TPC Journal V8, Issue 4- FULL ISSUE

320 The Professional Counselor | Volume 8, Issue 4 Table 1 Hierarchical Regression Client Perspective B SE b β R 2 Δ R 2 Step 1: Control Variables Client Outcome Pretest Client Social Desirability .954 -.913 .049 .534 .866* -.076 .786 .786* Step 2: Client Perspective Client Outcome Pretest Client Social Desirability Client CCCI-R Client WAI-S .947 -.991 .183 -.119 .049 .547 .140 .152 .859* -.082 .069 -.041 .789 .003 Note. N = 119 clients; CCCI-R Counselor Multicultural Competence; WAI-S Working Alliance. * p < .05. Dependent Variable: Client Outcome Posttest. Another hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to explore whether CITs’ multicultural competence (CCCI-R) and working alliance (WAI-S; as perceived by counselors) predicted client outcomes (OQ 45.2 pretest), while controlling for social desirability (SDS) from the CITs’ perspective (OQ 45.2 posttest). Client outcome pretest score and CITs’ SDS total scores were entered in the first block, explaining 78.1% of the variance [ F (2,116) = 206.60, p < .05] in client outcome OQ 45.2 posttest scores. After entry of counselors’ CCCI-R and WAI-S total scores in the second block, the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 79.6% [ F (4,114) = 111.38, p < .05]. The introduction of counselors’ CCCI-R and WAI-S scores explained an additional variance of 1.5%, after controlling for client pretest score and social desirability [ R 2 change = .015, F (2, 114) = 4.32, p < .05]. In the final model, two of the four predictor variables were statistically significant: client outcome pretest score ( b = .894, p < .05) and counselors’ CCCI-R ( b = -.157, p < .05; see Table 2). The final model indicated a large effect size ( R 2 =.796; Cohen, 1992). In this model, 80% of the variance in posttest scores was accounted for by OQ 45.2 first session scores on client outcomes and CITs’ multicultural competence, after controlling for social desirability response. The final research question explored the differences that exist between clients’ and counselors’ perceptions of CITs’ multicultural competence and the working alliance, while controlling for social desirability. In order to resolve the possibility of non-independence in this data set (West, Welch, & Galecki, 2007), a linear mixed-effects model was used to compare clients and counselors (fixed effect) for the dependent variables of multicultural competence and the working alliance. Thus, accounting for client observations nested within counselors (i.e., some CITs had several clients). There was a significant difference between counselor and client perceptions of CITs’ multicultural competence while controlling for social desirability: [ F (1,174.38) = 30.43, p < 0.05]. The average CCCI-R score for clients was 5.91 more than the average for CITs, after controlling for social desirability. Similarly, there was a significant difference between counselor and client perceptions of the working alliance (WAI-S): [ F (1, 176.20) = 79.98, p < 0.05]. The average WAI-S score for clients was 9.85 more than the average for CITs, controlling for social desirability. Thus, clients rated CITs’ multicultural competence and the working alliance higher than CITs rated themselves.