was found to be
lacking, that of outcome research for advocacy efforts. More specifically, the literature
was silent with regards to assessing the outcome of a counselor’s interaction with a
community, assessing the effects of counselors’ advocacy efforts, using research data to
show the need for change, and assessing the impact of public information efforts. This is
understandable given the relatively new attention given to social justice research;
however, this gap is a critical one in terms of being able to assess the effectiveness of
one’s advocacy efforts on both the smaller scale of individual advocacy intervention and
on a larger scale. Additionally, the competencies of developing action plans for advocacy
and dealing with responses to change were found to be in need of attention from the field.
28
Currently, few counseling and counseling psychology programs provide formal
training in advocacy, although many engage in advocacy work (Toporek, et al., 2006).
Because this is a renewed force within the field, without formally established or
researched training guidelines, it is necessary for practitioners, educators, and supervisors
to follow the example in beginning to take steps in providing training in these skills.
Working with programs that have taken the lead in advocacy, such as Boston College,
George Mason University, and Oregon State University to develop and formally assess
curriculum is one step. McCrea et al. (2004) have also suggested that professional
conferences, such as those of Division 17 have and could continue to fill gaps in training
by offering actual training in advocacy. Furthermore, Fox (2003) has stressed the
importance of training counseling psychology students who wish to practice advocacy in
critical theories. Interdisciplinary training, involving networking and exchanging ideas
with other departments, such as Community Psychology and Women’s Studies is one
way that this can be achieved. Such collaborative efforts could also help to make the
work of counseling psychologists and their contributions more visible to the university
community.
As it stands, the majority of the literature on social advocacy is theoretical in
nature, with much of this being based upon counselor-advocates’ in-the-field work (Lee,
1998; Toporek, 2006). While this is an important contribution to the field, there is a bias
within the mainstream field of psychology for quantitative measurement and research.
Some advocacy scholars eschew quantitative methods of study and advocate in favor of
29
more transformative action research strategies. However, others insist that the toolbox
must be filled with various tools and that quantitative methodology can complement more
transformative methods of research (Borshuk & Cherry, 2004). In order to speak the
language of those who hold power (i.e., funding agencies, credentialing boards,
professional organizations), advocacy needs to be measurable. Through these means, the
utility of advocacy can be empirically tested, improved upon, and used to provide
alternatives to individualistic helping models.
This paper represents one step toward the realization of the operationalization and
measurement of advocacy skills. Future research aimed at developing methods of
advocacy outcome evaluation for one’s advocacy efforts, as well as to measure these
skills and to assess training outcomes would take the field further toward the realization
of social advocacy as a researchable professional activity for counseling psychologists.
References
Adams, G., O’Brien, L. T., & Nelson, J.C. (2006). Perceptions of racism in Hurricane
Katrina: A liberation psychology analysis. Analyses of Social Issues and Public
Policy, 6, 215-235.
Albee, G. W. (2000). The Boulder model’s fatal flaw. American Psychologist, 55, 247-
248.
American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code
of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.
American Psychological Association (2006). Advancing psychology in the public
interest: A psychologist’s guide to participation in federal advocacy process.
Retrieved Sept. 12, 2006, from http://www.apa.org/ppo/ppan/piguide.html
Aspy, C. B. & Sandhu, D. S. (1999). Empowering women for equity: A counseling
approach. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Benjamin, L. T., Jr., & Baker, D. B. (2004). From séance to science: A history of the
profession of psychology in America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning.
Borshuk, C. & Cherry, F. (2004). Keep the tool-box open for social justice: Comment on
Kitzinger and Wilkinson. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 4, 195-202.
Brabeck, M., Walsh, M. E., Kenny, M., & Comilang, K. (1997). Interprofessional
collaboration for children and families: Opportunities for counseling psychology
in the 21
st
century. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 615-636.
30
31
Brawley, E. A. (1995). Human services and the media: Developing partnerships for
change. Langhorn, PA: Harwood.
Brawley, E. A. (1997). Teaching social work students to use advocacy skills through
mass media. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 445-460.
Brown, D. (1988). Empowerment through advocacy. In D. Kurpius & D. Brown (Eds.)
Handbook of consultation: An intervention for advocacy and outreach (pp. 8-17).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Counselor Education and Supervision.
Bryant-Davis, T., Ocampo, C. (2005). Racist incident-based trauma. The Counseling
Psychologist, 33, 479-500.
Chen-Hayes, S. F. (2001). Social justice advocacy readiness questionnaire. Journal of
Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 13, 191-203.
D’Andrea, M. (2005). Continuing the cultural liberation and transformation of counseling
psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 524-537.
D’Andrea, M. & Daniels, J. (1999). Exploring the psychology of White racism through
naturalistic inquiry. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77, 93-101.
Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in
communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Delgado-Romero, E. A., Galvan, N., Maschino, P., Rowland, M. (2005). Race and
ethnicity in empirical counseling and counseling psychology research: A 10-year
review. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 419-448.
32
Dinsmore, J. A., Chapman, A., McCollum, V. J. C. (2000, March). Client advocacy and
social justice: Strategies for developing trainee competence. Paper presented at
the Annual Conference of the American Counseling Association, Washington,
DC.
Duncan, C., Rivlan, D., & Williams, M. (1990). An advocate’s guide to the media.
Washington, D.C: Children’s Defense Fund.
Dworak-Peck, S. & Battle, M. G. (1988). Perspectives. NASW News, 33, 2.
Epstein, D., West, A. J., & Riegel, D. G. (2000). The Institute for Senior Action: Training
senior leaders for advocacy. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 33 (4), 91-
99.
Faltz, C. A. (2001). Making sense of psychology’s advocacy agenda. California
Psychologist, 34, 22-23.
Fassinger, R. E. (2000). Gender and sexuality in human development: Implications for
prevention and advocacy in counseling psychology. In S. Brown & R. Lent
(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3
rd
ed., pp. 346-378). New York:
Wiley.
Fassinger, R. E. (2002). Hitting the ceiling: Gendered barriers to occupational entry,
advancement, and achievement. In L. Diamant & J. Lee (Eds.), The psychology of
sex, gender, and jobs: Issues and solutions (pp. 21-46). Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
33
Fassinger, R. E., & Gallor, S. M. (2006). Tools for remodeling the master’s house. In R.
L. Toporek et al. (Eds.) Social justice in counseling psychology (pp. 256- 275).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fassinger, R. E. & O’Brien, K. M. (2000). Career counseling with college women: A
scientist-practitioner-advocate model of intervention. In D. Luzzo (Ed.), Career
development of college students: Translating theory and research into practice
(pp. 253-265). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Fouad, N. A., Gerstein, L. H., & Toporek, R. L. (2006). Social justice and counseling
psychology in context. In Toporek et al. (Eds.) Social justice in counseling
psychology (pp. 1-16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fouad, N. A., McPherson, R. H., Gerstein, L., Bluestein, D. L., Elman, N., Helledy, K. I.,
& Metz, A. J. (2004). Houston 2001: Context and legacy. The Counseling
Psychologist, 32, 15-77.
Foucalt, M. (1978). The history of sexuality (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Pantheon.
Foucalt, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.).
New York: Vintage.
Fox, D. R. (2003). Awareness is good, but action is better. The Counseling Psychologist,
31, 299-304.
Fraser, N. (1987). Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social
theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
34
Frost, D. M. & Ouellette, S. C. (2004). Meaningful voices: How psychologists, speaking
as psychologists, can inform social policy. Analyses of Social Issues and Public
Policy, 4, 219-226.
Galer-Unti, R. A. & Tappe, M. K. (2006). Developing effective written communication
and advocacy skills in entry-level health educators through writing-intensive
program planning methods courses. Health Promotion Practice, 7, 110-116.
Goodkind, J. R. (2005). Effectiveness of a community-based advocacy and learning
program for Hmong refugees. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36,
387- 408.
Goodman, L. A., Liang, B., Helms, J. E., Latta, R. E., Sparks, E., & Weintraub, S. R.
(2004). Training counseling psychologists as social justice agents: Feminist and
multicultural principles in action. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 793-837.
Hage, S. (2003). Reaffirming the unique identity of counseling psychology: Opting for
the “road less traveled by.” The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 555-563.
Hartung, P. J., Blustein, D. L. (2002). Reason, intuition, and social justice: Elaborating
Parson’s career decision making model. Journal of Counseling and Development,
80, 41-47.
Helms, J. E. (2003). A pragmatic view of social justice. The Counseling Psychologist, 31,
305-313.
Hepworth, D. H. & Larsen, J. A. (1993). Direct social work practice: Theory and skills.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
35
Hoefer, R. (2006). Advocacy practice for social justice. Chicago: Lyceum Books.
Ivey, A. E. & Collins, N. M. (2003). Social justice: A long-term challenge for counseling
psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 290-298.
Ivey, A. E. & Ivey, M. B. (2007). Intentional interviewing and counseling (6
th
ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Kiselica, M. S. (1995). Multicultural counseling with teenage fathers: A practical guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kiselica, M. S. (2004). When duty calls: The implications of social justice work for
policy, education, and practice in the mental health professions. The Counseling
Psychologist, 32, 838- 854.
Kiselica, M. S. & Pfaller, J. (1993). Helping teenage parents: The independent and
collaborative roles of school counselors and counselor educators. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 72, 42-48.
Kiselica, M. S. & Robinson, M. (2001). Bringing advocacy counseling to life: The
history, issues, and human dramas of social justice work in counseling. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 79, 387-397.
Lee, C. C. (1998). Counselors as agents of social change. In C. C. Lee & G. R. Walz
(Eds.), Social action: A mandate for counselors (pp. 3-14). Alexandria, VA:
American Counseling Association and ERIC Clearinghouse.
Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3
rd
ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36
Lewis, J., Arnold, M. S., House, R., & Toporek, R. (2002). Advocacy Competencies:
American Counseling Association Task Force on Advocacy Competencies.
Retrieved May 27, 2006, from
http://counselorsforsocialjustice.org/advocacycompetencies.html
Lewis, J., Arnold, M. S., House, R., & Toporek, R. (2005). ACA presentation.
McCrea, L. G., Bromley, J. L., McNally, C. J., O’Byrne, K. K., & Wade, K. A. (2004).
Houston 2001: A student perspective on issues of identity, training, social
advocacy, and the future of counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist,
32, 78-88.
McWhirter, E. H. (1994). Counseling for empowerment. Alexandria, VA: American
Counseling Association.
McWhirter, E.H. (1997). Empowerment, social activism, and counseling. Counseling
and Human Development, 29, 1-14.
Morrow, S. L. (2007). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: Conceptual
foundations. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 209-235.
National Board for Certified Counselors (2008). NBCC code of ethics. Retrieved on Oct.
28, 2008 from http://www.nbcc.org/ethics2.
National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc. (1999). A competency
based framework for graduate-level health educators. Allentown, PA: Author.
O’Brien, K. M., Patel, S., Hensler-McGinnis, N., & Kaplan, J. (2006). Empowering
undergraduate students to be agents of social change: An innovative service
37
learning course in counseling psychology. In Toporek et al. (Eds.) Social justice
in counseling psychology (pp. 59-73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pickren, W. E. (2004). Fifty years on: Brown v. Board of Education and American
psychology, 1954-2004: An introduction. American Psychologist, 59, 493- 494.
Ritvo, R., Al-mateen, C., Ascherman, L., Beardslee, W., Hartmann, L., Lewis, O.,
Papilsky, S., Sargent, J., Sperling, E., Stiener, G., Szigethy, E. (1999). Report of
the Psychotherapy Task Force of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry. The Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 8 (2), 93-102.
Rivera, E. T. (2006/March). The future of CSJ. CSJ Activist, 6 (2). 1-4.
Roysircar, G. (2006). A theoretical and practice framework for universal school-based
prevention. In Toporek et al. (Eds.) Social justice in counseling psychology (pp.
130-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rudolf, M. (2003). Advocacy training for pediatricians: The experience of running a
course in Leeds, United Kingdom. Pediatrics, 112, 749-751.
Saxena, S., Lora, A., van Ommeren, M., Barrett, T., Morris, J., & Saraceno, B. (2007).
WHO’s assessment instrument for mental health systems: Collecting essential
information for policy and service delivery. Psychiatric Services, 58 (6), 816-821.
Sexton, T. L. & Whiston, S. C. (1998). Using the knowledge base: Outcome research and
accountable social action. In C. C. Lee & G. R. Walz (Eds.), Social action: A
mandate for counselors (pp. 241-260). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association.
38
Shullman, S. L., Celeste, B. L., Strickland, T. (2006). Extending the Parsons legacy. In
Toporek et al. (Eds.) Social justice in counseling psychology (pp. 499-513).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Smith, M. J. (1975). When I say no, I feel guilty. New York: Bantam Books.
Speight, S. L. & Vera, E. M. (2004). A social justice agenda: Ready or not? The
Counseling Psychologist, 32, 109-118.
Stringfellow, J. W. & Muscari, K. D. (2003). A program support for consumer
participation in systems change. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14, (3), 142-
147.
Talleyrand, R. M., Chung, R. C. -Y., & Bemak, F. (2006). Incorporating social justice in
counselor training programs: A case study example. In Toporek et al. (Eds.)
Social justice in counseling psychology (pp. 44-58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Thompson, C. E., Alfred, D. M., Edwards, S. L., & Garcia, P. G. (2006). Transformative
endeavors. Implementing Helm’s racial identity theory to a school-based heritage
project. In Toporek et al. (Eds.) Social justice in counseling psychology (pp. 100-
116). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Toporek, R. L. (2000). Developing a common language and framework for understanding
advocacy in counseling. In J. Lewis & L. Bradley (Eds.), Advocacy in counseling:
Counselors, clients & community (pp. 5-14). Greensboro, NC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services.
39
Toporek, R. L. (2001). Context as a critical dimension of multicultural counseling:
Articulating personal, professional, and instituting competence. Journal of
Multicultural Competence, 29, 13-30.
Toporek, R. L., Gerstein, L. H., Fouad, N. A., Roysircar, G. & Israel, T. (2006a).
Handbook for social justice in counseling psychology: Leadership, vision, and
action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Toporek, R. L., Gerstein, L. H., Fouad, N. A., Roysircar, G. & Israel, T. (2006b). Future
directions for counseling psychology. In R. L. Toporek et al. (Eds.) Handbook for
social justice in counseling psychology: Leadership, vision, and action, (pp. 533-
552). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Toporek, R. L. & Liu, W. M. (2001). Advocacy in counseling: Addressing race, class,
and gender oppression. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman (Eds.), The
intersection of race, class, and gender in multicultural counseling (2
nd
ed., pp.
165-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Toporek, R. L. & McNally, C. J. (2006). Social justice training in counseling psychology.
Needs and innovations. In R. L. Toporek, L. H. Gerstein, N. A. Fouad, G.
Roysircar, & T. Israel (Eds.), Handbook for social justice in counseling
psychology. Leadership, vision, and action (37-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Toporek, R. L. & Williams, R. A. (2006). Ethics and professional issues related to the
practice of social justice in counseling psychology. In R. L. Toporek, L. H.
40
Gerstein, N. A. Fouad, G. Roysircar, & T. Israel (Eds.), Handbook for social
justice in counseling psychology. Leadership, vision, and action (17-34).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Trethewey, A. (1997). Resistance, identity, and empowerment: A postmodern feminist
analysis of clients in a human service organization. Communication Monographs,
64, 281- 301.
Vacc, N. A., (1998). Fair access to assessment instruments and the use of assessment in
counseling. In C. C. Lee & G. R. Walz (Eds.), Social action: A mandate for
counselors (pp. 179-198). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Vera, E., Daly, B., Gonzales, R., Morgan, M., & Thakral, C. (2006). Prevention and
outreach with underserved populations. In R. L. Toporek, L. H. Gerstein, N. A.
Fouad, G. Roysircar, & T. Israel (Eds.), Handbook for social justice in counseling
psychology. Leadership, vision, and action (86- 99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Vera, E. M. & Shin, R. Q. (2006). Promoting strengths in a socially toxic world:
Supporting resiliency with systemic interventions. The Counseling Psychologist,
34, 80-89.
Williams, R. L. & Kirkland, J. (1971). The White counselor and Black client. The
Counseling Psychologist, 2, 114-117.
Wyatt, G. (1990). Sexual abuse of ethnic minority children: Identifying dimensions of
victimization. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 21, 38- 342.
CHAPTER 2
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE
SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY SKILLS SURVEY
41
42
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE
SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY SKILLS SURVEY
In 2002, the American Counseling Association developed a listing of 43
competencies necessary for engagement in advocacy (Lewis, Arnold, House, & Toporek,
2002). The creation of this document has represented a much- needed step toward
instituting social advocacy as a professional activity with objective standards for training
and practice. The Advocacy Competencies sought to address the call for a role expansion
to include advocacy behaviors within the broader repertoire of counseling skills (Bradley
& Lewis, 2000; Foaud, Gerstein, & Toporek, 2006; Vera & Speight, 2003). Similarly, the
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs’ (CACREP)
2009 accreditation standards included greater emphasis on social advocacy than in the
past (CACREP, 2008). Although social advocacy has long been a force within the
profession of counseling, some scholars are calling for social justice, which is the goal of
social advocacy, to become redefined as a researchable construct (Crethar, 2004;
Hutchins, 2006; Rivera, 2006). Toward this end, the social advocacy competencies need
to be operationalized to allow for quantified measurement rather than simply accepted at
face value. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to identify the skills needed for
advocacy and to develop and conduct the initial validation steps needed for a quantitative
measure of advocacy skills.
43
The social justice advocacy movement is gaining momentum based on the
growing recognition that social class and institutionalized oppression, discrimination and
prejudice are closely connected to one’s mental health and development (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 2001; Vera & Shin, 2006; Vera & Speight,
2003). For example, poverty is a stronger predictor of child development problems and
psychological disorders in the United States than in any other country (Garbarino, 1995).
Further, the effects of racism on psychological functioning have been well- documented
(Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005; Carter & Helms, 2002; Wyatt, 1990). The relationship
between poverty and being a member of an oppressed group has been shown empirically
(Fitzpatrick & LaGory, 2000; Jargowsky, 1997; Wilson, 1987). This has led many to
question the focus of mental health professionals on intrapsychic concerns (Martin-Baro,
1994) and to regard an exclusive focus on individual issues without addressing systemic
and environmental problems as oppressive (Albee, 2000; Prilletensky, 1997). Addressing
systemic and environmental problems, however, requires additional skills than are
typically taught in traditional training programs (Collison, Osborne, Gray, House, Firth,
& Lou, 1998; Toporek & Liu, 2001; Toporek & Williams, 2006).
Counseling psychologists have been described as being in a unique position to
work toward social change (O’Brien, Patel, Hensler-McGinnis, & Kaplan, 2006). This is
due to their affiliations with both the American Counseling Association, which has taken
the lead in social advocacy (Lewis et al., 2002), and the American Psychological
Association, which has a much larger budget appropriated for influencing public policy,
44
as well as a larger membership (American Psychological Association, 2006). The
development of the Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice
and Organizational Change (APA, 2003) is an example of counseling psychologists’
advocacy for culturally competent practice and social justice within APA. APA’s
Division 17, the Division of Counseling Psychology, has been a strong voice for an
emphasis on justice and action, as evidenced by activities such as social justice and
advocacy conference programming, the formation of social action groups, and the
creation of a forum on social justice within its journal The Counseling Psychologist
(Foaud, Gerstein, & Toporek, 2006). Furthermore, in 2002 Fassinger and O’Brien
proposed the Scientist-Practitioner-Advocate (SPA) model for training counseling
psychologists. The SPA model was proposed to build upon the current widely used
Boulder model, or Scientist-Practitioner model. Although there is a new emphasis on
advocacy, few programs have formally instituted training in advocacy (Goodman, Liang,
Helms, Latta, Sparks, & Weintraub, 2004; Osborne & Collison, 1998; Talleyrand, Chung,
& Bemak, 2006). Curricula for advocacy training has been developed and utilized in
several fields, and many counselors and counseling psychologists have published reports
of their advocacy work (Talleyrand et al.).
At present, however, there are few or no existing instruments for measuring
advocacy skills. Without such a tool, researching the efficacy of training programs in
teaching these skills and in measuring a trainee’s competence in advocacy will prove
difficult. The goal of this study was to address this gap in the literature by developing an
45
instrument to measure social advocacy skills intended for practitioners in counseling-
related fields for the purpose of assessing general competency social justice advocacy
training outcomes. The skills identified in the literature, as consistent with the advocacy
competencies, their associated constructs, and their measures will be discussed in an
effort to operationalize the advocacy competencies. The method of test construction, the
resulting instruments, and the parameters of its utility will be presented.
Advocacy Skills
A review of the multidisciplinary literature yielded 73 behavioral skills associated
with advocacy (see Appendix A). This list was compiled based on examining the
literature for counselor skills that were consistent with the competencies. Further, these
skills were classified according to the model utilized in the ACA Advocacy
Competencies: (1) client/student empowerment, (2) client/student advocacy, (3)
community collaboration, (4) systems advocacy, (5) public information, and (6)
social/political advocacy (Lewis et al., 2001). These skills were discussed in diverse
fields and literature including community psychology literature (Pope, 1990), counseling
(Brown, 1988; Dinsmore, Chapman, & McCollum, 2000; Hendricks, 1994; Kiselica,
1995; Kiselica & Pfaller, 1993; Kiselica & Robinson, 2001; Sedlacek, 1998; Sexton &
Whiston, 1998; Toporek & Liu, 2001; Vacc, 1998), counseling psychology, (Brabeck,
Walsh, Kenny, & Comilang, 1997; Toporek, Gerstein, Fouad, Roysircar, & Israel, 2006;
Toporek & Williams, 2006; Vera, Gonzales, Morgan, & Thakral, 2006; Williams &
Kirkland, 1971), pediatrics (Rudolf, 2003), psychiatry (Ritvo et al., 1999), social
46
psychology (Borshuk & Cherry, 2004; Frost & Ouellette, 2004), and the social work
literature (Brawley, 1997; Hoefer, 2006).
Related Constructs
A number of constructs have been proposed as conceptually related to social
advocacy. In some cases, these relationships have been demonstrated empirically.
Construct validation attends to the role of psychological theory in test construction and
relies on hypothesis testing to determine whether the instrument in question does measure
the intended construct (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). Convergent and discriminant
validation constitute construct validity and are utilized to examine the correlations
between the test content and variables that are theoretically similar, when there is an
inverse relationship between variables, and to demonstrate that there is no statistical
correlation in instances where the variables in question should be unrelated (Anastasi &
Urbina). Based upon this model of construct validation, the constructs of universal-
diverse orientation, multicultural knowledge and awareness, belief in a just world, and
social desirability will be considered.
Universal-Diverse Orientation
Several authors have referred to commitment to social justice and a sense of
social responsibility as key qualities for advocates. Toporek and Williams (2006) have
identified the theme of responsibility in the review of the advocacy and social justice
literature. This refers to psychology’s responsibility toward oppressed groups, which
includes ensuring access, working to eliminate bias and prejudice, and serving oppressed
47
communities. Similarly, D’Andrea and Daniels’ (1999) research has shown that the most
advanced stage of White identity development, which is characterized by advocacy,
included a commitment to work toward social justice on behalf of persons from all
oppressed groups. In their study, advocates were distinguished from non-advocates by
having a moral empathy for and a spiritual connection with persons affected by
oppression that facilitated the respect they held for these individuals.
The connectedness with others described by D’Andrea and Daniels (1999) and the
social responsibility and commitment described by Toporek and Williams (2006) are
similar to the universal-diverse orientation construct discussed by Miville and her
colleagues (1999). A universal-diverse orientation refers to an awareness of the
similarities and differences (e.g., by race, gender, sexual identity, ability) that allows for
effective interactions with others. Those who hold a universal-diverse orientation
experience a greater degree of connectedness to others and sense of social responsibility
toward other beings. This construct is particularly useful to the validation of a social
advocacy survey due to the conceptual relationship with social justice advocacy and
because it is measurable using the Universal- Diverse Orientation Scale (Fuertes, Miville,
Mohr, Sedlacek, Gretchen, 2000).
Multicultural Knowledge and Awareness
The correlation between multicultural knowledge and awareness and engagement
in advocacy behavior has been demonstrated empirically (GreyWolf, 1998; Marullo,
1998; O’Brien, Patel, Hensler-McGinnis, & Kaplan, 2006). In one study, students taking
48
a service learning course designed to provide field experience in social advocacy
demonstrated an unexpected increase in cross-cultural awareness, as well as a tendency to
view problems from a multi-systems perspective (O’Brien, et al.). This correlation is not
surprising, as the emphasis on social advocacy is essentially an outgrowth of the
multicultural counseling movement and overlaps with social advocacy practice
(Atkinson, Thompson, & Grant, 1993; D’Andrea, 2005; Sodowsky, Kuo-Jackson, &
Loya, 1996). More specifically, counseling psychologists who call for cultural
competence, as outlined by the Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training,
Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists, have included
organizational and institutional advocacy against prejudice, discrimination, and racism
under the umbrella of cultural competence (Arredondo, 1996; Sue, Arredondo, &
McDavis, 1992). Both feminist and multicultural counseling theories have been utilized
to extract principles to under gird advocacy practice (Goodman et al., 2004). These
principles include: (a) on-going self-examination, (b) sharing power, (3) giving voice, (4)
facilitating consciousness raising, (e) building on strengths, and (f) leaving clients the
tools to work toward social change (Goodman et al.). Due to the empirical and conceptual
relationships, scores on a valid measure of social justice advocacy should be positively
correlated with multicultural knowledge and awareness.
Belief in a Just World
The concept of a belief in a just world refers to one’s perception that the world is
a just place where fate is determined by merit (Lerner, 1980). This belief allows
49
individuals to experience the world as safe and orderly by believing that people get what
they deserve and is associated with positive self-esteem and mental health (Dalbert, 1999;
Hafer, 2000). A differentiation has been made between a personal belief in a just world
(i.e., whether the world is a just place for one personally) and a belief in a just world
generally (i.e., whether the world is a just place in general) (Lerner & Miller, 1978).
Further, it is hypothesized to constitute a particular cognitive schema of the world that is
based on experience and aids one in making sense out of various situations (Dalbert). As
with other types of schemata, a belief in a just world is not an exact representation of
reality; rather, it is a positive illusion about the world at large.
Research suggests that individuals respond to exposure to oppression education in
one of two ways (Van Soest, 1996). One style of responding to such information is to
hold more tightly to this belief in a just world and subsequently respond with less
advocacy behaviors when confronted with others’ oppression. In contrast, those who do
not hold this ideology report that they engage in more advocacy behaviors. If counselors
have committed to developing the additional skills needed for advocacy, then they would
be less likely to believe that the world is a just place.
Social Desirability
Social desirability describes research participants’ tendencies to distort
responding in an effort to self-present in a favorable manner (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).
This construct is of particular interest as it relates to social advocacy skills due to a
relationship between self-reported multicultural counseling competencies and social
50
desirability (Worthington, Mobley, Franks, & Tan, 2000). More specifically, researchers
have found that self-reported multicultural competency was poorly related to
multicultural competence as rated by a third party and that self-reported multicultural
competency was positively correlated with social desirability (Worthington et al.). Due to
the potential for overestimating one’s competency in the areas of multiculturalism and,
by extension, possibly competency in social justice advocacy, in an effort to self- present
positively, a valid measure of social advocacy skills should demonstrate a statistically
non-significant relationship with social desirable responding.
Based upon the literature, the current study sought to answer the following
research questions: (1) how do the survey items represent social advocacy skills?; (2)
how many reliable and interpretable factors are there in this survey?; and (3) how does
this survey relate to other advocacy-related constructs? Due to their conceptual
relationship, significant, positive correlations between the social advocacy survey and
measures of universal- diverse orientation and multicultural knowledge and awareness
are hypothesized. The inverse relationship between social advocacy practice and one’s
belief in a just world should mean that a significant, negative correlation should be found
between scores on a measure of one’s adherence to a belief in a just world and the social
advocacy skills survey, and thus, would provide evidence of its convergent validity.
Finally, if the social advocacy skills instrument, indeed, measured advocacy and items
were not presented in a way as to elicit socially desirable responding, then the social
advocacy survey should not be correlated with scores on a measure of social desirability.
51
Method
The construction of this instrument followed the methodology outlined by
Fishman and Galguera (2003) and Kline (2000). More specifically, item content was
based on a thorough review of the literature and specialist ratings were then used to
inform the selection of items from this initial pool (Fishman & Galguera). Furthermore, a
principal axis- factor analysis was conducted using a direct oblimin rotation with Kaiser
normalization. The choice for using factor analysis over principal components analysis
was based on Worthington and Whittaker’s (2006) assertion that factor analysis is a more
appropriate analysis for the development of a new scale. Additionally, an oblique
rotation, such as direct oblimin, has been recommended when there is reason to suspect
that the factors are correlated with one another or when this has not been stated in the
literature (Worthington & Whittaker). Finally, the instrument’s construct validity was
assessed through convergent methods, as recommended by Anastasi and Urbina (1997).
Factor analysis is appropriate for investigating the construct validity of a measure
by examining its internal consistency when accompanied by other evidence of construct
validity (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997; Gregory, 2004). Correlating items with the total score
is another way in which the homogeneity of items can be assessed and is a form of item
analysis (Anastasi & Urbina; Kline, 2000). These types of validation were used to inform
the selection of items and construction of the instrument as well as to evaluate the utility
of the instrument.
52
In the first phase, items referencing behavioral skills based upon the social justice
advocacy literature were written. These were written into statements and then given to
three practicing counselors who were asked to provide feedback on the ambiguity and
readability of the items, as recommended by Edwards and Thomas (1993).
During Phase II content validity considerations was addressed through the use of
expert ratings to evaluate the potential item pool and to guide further revision of the
measure (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997; Fishman & Galguera, 2003). In an effort to build
content validity into the instrument, the items were sent to a group of independent
advocacy specialists, who were asked to evaluate the choice of items and their adequacy
in representing social advocacy behavioral skills.
Phase III consisted of assessing the reliability and construct validity of the
instrument. In this phase, the population for which the instrument was designed was
sampled and asked to complete this survey in addition to measures of theoretically related
constructs in an effort to establish convergent and divergent validity. Conceptually
similar and dissimilar instruments were administered concurrently to assess the
instrument’s construct validity.
Phase I: Generation of Initial Item Pool
One hundred forty-eight items were written based upon the 74 behavioral skills
identified in the literature (See Appendix B). Test developers have recommended writing
twice as many items as needed for the final instrument due to the expectation that some
of the initial items written will inevitably be dropped due to their poor contribution to the
53
overall test (Gregory, 2004; Kline, 2000). Furthermore, a minimum of 10 items is needed
for a reliable assessment of each factor (Kline). Therefore, 148 items allowed for up to
fourteen reliable factors to emerge from the statistical analysis.
Familiarity with the research has been described as necessary for maximizing the
validity of each item; therefore, these items will be based upon a thorough review of the
interdisciplinary research on advocacy to ensure componentiality, a thorough
understanding of all of the components that constitute the construct of interest (Fishman
& Galguera, 2003).
Participants
Following the generation of the initial pool of items, three practicing counselors
were asked to take the survey and provide feedback. These counselors were advanced-
level doctoral students with a minimum of three years of experience. Additionally, two of
these counselors identified as African American females and one identified as a White
Jewish American female. They ranged in age from 30 to 33- years old. They were
encouraged to ask questions, mark unclear items, and add written comments, which were
used to revise the items as needed. This technique is commonly used in piloting items in
initial content validation and has been recommended by survey development scholars
(Edwards & Thomas, 1993).
Procedure
These counselors were asked to assess the items for clarity and freedom from
ambiguity and were asked to provide narrative feedback on the items. Further, the
54
investigator met with the evaluators or communicated via email regarding the feedback.
Those items judged by the evaluators to be unclear or poorly written were rewritten or
eliminated from the pool based upon their comments. Because the counselors were not
expected to be experts in social advocacy, a rating scale was not utilized; rather they were
asked to provide narrative feedback about the experience in answering these items.
Phase II: Content Validity
Participants
A group of five advocacy specialists within the fields of Counseling and
Counseling Psychology were recruited based upon their familiarity with the advocacy
literature and practice, as evidence by their contributions to the social advocacy literature
and/or social advocacy practice. According to Fishman and Galduera (2003), the opinion
of specialists who are familiar with the subject area is an appropriate way to establish
external validity of an instrument when no better criterion is available, such as is the case
when no other instrument exists. These specialists included two males and three females.
Four of these specialists identified as White American and one identified as Asian
American. They included four counseling psychologists and one counselor educator who
are faculty members from four different universities.
To determine the validity of each item in measuring advocacy skills, the
specialists were asked to provide a rating of item relevance to each of the six domains
utilized by the Advocacy Competencies (see Appendix) utilizing a seven-point Likert
scale. Those items with an average relevance rating of six or higher were retained while
55
those items did not meet this pre-set criterion were eliminated from the item pool. This is
more conservative than the recommendation that items with an average rating of five or
higher be retained (Fishman & Galguera, 2003). In addition, the group of experts was
asked to select a five- or seven- point Likert scale for use with the final instrument. Space
was also provided for any narrative feedback to the researcher. The expert rating
instructions are presented as Appendix B.
Phase III: Reliability and Construct Validity Study
Participants
Participants were recruited by contacting several program chairs and training
directors from Counseling and Counseling Psychology programs from nine different
states and from the Counselors for Social Justice listserv. Paper advertisements and an
email advertisement were used to direct eligible participants to a webpage
https://www.psychdata.com/s.asp?SID=123397. The criteria for participation included
being a master’s or doctoral student in a counseling or counseling psychology program,
who has completed at least one semester of practicum. After being directed to the site,
participants were asked to read a consent form and to click an on-line tab if they wished
to participate in the study. Participation was completely voluntary and no incentives were
offered.
A total of 170 participants responded to the research request. Of these
respondents, 58 were eliminated due to missing data. Thus, a sample of 112 graduate
students in counseling or counseling psychology programs who had a least one semester
56
of practicum experience was used in this study. The sample included 100 females (83%),
18 males (17%), and one individual who did not report gender. The sample was
composed of 13 (11%) Black or African American participants, nine (8%) Asian/Pacific
Islander participants, six (5%) Hispanic/Latino participants, 1 (1%) Native or Indigenous
American, 90 (76%) White or European American participants, and five (4%) who felt
the descriptors were not inclusive of them and marked “other.” These participants had a
mean of 4.7 years of counseling experience. Fifty-three participants reported membership
of least one social justice organization; 58 denied participating in such organizations,
while one participant left this item blank.
Instrumentation
Demographic questionnaire. A short-demographic questionnaire assessing the
participants’ gender, ethnicity, primary work setting, number of years of training,
involvement in social action groups, and whether they have had any training in advocacy
was administered to assess for group differences in advocacy skills. The guidelines for
constructing a demographic survey suggested by Edwards and Thomas (1993) were
followed in an effort to allow for relevant group differences to be examined without
requesting so much that the participants would be easily identifiable. This questionnaire
is included as Appendix B.
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Given the potential relationship
between socially desirable responding and advocacy, it must be demonstrated that the
items used to assess self-reported social advocacy skills do not correlate with scores
57
obtained from a measure of social desirability, in this case the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale (MC) (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). The MC contains 33 items that
have been deemed improbable to occur with minimal psychopathological implications.
They are presented in true-false format. Higher scores on this measure are interpreted as a
tendency to distort information for self- presentation purposes rather than as denial of
psychopathology. Psychometric data has been collected on this instrument over a period
of 40 years and internal consistency scores have ranged between .72 and .96 (Andrews &
Meyer, 2003).
Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS). The
relationship between the social advocacy skills survey and self-perceived general
multicultural counseling knowledge and awareness will be measured using the MCKAS
(Ponterotto, Gretchen, Utsey, Rieger, & Austin, 2002). The MCKAS is a 32-item, Likert-
type, inventory. Construct and criterion-related validity and reliability have been
established (Constantine, Gloria, & Ladany, 2002; Ponterotto et al, 2002). This
instrument was initially called the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale and was
developed using qualitative methods, and quantitative methods, including item analysis
and factor analysis (Ponterotto et al., 1996). Further development and analysis
demonstrated a two-factor structure (i.e., knowledge and awareness and the instrument
was revised (Ponterotto et al.). Alpha coefficients for the Awareness and Knowledge
subscales were reported as .79 and .92 respectively (Ponterotto et al., 2002).
58
Miville- Guzman Universality Diversity Scale- Short Form. The Miville-Guzman
Universality Diversity Scale- Short Form (MGUDS-S) (Fuertes et al., 2000) is a 15- item
instrument measuring one’s alliance with others on the basis of similarities and one’s
appreciation of others’ differences using a five-point Likert-type scale. An individual
with a universal-diverse orientation is, thus, able to see cultural differences between
oneself and others while also experiencing a sense of connectedness with others based on
sense of shared humanity. The short version was developed from the original version
based upon the items with the highest factor loadings. The short version has shown a
strong, positive correlation with the original version, which has demonstrated test-retest
reliability of .94 and convergent and discriminant validity (Fuertes et al.; Miville et al.,
1999). This abbreviated form has yielded an alpha level of .77 and a similar factor
structure as the original, albeit with factors that were more clearly delineated (Fuertes et
al.).
Personal Belief in a Just World Questionnaire. Dalbert’s (1999) Personal Belief
in a Just World questionnaire (PBJW) was also administered. This 7- item measure uses a
six-point Likert- scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree assessing one’s
adherence to various statements, such as “I believe that, by and large, I deserve what
happens to me.” (Dalbert, p. 95). Evidence for the internal consistency for this
questionnaire has been demonstrated (α = .86) (Dalbert). Evidence for construct validity
for this questionnaire has shown that a personal belief in a just world is predictive of self-
esteem and is positively correlated with self-esteem, as theoretically expected (Dalbert).
59
Further, factor analyses have demonstrated the internal consistency of these items and
have shown that personal belief in a just world represents a distinct factor explaining 26
to 32 percent of the variance in the validation samples (Dalbert). Further, item loadings
ranged from .43 to .81 for this scale (Dalbert).
Procedure
Item analysis was performed to determine which items should be retained and
which should be eliminated (Gregory, 2004; Kline, 2000). More specifically, an item-
reliability index was calculated to determine how well each item correlated to the total
score and thus, how homogenous or internally consistent the instrument is (Gregory). A
Pearson product moment correlation was utilized due to the multi-point response scaling,
as recommended by Nunnally (1978). Those items that have a correlation of .3 or higher
were retained, while those falling below .3 were eliminated (Kline). A corrected item-
total factor was employed so that the item being correlated to the total score was not
included in the total score and thus, would not artificially inflate the correlation
(Nunnally).
Reliability was estimated using a Cronbach’s alpha to test the internal consistency
of its items. This statistic is the preferred method for calculating split-half reliability
coefficients when data are continuous, such as those generated from the Likert- scaling of
this instrument (Fishman & Galguera, 2003). Furthermore, Cronbach’s alpha has been
described by Kline (2000) as the best index of internal consistency.
60
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted next to determine the
possible factor structure of the remaining items. Those factors with Eigenvalues of one or
greater were considered as recommended by multiple sources (Tabachnick & Fidell,
1996). Additionally, the criterion used for a factor loading was .4 (Tabachnick & Fidell).
Items that are poorly correlated with the factors extracted from the analysis were
eliminated.
Results
Phase I: Generation of Initial Item Pool
Three counseling psychology doctoral students who were also practicing
counselors and two professors of counseling psychology examined the initial item pool
and provided written feedback to the primary researcher. Based on their comments and
questions, 28 items were dropped. Thus, the initial item pool was reduced from 148 items
to 120 items.
Phase II: Content Validity
The rating forms were compiled and those with an average rating of six or higher
across raters for any of the advocacy domains were retained in the final instrument.
Those items that did not meet this minimum requirement were eliminated. This resulted
in 70 of the 120 items being retained. Furthermore, three of the experts recommended a
seven-point Likert scale, one expert selected a five-point Likert scale, while one expert
did not respond to this question; therefore, a seven- point Likert scale was adopted.
Additionally, based on the feedback from two experts that a “N/A” option was redundant
61
to the “not at all” option provided at the lower limit of the Likert scale, this option was
not included in the final instrument.
An additional step was added in which an additional counseling psychologist with
expertise in the area of social justice and culturally responsive practice reviewed the
remaining items and gave feedback as to their appropriateness for the survey. This step
resulted in dropping an additional three items from the final survey.
Phase III: Reliability and Construct Validity
Reliability
Item- analysis was performed with item- reliability indices and, as a result, 17
items were deleted, as they had item-total correlations of less than .3. Cronbach’s alpha
was performed on the 49- item survey that resulted and these items yielded an alpha level
of .94. Furthermore, the deleted items were examined for any consistency among the
content that might suggest that they represented an independent factor. This was not
found to be the case (α = .51).
Table 1 Corrected Item-Total Correlations
________________________________________________________________________
Item No. Subscale and Items Item-total r
________________________________________________________________________
Collaborative Action (20 items;
α
= .92)
1 I network with community groups with common concerns .62
62
related to social justice issues.
4 I have little knowledge of state laws and relevant policies
pertaining to populations I am likely to see. *
.36
5 I stay abreast of current laws and policies affecting
populations with which I work.
.51
8 I create written materials to raise awareness about issues that
affect my clients.
.64
9 I encourage clients to research the laws and policies that
apply to them.
.39
10 I collaborate with potential allies for social change. .63
13 I work to bring awareness to the public regarding issues that
affect my clients.
.71
15 I teach my colleagues to recognize sources of bias within the
institutions and agencies in which I am involved.
.53
19 I typically seek feedback regarding the effects of my
interactions with the communities with which I work.
.44
20 I carry out my plans of action for confronting barriers to my
clients’ wellbeing.
.53
21 I build relationships with trusted community members and .61
63
establishments in which I work.
22 I work with professional organizations to influence public
policy pertaining to social justice.
.66
25 I use creative means to bring attention to client issues and
perceived injustices.
.59
27 When working with community groups, I conduct
assessments that are inclusive of community members’
perspectives.
.50
28 I seek feedback from my clients regarding the impact of my
advocacy efforts on their behalf.
.45
29 I assess the influence of my public information/awareness
efforts.
.54
34 When working with community/organizational groups, I
routinely seek information regarding the history of the
problem from the community members.
.44
37 I collect data to show the need for social change to the
institutions with which I work.
.53
40 I assess the effects of my interactions with the community. .59
42 I identify potential allies for confronting barriers to my
clients’ wellbeing.
.68
64
Social/Political Advocacy (7 items;
α
=. 91)
3 I contact legislators on behalf of clients’ needs. .46
6 I have never communicated with my legislators regarding
social issues that impact my clients. *
.42
7 I contact my legislators to express my views on proposed bills
that will impact client problems.
.49
11 I do not know of any counselors who lobby legislators and/or
other policy makers. *
.34
14 I engage in legislative and policy actions that affect
marginalized groups.
.66
22 I work with professional organizations to influence public
policy pertaining to social justice.
.66
36 I work to change existing laws and regulations that negatively
affect clients.
.68
Client Empowerment (8 items;
α
=. 76)
2 I work with clients to develop action plans for confronting
barriers to their wellbeing.
.38
18 I strive to examine problems for a systems perspective in an
effort to understand their influences on client concerns.
.32
65
23 I use interventions that utilize client resources to buffer
against the effects of oppression.
.52
26 My research interest focuses on giving voice to underserved
populations.
.39
30 I support my clients’ self-advocacy efforts. .30
32 I understand the effects of multiple oppressions on clients. .31
33 I work to understand clients as they are impacted by social
problems.
.31
35 I assess whether client concerns reflect responses to
oppression.
.30
Client/Community Advocacy (8 items;
α
= .76)
12 I do not assist my clients in developing the communication
skills needed to serve as self-advocates. *
.42
16 Serving as a mediator between clients and institutions is not
an appropriate role for a counselor. *
.29
17 Assisting clients in calling state and federal agents and
navigating other bureaucracies is inappropriate for
counselors.*
.35
66
31 I use effective listening skills to gain understanding of
community groups’ goals.
.46
38 I believe I am unable to distinguish those problems that can
best be resolved through political advocacy. *
.37
39 My skills as a counselor do not transfer to work with
community groups. *
.33
41 I feel ill- prepared to seek feedback regarding others’
perceptions of my advocacy efforts. *
.46
43 My interventions with clients of Color do not include
strengthening their racial and ethnic identities. *
.37
A principle axis factoring with a direct oblimin rotation was utilized for the
primary identification of factors. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy
was employed to assess the factorability of the items and yielded a value of .69.
According to Tabachnik and Fidell (2001), values of .60 and above are necessary for
good factor analyses; thus, this data set was deemed appropriate for factor analysis.
Principal- axis factoring produced eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, which
explained 55% of the variance. Consistent with Catell’s (1966) recommendation, a scree
plot was examined, which also supported an eight-factor solution. However, those factors
with two or fewer loadings were dropped as recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell,
resulting in a four-factor model, which accounted for 42% of the total variance.
67
Following the identification of a four- factor model, items that did not load onto
any of these factors were dropped. This resulted in the elimination of seven items. A
principal-axis factoring with a direct oblimin rotation was again performed on the data set
with four factors specified for extraction. Evidence for the appropriateness of an
orthogonal rotation was found in the correlations among the factors (see Table 4).
According to Tabachnik and Fidell (1996), correlations between factors of .32 or higher
suggest 10% or higher overlap in variance among factors. These correlations ranged from
.326 to .548, suggesting a high degree of overlap. The second EFA with four factors
specified resulted in a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling of .760, as well as a
statistically significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity,
χ
2
(1176) = 2817.01, p <.001. This
model explained 45% of the variance.
Twenty items loaded on Factor 1 (collaborative action; eigenvalue = 12.76)
demonstrating that the items on this measure represent a single overarching variable,
explaining 26% of the variance. Factor 2 (social/political advocacy; eigenvalue = 3.58)
accounted for 7% of the variance and contained seven items. (See Table 2). Factor 3
contained eight items (client empowerment; eigenvalue = 2.39), which were
representative of empowerment interventions occurring on a client level and explained
5% of the variance in the data set. A fourth factor (client/community advocacy;
eigenvalue = 1.77) extracted contained eight items descriptive of advocacy on behalf of a
client or community and accounted for 4% of the variance
68
Table 2
Factor Structure, Eigenvalues, and Total Variance Explained
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Factor
Eigenvalue
% Variance
Cumulative %
1. Collaborative Action
2. Social/Political
Advocacy
3. Client Empowerment
4. Client/Community
Advocacy
12.757
3.584
2.387
1.769
26.034
7.314
4.872
3.609
26.034
33.347
38.219
41.829
69
Table 3
Pattern Matrix
Item No. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
21 .716
25 .709
40 .693
8 .656
1 .644
10 .643
19 .546
5 .544
22 .542 -.534
20 .523
13 .518
28 .503
37 .488
27 .479
15 .466
29 .457
42 .442
70
4 .422
9 .422
34 .420
7 -.918
6 -.806
3 -.786
14 -.757
36 -.584
11 -.446
32 .724
33 .697
35 .609
23 .491
26 .461
30 .449
2 .426
18 .407
17 .557
16 .556
31 .520
71
41 .498
38 .489
39 .450
43 .428
12 .420
Table 4
Factor Correlations
Factor Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Factor 1 1.00 .548** .431** .506**
Factor 2 .548** 1.00 .342** .326**
Factor 3 .431** .342** 1.00 .535**
Factor 4 .506** .326** .535** 1.00
**significant at the .01 level
Cronbach’s alphas were computed for each of the four factors. Factor 1 yielded an
alpha level of .92. Factor 2 demonstrated an alpha level of .91. A reliability estimate of
.76 was found for Factor 3, while Factor 4 yielded an alpha level of .76.
Construct Validity
The correlation between scores on the PBJW and the social justice advocacy
survey was not statistically significant (r (92) = .017). Scores on the MCKAS and the
social justice advocacy survey showed a significant positive correlation for this sample (r
(81) = .54, p < .01). A significant positive correlation between the MGUDS-S and the
72
present survey under investigation was also found (r (89) = .295, p < .01). No significant
correlation was found between scores on the MC and scores on the social justice
advocacy survey (r (92) = .098).
Table 5
Construct Validity Correlations
SJAS MC-SDS MGUDS-S MCKAS PBJW
SJAS 1.000 -.085 .309** .540** .017
MC-SDS -.085 1.000 -.061 -.033 .151
MGUDS-S .309** -.061 1.000 .520** .107
MCKAS .540** -.033 .520** 1.000 .316**
PBJW .017 .084 .107 .316** 1.000
** Significant at the .01 level
Discussion
This study resulted in a 42-item instrument with adequate reliability and validity
to measure social advocacy competencies for counselors. To date, there is no published
quantitative instrument to measure these skills. Due to the increasing emphasis on
advocacy within the field, the ability to empirically assess competency in advocacy
represents an important step toward understanding the nature of advocacy competency
and in developing effective training strategies for counselors in training.
Results of this study suggest that social justice advocacy competency consists of
four factors: (1) collaborative action, (2) social/political advocacy, (3) client
73
empowerment, and (4) client/community advocacy. While this model that emerged from
the data was somewhat consistent with the six domains utilized by the Advocacy
Competencies, it differed in that it did not discern between community collaboration and
public awareness as the Advocacy Competencies do. Rather, items measuring these
domains were grouped according to their common emphases on collaboration with others
in pursuit of social justice. Similarly, items assessing direct advocacy in the service of a
client or community loaded onto one factor. Thus, rather than having separate categories
for advocacy and empowerment actions on the community or organizational level (i.e.,
community collaboration and organizational advocacy), items intended to measure these
domains were absorbed into other categories.
Twenty items loaded onto a central factor, which was labeled collaborative action.
Collaboration with others is a consistent theme across all levels of advocacy (Lewis et al.,
2002). This factor included items involving building relationships with community
groups and other social justice advocates, as well as bringing about public awareness of
injustices. For example, items such as “I network with community groups with common
concerns related to social justice.”, “I create written materials to raise awareness about
issues that affect my clients.”, and “I collaborate with potential allies for social change
loaded onto this factor.
A second factor was extracted and appeared to measure engagement in macro-
level advocacy; thus, it was labeled social/political advocacy. Items assessing one’s
attempts to influence the political process or public policy toward socially just legislation
74
loaded onto this factor. This factor included items such as “I engage in legislative and
policy actions that affect marginalized groups.” and “I contact my legislators regarding
social issues that impact my clients.” These items were highly consistent with the
Social/Political Advocacy domain of the Advocacy Competencies.
Support for the existence of a distinct domain of competence in client
empowerment interventions was found in the identification of a third factor assessing this
construct. Several items that were written to assess this domain loaded onto this factor.
These include “I work with clients to develop action plans for confronting barriers to
their well being” and “I understand the effects of multiple oppressions on clients”. These
items were descriptive of the ability to identify the effects of social injustice on client
problems and to help the client develop skills for self-advocacy.
The fourth factor extracted was labeled client and community advocacy.
Interestingly, this factor largely included items measuring engagement in advocacy to
directly benefit a client, such as “Serving as a mediator between clients and institutions is
not an appropriate role for a counselor.” (reverse-scored). However, it also included items
reflective of behaviors to set the stage for advocacy on behalf of a community group,
such as “I use effective listening skills to gain understanding of community groups’
goals.” Interestingly, the Advocacy Competencies label direct advocacy efforts within a
community as Organizational Advocacy and reserve community work for the
empowerment dimension, termed Community Collaboration. However, the identification
75
of this factor, suggests that counselors may utilize similar skills to engage in advocacy
work on behalf of a community or a client.
Evidence for the construct validity of this survey was found in the empirical
relationships between the survey items and scores on the MCKAS and the MGUDS- S.
Previous research and theory suggests that having the knowledge and awareness
prescribed by the multicultural counseling competencies and perceiving oneself as
connected to others across social and cultural groups are related to social advocacy
(D’Andrea & Daniels, 1999; O’Brien et al., 2006; Toporek & Williams, 2006).
Therefore, these positive and significant correlations provide initial evidence for the
survey’s convergent validity. Additionally, as expected, a correlation between the current
measure and the MC-SDS was not found and provides evidence that scores on this survey
are not heavily influenced by a desire to self-present positively.
Unexpectedly, this study did not produce the expected negative correlation
between social justice advocacy and a personal belief in a just world. In fact, there was no
relationship between adherence to a belief in a just world and social advocacy skills. A
possible explanation for this unexpected finding may be the way in which belief in a just
world was assessed. The scale selected assessed whether one feels that he or she is treated
fairly rather than whether the world at large is an unjust place. Because a belief in a just
world is based on the schemata of one’s experiences, the nature of the sample (i.e.,
graduate students) suggests that they enjoy some privileges in their lives; hence, they may
believe that the world is just for them personally, yet could also have an awareness that
76
persons who do not enjoy such educational privileges may experience injustice. Future
validation studies of the survey might employ a measure of general belief in a just world
in order to better understand the construct validity of the present survey and, more
broadly, to understand the relationship between these two constructs.
Another possible reason for the unexpected non-significant correlation between
belief in a just world and scores on the social advocacy skills survey involves the
characteristics of a social justice advocate. Adherence to this belief has been found to be
related to acceptance of the status quo, non-advocacy and disparagement of oppressed
populations, as well as denial of observed social and political injustices (Furnham &
Procter, 1989; Rubin & Peplau, 1973; 1975; Smith, Feree, & Miller, 1975; Walster,
Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). However, previous studies have also shown that a belief in
a just world is related to feelings of competence and control, as well as optimism about
the future (Lerner, 1978). It is plausible that competent social justice advocates have a
combination of these characteristics, as they would need to have the ability to perceive
injustices to be motivated to engage in advocacy for social justice, while also
experiencing a sense of efficacy and optimism regarding their ability to effect social
change. Thus, advocates may have mixed perceptions of justice and, therefore, not have
strong beliefs in either direction about whether the world is a just place. This may explain
why there was neither a positive or negative correlation between scores on the social
advocacy survey and a belief in a just world.
77
Some important limitations of this study need to be mentioned. The first is the
relatively small sample size. Some statisticians recommend that factor analyses with
sample sizes of less than 300 be interpreted with caution as these can lead to lower
reliability of the factors; however, a sample size of 100 can be adequate when factor
loadings are .80 or higher (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Because several loadings did not
meet this cut-off point, replication with a larger sample size is needed. This may have
also contributed to the lower reliability estimates of the factors assessing client
empowerment and client/community advocacy. Additionally, these factors constitute
subscales, which are exploratory in nature and should not be interpreted individually.
However, a conceptually meaningful factor structure was identified and a survey that
measures social justice advocacy that demonstrated both reliability of its overall score, as
well as evidence for content and construct validity resulted from this study.
Implications for Advocacy, Practice, Research, and Training
The initial stages of the development and validation of this survey pointed to the
existence of four factors, constituting social justice advocacy. As validation of an
instrument is never complete and often consists of an ongoing process of gathering
multiple sources of data (Gregory, 2002), this present study is intended as a starting point
for assessing social advocacy skills in counseling and counseling psychology and to
begin the process of examining these skills empirically. Future research employing
confirmatory factor analysis procedures to determine whether this four- factor structure is
replicated is needed. In addition, samples drawn from non-student populations, such as
78
licensed counselors, are needed to understand any differences in the construct of
advocacy across multiple professional developmental levels.
In regards to the factor structure found in the current study, the identification of
collaborative action as a central factor has important implications for advocacy, practice,
research, and training. One implication is that training in interdisciplinary collaboration,
consultation skills, and empowering the public with psychological knowledge might form
the basis for social justice advocacy much like micro-skills currently serve as the
backbone for practice and training in the provision of individual counseling skills.
Consultation skills are currently taught in many counseling programs and social justice
advocacy could be infused into this coursework, and these skills could be built upon with
efforts at community advocacy and communication with non-professionals. Along these
lines, specific training in disseminating professional information to the public is also
needed. As Miller urged nearly forty years ago, we can best serve human welfare by
learning to “give psychology away” (1969, p. 1071). Thus, communication skills that
preserve the scientific integrity of counseling psychology while minimizing jargon and
communicating the implications of research for the lives of the oppressed are needed by
counselors to empower the public with increased knowledge about the impact of social
justice on mental health and well-being. Similarly, accessing mediums for public
communication, such as the news media are critical components of collaborative action in
a social justice advocacy curriculum and, thus, need to be included. The ability for
collaborative action to bring about the desired change can also be researched with
79
refinement of this instrument. Furthermore, other lines of research can investigate the
public’s perception of such counselor activities using appropriate research methods, such
as those currently used by the public health field to understand their efforts at public
education (see Council of Chief State School Officers, 1998).
Consistent with the Advocacy Competencies, social/political advocacy emerged
as a distinct category of competency in this study. Trauma counselors have not only
recognized the significance of engaging in legislative advocacy in preventing trauma
through socially just laws and policies, but also promote it as a means of counteracting
feelings of helplessness for the therapist who works with traumatized clients (Briere,
1996). Of all of the domains of social advocacy, this, perhaps, represents the greatest
departure from traditional counseling practices. Thus, primers in social/political
advocacy, such as the one published by APA might serve as required reading for
coursework in social justice advocacy (APA, 2006). Some counseling psychology
programs have already begun to institute training in advocacy at the macro-level and can
serve as models (Toporek et al., 2006). However, these methods of training and their
impact on clients’ welfare must be empirically studied to better understand their efficacy
in developing social/political advocacy skills for counselors, as well as the impact on
clients’ lives. As the current instrument is refined, it may be able to achieve these goals.
Evidence for the distinct nature of client empowerment was also found in the
current study. This category reflected counselor interventions that identify the impact of
oppression on client problems and support client’s efforts at self- advocacy. Recently,
80
counselors have begun to look at specific counselor verbalizations, called “broaching”
intended to therapeutically explore the impact of racial and cultural oppression on client
problems (Day-Vines et al., 2008, p. 401). Such verbalizations have been researched and
have been found to be related to increased amount and depth of disclosures on the part of
clients of color, as well as increased credibility and competence attributed to the
counselor (Sue et al., 1998; Thompson, Worthington, & Atkinson, 1994). Research on
similar specific and discrete actions aimed at supporting client’s efforts at challenging the
unjust systems in which they are involved are needed in order to comprehensively
understand the construct of client empowerment.
In contrast to the model proposed by Lewis and her colleagues (2002), client and
community advocacy efforts clustered into one category in the present study. Counselor
interventions directed at client and community groups’ environments appear to share
some commonalities in the present sample. Items in this category were reflective of
competency in understanding community groups’ goals, in serving as a mediator between
client and institutions, and in negotiating for services on behalf of a client. The
Multicultural Competencies, which predate the Advocacy Competencies discuss
advocacy on behalf of clients at the institutional level, and in many ways, does not
distinguish between advocacy efforts on these levels (Arredondo, 1999). These authors
describe a multiculturally competent counselor as one who is proactive in their
institutions to ensure that oppression and marginalization do not take place, and identifies
and addresses any extant barriers to services (Arredondo). Further, they include in the
81
ability to discern whether a client problem stems from others’ racism or bias so that
clients do not blame themselves (Arredondo). This cognitive ability is consistent with one
item assessing one’s ability to determine the appropriate level in which to advocate,
which loaded onto this factor. It also highlights the interrelationship between
interventions on behalf of clients and on behalf of communities and institutions. Thus, it
appears that advocacy on behalf of an individual client often targets injustice within a
particular institution, which can then benefit a community, as well as the institution itself
by eradicating bias and discrimination. Item content of the latter category shows much
overlap with the institutional intervention skills articulated by the Multicultural
Competencies and exemplifies the interconnectedness of social justice advocacy across
these levels.
As social justice advocacy becomes more integrated within the domain of
counseling, there is a need to, not only define competence, but to be able to measure it.
The existence of the present instrument holds potential for not only assessing these
competencies but also in providing a tool for measuring client outcomes based on these
factors. For example, the operationalization of client empowerment with the present
measure can allow for outcome studies to understand their impact on the counseling
process, as can the ability to measure the client/community advocacy. Only then is the
field able to fully understand how such competence is acquired, taught, and, ultimately,
what impact it has on clients, organizations, and the larger public. This initial measure
82
represents one step toward the realization of social justice advocacy as a practice that is
grounded in empirical understanding.
References
Albee, G. W. (2000). The Boulder model’s fatal flaw. American Psychologist, 55, 247-
248.
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
American Psychological Association (2006). Advancing psychology in the public
interest: A psychologist’s guide to participation in federal advocacy process.
Retrieved Sept. 12, 2006, from http://www.apa.org/ppo/ppan/piguide.html
American Psychological Association (2005). 2005 Annual Report. Retrieved September
24, 2006 from http://www.apa.org/pi/2005_annual_report_ap.pdf
Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. (7
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Andrews, P. & Meyer, R. G. (2003). Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and
Short Form C: Forensic norms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 483-492.
Arredondo, P. (1999). Multicultural counseling competencies as tools to address
oppression and racism. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 102-108.
Atkinson, D. R., Thompson, C. E., & Grant, S. K. (1993). A three-dimensional model for
counseling racial/ethnic minorities. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 257-277.
83
84
Brabeck, M., Walsh, M. E., Kenny, M., & Comilang, K. (1997). Interprofessional
collaboration for children and families: Opportunities for counseling psychology
in the 21
st
century. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 615-636.
Bradley, L. & Lewis, J. (2000). Introduction. In J. Lewis, L. Bradley (Eds.), Advocacy in
counseling: Counselors, clients, and community (pp. 3-4). Greensboro, NC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services.
Briere, J. (1996). Therapy for adults molested as children: Beyond survival. New York:
Springer Publishing Company.
Brown, D. (1988). Empowerment through advocacy. In D. Kurpius & D. Brown (Eds.)
Handbook of consultation: An intervention for advocacy and outreach (pp. 8-17).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Counselor Education and Supervision.
Council of Chief State School Officers (1998). Assessing health literacy: Assessment
framework. Soquel, CA: ToucanEd Publications.
Crowne, D. P. & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative
dependence. New York: Wiley.
Dalbert, C. (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the Personal
Belief in a Just World Scale’s validity. Social Justice Research, 12, 79- 98.
D’Andrea, M. (2005). Continuing the cultural liberation and transformation of counseling
psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 524-537.
85
D’Andrea, M. & Daniels, J. (1999). Exploring the psychology of White racism through
naturalistic inquiry. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77, 93-101.
Day- Vines, N. L., Wood, S. M., Grothaus, T., Craigen, L., Holman, A., Dotson-Blake,
K., & Douglass, M. J. (2008). Broaching the subjects of race, ethnicity, and
culture during the counseling process. Journal of Counseling and Development,
85, 401- 409.
Dinsmore, J. A., Chapman, A., McCollum, V. J. C. (2000, March). Client advocacy and
social justice: Strategies for developing trainee competence. Paper presented at
the Annual Conference of the American Counseling Association, Washington,
DC.
Edwards, J. E. & Thomas, M. D. (1993). The organizational survey process. American
Behavioral Scientist, 36, 419-442.
Fassinger, R. E. & O’Brien, K. M. (2000). Career counseling with college women: A
scientist-practitioner-advocate model of intervention. In D. Luzzo (Ed.), Career
development of college students: Translating theory and research into practice
(pp. 253-265). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Fishman, J. A. & Galguera, T. (2003). Introduction to test construction in the social and
behavioral sciences. A practical guide. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Fitzpatrick, K. M. & LaGory, M. (2005). Unhealthy places: The ecology of risk in the
urban landscape. New York: Routledge.
86
Fouad, N. A., Gerstein, L. H., & Toporek, R. L. (2006). Social justice and counseling
psychology in context. In Toporek et al. (Eds.) Social justice in counseling
psychology (pp. 1-16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fuertes, J. N., Miville, M. L., Mohr, J. J., Sedlacek, W. E., Gretchen, D. (2000). Factor
structure and short form of the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diverse Scale- Short
Form. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 157-
169.
Furnham, A. & Procter, E. (1989). Belief in a just world: Review and critique of the
individual difference literature. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 365-
384.
Garbarino, J. (1995). Raising children in a socially toxic environment. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Goodman, L. A., Liang, B., Helms, J. E., Latta, R. E., Sparks, E., & Weintraub, S. R.
(2004). Training counseling psychologists as social justice agents: Feminist and
multicultural principles in action. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 793-837.
Hafer, C. L. (2000). Do innocent victims threaten the belief in a just world? Evidence
from a modified Stroop task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
165-173.
Hendricks, F. M. (1994). Career counseling with African American college students.
Journal of Career Development, 21, 117-126.
Hoefer, R. (2006). Advocacy practice for social justice. Chicago: Lyceum Books.
87
Jargowsky, P. A. (1997). Poverty and place: Ghettos, barrios, and the American city.
New York: Russell Sage.
Kiselica, M. S. (1995). Multicultural counseling with teenage fathers: A practical guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kiselica, M. S. & Pfaller, J. (1993). Helping teenage parents: The independent and
collaborative roles of school counselors and counselor educators. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 72, 42-48.
Kiselica, M. S. & Robinson, M. (2001). Bringing advocacy counseling to life: The
history, issues, and human dramas of social justice work in counseling. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 79, 387-397.
Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing, (2
nd
ed.). London: Routledge.
Lee, C. C. (1998). Counselors as agents of social change. In C. C. Lee & G. R. Walz
(Eds.), Social action: A mandate for counselors (pp. 3-14). Alexandria, VA:
American Counseling Association and ERIC Clearinghouse.
Lee, C. C. & Walz, G. R. (1998). Social action: A mandate for counselors. Alexandria,
VA: American Counseling Association and ERIC Clearinghouse.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York:
Plenum Press.
Lerner, M. & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process:
Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1031-1051.
88
Lewis, J., Arnold, M. S., House, R., & Toporek, R. (2001). Advocacy Competencies:
American Counseling Association Task Force on Advocacy Competencies.
Retrieved May 27, 2006, from
http://counselorsforsocialjustice.org/advocacycompetencies.html
Loo, R. (2004). A critical examination of the Rubin and Peplau Belief in a Just World
Scale. In S. P. Shohov (Ed.) Advances in psychology research, Vol. 31, (pp. 125-
145). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Lopez-Baez, S. I. (2005, April). Social justice: An action verb. Panel presentation at the
American Counseling Association Annual Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.
Martin-Baro, I. (1994). Writings for a liberation psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Miller, G. A. (1969). Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare. American
Psychologist, 24, 1063-1075.
Miville, M. L., Gelso, C. J., Pannu, R., Liu, W., Touradji, P., Holloway, P., Fuertes, J.
(1999). Appreciating similarities and valuing differencing: The Miville-Guzman
Universality Diversity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 291-307.
Nunnally, J. O. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Brien, K. M., Patel, S., Hensler-McGinnis, N., & Kaplan, J. (2006). Empowering
undergraduate students to be agents of social change: An innovative service
learning course in counseling psychology. In Toporek et al. (Eds.) Social justice
in counseling psychology (pp. 59-73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
89
Osborne, J. L. & Collison, B. B. (1998). Developing a social advocacy model for
counselor education. Counselor Education & Supervision, 37, 190-203.
Paulhaus, D. L. (1991). Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. In J. R. Robinson,
P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social
attitudes (pp. 37-41). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ponterotto, J. G., Gretchen, D., Utsey, S. O., Rieger, B. P., & Austin, R. (2002). A
revision of the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale. Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 30, 153- 179.
Ponterotto, J. G., Rieger, B. T., Barrett, A., Harris, G., Sparks, R., Sanchez, C. M., et al.
(1996). Development and initial validation of the Multicultural Counseling
Awareness Scale. In G. R. Sodowsky, J. C. Impara (Eds.), Multicultural
assessment in counseling and clinical psychology (pp. 247-282). Lincoln, NE:
Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Pope, K. S. (1990). Ethics and malpractice: Identifying and implementing ethical
standards for primary prevention. Prevention in Human Services, 8(2), 317-320.
Prilleltensky, I. (1997). Values, assumptions, and practices: Assessing the moral
implications of psychological discourse and action. American Psychologist, 52,
517-535.
Rencher, A. C. (2002). Methods of multivariate analysis, (2
nd
ed.). New York: Wiley-
Interscience.
90
Ritvo, R., Al-mateen, C., Ascherman, L., Beardslee, W., Hartmann, L., Lewis, O.,
Papilsky, S., Sargent, J., Sperling, E., Stiener, G., Szigethy, E. (1999). Report of
the Psychotherapy Task Force of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry. The Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 8 (2), 93-102.
Rubin, Z. & Peplau, L. A. (1973). Belief in a just world and reactions to another’s lot: A
study of participants in the national draft lottery. Journal of Social Issues, 29(4),
73-93.
Rubin, Z. & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues,
31(3), 65-89.
Rudolf, M. (2003). Advocacy training for pediatricians: The experience of running a
course in Leeds, United Kingdom. Pediatrics, 112, 749-751.
Sedlacek, W. E., (1998). Strategies for social change research. In C. C. Lee & G. R. Walz
(Eds.), Social action: A mandate for counselors (pp. 227-239). Alexandria, VA:
American Counseling Association.
Sexton, T. L. & Whiston, S. C. (1998). Using the knowledge base: Outcome research and
accountable social action. In C. C. Lee & G. R. Walz (Eds.), Social action: A
mandate for counselors (pp. 241-260). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association.
Smith, E. R., Ferree, M. M., & Miller, F. D. (1975). A short scale of attitudes towards
feminism. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 6, 51-56.
91
Sodowsky, G. R., Kuo-Jackson, P. Y., & Loya, G. J. (1996). Outcome of training in the
philosophy of assessment. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman (Eds.),
Multicultural counseling competencies: Assessment, education and training, and
supervision (pp. 3-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sue, D. W., Carter, R. T., Casas, J. M., Fouad, N. A., Ivey, A. E., Jensen, M., et al.
(1998). Multicultural counseling competencies: Individual and organizational
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics, (3
rd
ed.). New
York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Talleyrand, R. M., Chung, R. C. -Y., & Bemak, F. (2006). Incorporating social justice in
counselor training programs: A case study example. In Toporek et al. (Eds.)
Social justice in counseling psychology (pp. 44-58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Thompson, C. E., Worthington, R., & Atkinson, D. R. (1994). Counselor content
orientation, counselor race, and Black women’s cultural mistrust and self-
disclosures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 155–161.
Toporek, R. L., Gerstein, L. H., Fouad, N. A., Roysircar, G. & Israel, T. (2006a).
Handbook for social justice in counseling psychology: Leadership, vision, and
action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Toporek, R. L., Gerstein, L. H., Fouad, N. A., Roysircar, G. & Israel, T. (2006b). Future
directions for counseling psychology. In R. L. Toporek et al. (Eds.) Handbook for
92
social justice in counseling psychology: Leadership, vision, and action, (pp. 533-
552). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Toporek, R. L. & Liu, W. M. (2001). Advocacy in counseling: Addressing race, class,
and gender oppression. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman (Eds.), The
intersection of race, class, and gender in multicultural counseling (2
nd
ed., pp.
165-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Toporek, R. L. & Williams, R. A. (2006). Ethics and professional issues related to the
practice of social justice in counseling psychology. In R. L. Toporek, L. H.
Gerstein, N. A. Fouad, G. Roysircar, & T. Israel (Eds.), Handbook for social
justice in counseling psychology. Leadership, vision, and action (17-34).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2001).
Vacc, N. A., (1998). Fair access to assessment instruments and the use of assessment in
counseling. In C. C. Lee & G. R. Walz (Eds.), Social action: A mandate for
counselors (pp. 179-198). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association and
ERIC Clearinghouse.
Van Soest, D. (1996). Impact of social work education on student attitudes and behaviors
concerning oppression. Journal of Social Work Education, 32, 191-202.
Vera, E., Daly, B., Gonzales, R., Morgan, M., & Thakral, C. (2006). Prevention and
outreach with underserved populations. In R. L. Toporek, L. H. Gerstein, N. A.
Fouad, G. Roysircar, & T. Israel (Eds.), Handbook for social justice in counseling
93
psychology. Leadership, vision, and action (86- 99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Vera, E. M. & Shin, R. Q. (2006). Promoting strengths in a socially toxic world:
Supporting resiliency with systemic interventions. The Counseling Psychologist,
34, 80-89.
Vera, E. M. & Speight, S. L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and
counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist, 31,
253-272.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Williams, R. L. & Kirkland, J. (1971). The White counselor and Black client. The
Counseling Psychologist, 2, 114-117.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public
policy. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Worthington, R. L., Mobley, M., Franks, R. P., & Tan, J. A. (2000). Multicultural
counseling competencies: Verbal content, counselor attributions, and social
desirability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 460-468.
Worthington, R. L. & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content
analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist,
34, 806- 838.
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A
Advocacy Competency Domains
Client/Student School/Community Public Arena
Acting
With
Acting
On
Behalf
Microlevel Macrolevel
Client/Student
Empowerment
Community
Collaboration
Public
Information
Client/Student
Advocacy
Systems
Advocacy
Social/Political
Advocacy
Note. From “Advocacy Competencies: American Counseling Association Task Force on
Advocacy Competencies” by J. Lewis, M. S. Arnold, R. House, & R. Toporek,
2001. Retrieved May 27, 2006, from
http://counselorsforsocialjustice.org/advocacycompetencies.html
94
95
APPENDIX B
Proposed Advocacy Skills
Client Empowerment:
1. Identify strengths and resources of clients and students (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Identify and utilize client resources, such as spirituality, religious
affiliation, and kinship networks (Vera & Shin, 2006).
b. Strengthen racial/ethnic identities when working with persons of Color to
build resilience against the effects of racism (Vera & Shin, 2006).
c. Acknowledge the ways in which clients express power within institutions
(Trethewey, 1997).
d. Use GLBT affirmative approaches with such clients (Norsworthy &
Gerstein, 2003).
2. Identify the social, political, economic, and cultural factors that affect the client
(Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Listen, understand and respond empathically to clients as they are
impacted by social problems (Kiselica & Robinson, 2001).
b. Examine the role of social structures when assessing clients (Cowger,
1994).
c. Examine power and power relationships between clients and their
environments (Trethewey, 1997).
96
3. Recognize the signs indicating that an individual’s behaviors and concerns reflect
responses to systematic or internalized oppression (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Recognize the psychological effects of racism on clients (Bryant-Davis &
Ocampo, 2005; Vera & Shin, 2006; Wyatt, 1990).
b. Use critical thinking to understand the intersection of multiple sources of
oppression and their effects on clients (Aspy & Sandhu, 1999; Chen-
Hayes, 2001; Lee, 1998; Rudolf, 2003; Toporek & Liu, 2001).
4. Assist the individual in identifying the external barriers that affect his or her
development (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Recognize that client problems rarely result from a single cause, but rather
from a myriad of events (Cowger, 1994).
b. Assist clients in giving meaning to the social contextual factors that
impact their situations (Cowger, 1994).
5. Train clients in self-advocacy skills (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Assist clients in developing communication skills needed for advocacy
(Trethewey, 1997).
b. Connect clients with organizations that advocate for issues that impact
them (Epstein, West, & Riegel, 2000; Stringfellow & Muscari, 2003).
6. Help clients create self-advocacy action plans (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Assess client’s understanding of laws and policies that apply to him or her
(Toporek & Liu, 2001).
97
b. Collaborate with clients in deciding upon appropriate actions needed for
environmental changes (Toporek & Liu, 2001).
7. Assist clients in carrying out action plans (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Assist clients in calling state and federal agents and navigating other
bureaucracies (Toporek & Liu, 2001).
Client Advocacy:
8. Negotiate for relevant and/or better services and education systems on behalf of
clients (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Communicate effectively with those in positions of power who can
improve clients’ situations (Kiselica, 1995; Kiselica & Pfaller, 1993).
b. Serve as a mediator between clients and institutions (Dinsmore, Chapman,
& McCollum, 2000).
9. Help clients gain access to needed resources (Lewis et al. 2002).
a. Form collaborations with professionals to meet the needs of individuals
and families (Brabeck et al., 1997; Toporek & Liu, 2001).
b. Communicate with local, state, and federal representatives on behalf of
clients’ needs (Toporek & Liu, 2001).
10. Identify barriers to well-being of individuals and vulnerable groups (Lewis et al.,
2002).
a. Evaluate client complaints of prejudice within counselor’s organizational
context (Toporek & Liu, 2001).
98
b. Use critical thinking to understand interlocking and multiple sources of
oppression and their effects on clients and client groups (Aspy & Sandhu,
1999; Chen-Hayes, 2001; Lee, 1998; Rudolf, 2003; Toporek & Liu, 2001).
11. Develop an initial action plan for confronting these barriers (Lewis et al., 2002).
12. Identify potential allies for confronting these barriers (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Serve as a visible ally for issues that affect clients (Toporek & Liu, 2001).
13. Carry out the plan of action (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Persuade targets of advocacy to act on behalf of client or issue (Hoefer,
2006).
b. Continuously assess progress of advocacy interventions within the context
of the client’s environment (Vacc, 1998).
c. Speak out against inequities, such as discriminatory processes that affect
clients (Toporek & Liu, 2001).
d. Use empathic-confrontation in responding to injustices (Kiselica, 2004).
Community Collaboration:
14. Identify environmental factors that impinge upon students’ and clients’
development (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Obtain information regarding the sociohistorical context of the problem
from the community (Toporek, Gerstein, Fouad, Roysircar, & Israel,
2006).
99
15. Alert community or school groups with common concerns related to the issue
(Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Identify key stakeholders in problem (Rudolf, 2003).
16. Develop alliances with groups working for change (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Build relationships with trusted community members within the
community (Vera et al., 2006).
b. Build relationships with civic organizations and businesses within the
community (Thompson et al., 2006).
17. Use effective listening skills to gain understanding of the groups’ goals (Lewis et
al., 2002).
a. Conduct formal and informal needs assessments within a community that
are inclusive of community members’ perspectives (Vera et al., 2006).
18. Identify the strengths and resources that group members bring to the process of
systemic change (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Engage in process of mutual learning with community groups to allow
group members to both learn from and teach the counselor (Goodkind,
2005).
19. Communicate recognition of and respect for these strengths and resources that
group members bring (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Engage community in providing a history of previous problem-solving
attempts (Toporek, Gerstein, Fouad, Roysircar, & Israel, 2006).
100
b. Participate in community functions of client populations served (Toporek
& Liu, 2001).
20. Identify and offer the skills that the counselor can bring to the collaboration
(Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Publish qualitative studies focused on giving voice to silenced
communities (Goodman et al., 2004; Morrow, 2007).
b. Work with community members to disseminate their ideas to the media
(Goodman et al., 2004).
21. Assess the effect of the counselor’s interaction with the community (Lewis et al.,
2002).
Systems Advocacy:
22. Identify environmental factors impinging on students’ or clients’ development
(Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Determine who is positively and who is negatively affected by the
identified issue (Hoefer, 2006).
b. Teach colleagues to recognize sources of bias in organizational settings
(Hendricks, 1994; Williams & Kirkland, 2001).
23. Provide and interpret data to show the urgency for change (Lewis et al., 2002).
24. In collaboration with other stakeholders, develop a vision to guide change (Lewis
et al., 2002).
101
a. Negotiate with employers for changes in institutional policy that are
conducive to positive growth and development of clients (Brown, 1988).
25. Analyze the sources of political power and social influence within the system
(Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Examine power and power relationships between clients and their
environments (Trethewey, 1997).
b. Understand institutional and professional power (Toporek, 2001).
26. Develop a step-by-step plan for implementing the change process (Lewis et al.,
2002).
a. Communicate environmental changes needed for just treatment of clients
to staff in agencies in which counselor is involved (D’Andrea & Daniels,
1999; Hendricks, 1994; Williams & Kirkland, 1971).
27. Develop a plan for dealing with probable responses to change (Lewis et al., 2002).
28. Recognize and deal with resistance (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Contact funding agencies when oppressive practices or inadequate
services are observed (Dinsmore et al., 2000).
29. Assess the effects of counselor’s advocacy efforts on the system and its
constituents (Lewis et al., 2002).
Public Information:
30. Recognize the impact of oppression and other barriers to healthy development
(Lewis et al., 2002)
102
a. Keep abreast of research citing the impact of oppression on mental health
(Vera & Shin, 2006).
31. Identify environmental factors that are protective of healthy development (Lewis
et al., 2002).
a. Keep abreast of the research citing the environmental factors that promote
resilience for persons of Color and/or those living in poverty (Vera &
Shin, 2006).
32. Prepare written and multi-media materials that provide clear explanations of the
role of specific environmental factors in healthy development (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Prepare press releases (Brawley, 1997, Rudolf, 2003).
b. Write effective letters to the editor (Brawley, 1997).
c. Write newspaper articles (Brawley, 1997).
33. Communicate information in ways that are ethical and appropriate for the target
population (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Demonstrate proficiency and accuracy in oral and written presentations
(NCHEC, 1999).
b. Use culturally sensitive communication methods and techniques (NCHEC,
1999).
34. Disseminate information through a variety of media (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Use creative means to bring attention to client issues and perceived
injustices (Borshuk & Cherry, 2004).
103
b. Capture the attention of the broadcast media (Brawley, 1997; Rudolf,
2003).
35. Identify and collaborate with other professionals who are involved in
disseminating public information (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Utilize forums of communication, such as newsletters, professional
journals, websites, and professional meeting to share information
regarding social justice issues (Ritvo et al., 1999).
36. Assess the influence of public information efforts undertaken by a counselor
(Lewis et al., 2002).
Social/Political Advocacy:
37. Distinguish those problems that can best be resolved through social/political
advocacy (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Understand state laws and relevant policies pertaining to populations
counselor is likely to see (Toporek & Liu, 2001).
b. Examine proposed legislations for fairness to underrepresented groups
(Shullman et al., 2006).
c. Assess the appropriate level on which advocacy efforts are most
appropriate (Rudolf, 2003).
d. Conduct stakeholder analysis to determine who the key stakeholders are
(Rudolf, 2003).
104
38. Identify the appropriate mechanisms for addressing these problems (Lewis et al.,
2002).
a. Understand the political framework and processes to effect change
(Rudolf, 2003).
b. Identify the appropriate legislator to contact (APA, 2006).
c. Understand how actions should be targeted (Rudolf, 2003).
39. Seek out and join with potential allies (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Persuade other colleagues to become involved in social justice advocacy
(Shullman, Celeste, & Strickland, 2006).
b. Train others in social/political advocacy (Shullman et al., 2006).
c. Send out action alerts to allies (Shullman et al., 2006).
40. Support existing alliances for change (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Make and solicit financial contributions to social justice groups that
influence public policy (Shullman et al., 2006).
b. Support national professional organizations in their public policy efforts
(Shullman et al., 2006).
c. Support public policy efforts of state, territorial, and provincial
professional organizations (Shullman et al., 2006).
41. With allies, prepare convincing data and rationales for change (Lewis et al.,
2002).
a. Use research data to influence public policy (Toporek & Liu, 2001).
105
b. Orient research toward influencing public policy (Bingham, 2003; Enns,
1993).
c. Develop research summaries for policy makers (Shullman et al., 2006).
42. With allies, lobby legislators and other policy makers (Lewis et al., 2002).
a. Work to change existing laws and regulations that negatively affect clients
(Toporek & Liu, 2001).
b. Work with others to develop policy initiatives (Shullman et al., 2006).
c. Engage in legislative and policy actions that affect marginalized groups
(Toporek & Liu, 2001).
d. Communicating with policy makers via letters, emails, or telephone calls
to express positions on social justice issues that impact mental health
(Shullman et al., 2006).
e. Advocate for psychological knowledge and practice to be included in
public policy debates (Shullman et al., 2006).
f. Attend town hall meetings and/or forums organized by legislators
(Shullman et al., 2006).
g. Understand the views, responsibilities, and needs of policy makers (Galer-
Unti & Tappe, 2006).
43. Maintain open dialogue with communities and clients to ensure that
social/political advocacy is consistent with initial goals (Lewis et al., 2002).
106
a. Conduct large-scale empirical investigations of effectiveness of advocacy
work (Sexton & Whiston, 1998).
b. Support policies that institutionalize the perspectives of oppressed
persons, such as affirmative action (Adams, O’Brien, & Nelson, 2006).
107
APPENDIX C
Expert Reviewer Instructions
Enclosed you will find a description of six categories of social advocacy skills: (1) Client
Empowerment, (2) Client Advocacy, (3) Community Collaboration, (4) Systems
Advocacy, (5) Public Awareness, and (6) Social/Political Advocacy and 117 items that
have been designed to assess counselor skills for social justice advocacy. Items have been
written to assess the skills that correspond to each of the six categories outlined by the
Advocacy Competencies (Lewis, House, Reese, & Toporek, 2001).
For the following items, please rate the degree to which each item assesses each category
using the following scale:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Categories:
(1) Client Empowerment: This category includes skills used for empowerment
strategies using in direct counseling. It includes those behaviors aimed at
understanding clients within their social, political, economic, and cultural contexts
and assisting clients in understanding the impact of these variables on their lives
and development. These skills facilitate clients’ self-advocacy.
(2) Client Advocacy: This category includes counselor behaviors directed at
removing external barriers to a client’s development. It also encompasses
assisting clients from vulnerable groups in gaining access to needed services.
(3) Community Collaboration: Community collaboration involves seeking out and
working with community groups working for social change. Although the
108
counselor’s role in this category is one of an ally, the counselor may also lend his
or her counseling skills, such as interpersonal relations, communications, training,
and research to the community group(s) or organization(s).
(4) Systems Advocacy: This category involves those behaviors aimed at systems
and/or community changes in a client’s environment.
(5) Public Information: These skills include those directed at raising public
awareness of social justice issues and their impact on clients’ mental health,
development, and wellbeing.
(6) Social/Political Advocacy: These skills occur at a broader social context than
client or systems advocacy. It involves those skills used to influence public policy
in a large, public arena.
Example:
1. I am skilled at client-level advocacy.
Client Empowerment Community Collaboration Public Awareness
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7
Client Advocacy Systems Advocacy Social/Political Advocacy
1
1
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7
7
1 1
109
APPENDIX D
Demographic Survey
1. Highest Level of Education:
Bachelor’s Degree ______ Master’s Degree _______ Ph.D.________
Professional Degree ______
2. Number of Years of Counseling Training: (Include schooling and supervised
experience) ________________________
3. Gender: Male Female
4. Are you a member of any social advocacy groups? Yes No
5. If so, how many hours per month are you engaged in activities related to your
group(s)? ____________
6. Primary Work Setting:
In-patient _______ Community Mental Health _______
College Counseling Center _______ Private Practice _______
Other: (please specify)_______________
7. Ethnicity: (Mark all that apply)
African American, Black, African Descent _______
Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander _______
Hispanic or Latino(a) _______
Native American or American Indian _______
White/Caucasian or European _________
110
Other (specify): ________
8. Have you had any training in advocacy? Yes No
Describe:__________________________________________________________
111
APPENDIX E
Social Justice Advocacy Scale
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the seven-point scale, please indicate the degree to which the following are true of
you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I network with community groups with common concerns related to social justice
issues.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
2. I work with clients to develop action plans for confronting barriers to their
wellbeing.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
3. I contact legislators on behalf of clients’ needs.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
4. I have little knowledge of state laws and relevant policies pertaining to populations
I am likely to see.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
5. I stay abreast of current laws and policies affecting populations with which I work.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
112
6. I have never communicated with my legislators regarding social issues that impact
my clients.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
7. I contact my legislators to express my views on proposed bills that will impact
client problems.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
8. I create written materials to raise awareness about issues that affect my clients.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
9. I encourage clients to research the laws and policies that apply to them.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
10. I collaborate with potential allies for social change.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
11. I do not know of any counselors who lobby legislators and/or other policy makers.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
113
All True True
12. I do not assist my clients in developing the communication skills needed to serve
as self-advocates.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
13. I work to bring awareness to the public regarding issues that affect my clients.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
14. I engage in legislative and policy actions that affect marginalized groups.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
15. I teach my colleagues to recognize sources of bias within the institutions and
agencies in which I am involved.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
16. Serving as a mediator between clients and institutions is not an appropriate role for
a counselor.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
17. Assisting clients in calling state and federal agents and navigating other
114
bureaucracies is inappropriate for counselors.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
18. I strive to examine problems from a systems perspective in an effort to understand
their influences on client problems.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
19. I typically seek feedback regarding the effects of my interactions with the
communities with which I work.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
20. I carry out my plans of action for confronting barriers to my clients’ wellbeing.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
21. I build relationships with trusted community members and establishments within
the communities in which I work.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
22. I work with professional organizations to influence public policy pertaining to
social justice.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
115
Not at Totally
All True True
23. I use interventions that utilize client resources to buffer against the effects of
oppression.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
24. I am not actively involved with organizations working toward social justice.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
25. I use creative means to bring attention to client issues and perceived injustices.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
26. My research interest focuses on giving voice to underserved populations.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
27. When working with community groups, I conduct assessments that are inclusive of
community members’ perspectives.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
28. I seek feedback from my clients regarding the impact of my advocacy efforts on
their behalf.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
116
All True True
29. I assess the influence of my public information/awareness efforts.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
30. I support my clients’ self-advocacy efforts.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
31. I use effective listening skills to gain understanding of community groups’ goals.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
32. I understand the effects of multiple oppressions on clients.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
33. I work to understand clients as they are impacted by social problems.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
34. When working with community/organizational groups, I routinely seek
information regarding the history of the problem from the community members.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
35. I assess whether client concerns reflect responses to oppression.
117
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
36. I work to change existing laws and regulations that negatively affect clients.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
37. I collect data to show the need for social change to the institutions with which I
work.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
38. I believe I am unable to distinguish those problems that can best be resolved
through social/political advocacy.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
39. My skills as a counselor do not transfer to work with community groups.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
40. I assess the effects of my interaction with the community.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
41. I feel ill - prepared to seek feedback regarding others’ perceptions of my advocacy
efforts.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
118
Not at Totally
All True True
42. I identify potential allies for confronting barriers to my clients’ wellbeing.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
43. My interventions with clients of Color do not include strengthening their racial and
ethnic identities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at Totally
All True True
