The Professional Counselor | Volume 12, Issue 1 73 p = .005), the Skills subscale (r = −.14, p = .005), and the Knowledge subscale (r = −.15, p = .003). Cismale GI was significantly correlated with the GICCS total score (r = .11, p = .038), the Skills subscale (r = .12, p = .017), and the Knowledge subscale (r = .11, p = .003). Trans GI was significantly correlated with personally knowing someone who is trans (r = .12, p = .002), as well as with the GICCS total score (r = .12, p = .034). Having worked with trans students was significantly correlated with the GICCS total score (r = .41, p <.001), the Skills subscale (r = .55, p < .001), and the Awareness subscale (r = −.11, p = .032). Postgraduate training was significantly correlated with many variables, including personally knowing someone who is trans (r = .14, p = .005), and with the GICCS total scores (r = .36, p < .001), the Skills subscale (r = .41, p < .001), the Knowledge subscale (r = .19, p < .001), and the Awareness subscale (r = −.10, p = .040). Last, personally knowing someone who is trans was significantly correlated with the GICCS total score (r = .35, p < .001), the Skills subscale (r = .29, p < .001), the Knowledge subscale (r = .25, p < .001), and the Awareness subscale (r = −.22, p < .001). Table 2 Correlation Table for Variables of Interest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Cisfemale -- −.895** −.369** −.213** −.106* −.013 −.079 −.143** −.143** −.152** .001 2. Cismale -- -- −.019 −.011 .089 .039 −.002 .105* .121* .112* .021 3. Trans -- -- -- −.004 .049 −.029 .157** .108* .096 .090 −.041 4. Agender -- -- -- -- .028 −.050 .091 .026 −.015 .074 −.021 5. Trans Client -- -- -- -- -- .080 .071 .407** .545** .065 −.109* 6. Training -- -- -- -- -- -- .143** .361** .407** .188** −.104* 7. Personal -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .346** .286** .247** −.218** 8. GICCS Total -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .827** .655** −.647** 9. Skills -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .303** −.255** 10. Knowledge -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- −.310** 11. Awareness -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Note. GICCS = Gender Identity Competency Scale (Bidell, 2005). *p < .05. **p < .001. Model 1: PSC Competency R² for the overall model was 35.2%, with an adjusted R² of 34.1%, a small to moderate size according to Cohen (1988). PSC factors significantly predicted levels of PSC self-perceived competence in working with trans students in schools, F(6, 381) = 34.430, p < .001. In examining beta weights (β), having worked with trans students received the strongest weight in the model (β = .35), followed by postgraduate training (β = .29) and personally knowing someone who is trans (β = .27). The variable with the most weight, having worked with trans students, had a structure coefficient (rs) of .67, and rs 2 was 45.2%, meaning that of the 35.2% effect (R2), this variable accounts for 45.2% of the explained variance by itself. This shows that PSCs’ competence is increased by experiences with trans students, engaging in postgraduate trainings, and personally knowing someone who is trans. A summary of regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 3.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU5MTM1