TPC Journal-Vol 9 Issue 3-FULL

228 The Professional Counselor | Volume 9, Issue 3 researched area of scholarship (Guiney, Harris, Zusho, & Cancelli, 2014; Sangganjanavanich & Lenz, 2012), the dearth of counseling-specific consultation research may exist because of the lack of a valid measure specifically designed to assess counselors’ consultation skills and proficiencies. Guiney et al. (2014) developed the Consultation Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES) to assess school psychologists’ relative self-efficacy for implementing consultation. Presenting a complex framework, the CSES defined consultation self-efficacy as comprised of six interconnected domains that overlap substantially with common professional helping skills (e.g., communication ability, multicultural sensitivity). This conceptual foundation for the CSES is more aligned with the profession of school psychology as opposed to counseling, limiting our ability to use it for assessing counselors’ general skills and proficiency in consultation. Moe et al. (2018) developed the theory-based CSS, focusing on counselors’ perceived knowledge of consultation models and frameworks and related consultation skills as a distinct practice modality akin to group counseling, clinical supervision, and crisis response (Brown et al., 2011). Rather than practicing consultation as an adjunct or supplement to their preferred mode of counseling, the CSS incorporated awareness of models, interventions, and dispositions identified in the literature base as distinguishing consultation from other modes of professional helping. The items for the CSS were created using a rational-empirical approach, with the aim of developing a construct that would assess respondents’ awareness of consultation theory, process, and skills, and relative adherence to the idea that consultation is a distinct area of practice as opposed to an ad hoc one. In a study specifically examining counseling professionals’ lesbian, gay, and bisexual counseling competence in relation to their consultation skills, Moe et al. established the initial construct validity for the CSS through an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). However, Moe et al. stated that the targeted sample and sample size in the study were limited, requiring further collection of validity evidence for the CSS. Purpose of the Study In our study, we aimed at further examining the validity and reliability properties of the CSS to advance our knowledge base regarding consultation skills and proficiency among counselors. Thus, our research questions were: (1) Is the unidimensional structure of the CSS confirmed with a cross- validation sample? (2) Does the CSS demonstrate different types of validity (i.e., convergent, divergent, concurrent, incremental)? and (3) Is the derived factor internally consistent and stable? We explored validity evidence for the CSS by testing the factorial structure through a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We also further tested validity evidence for the instrument by assessing the relationships between participants’ scores on the CSS and two related constructs: supervisory working alliance and interprofessional collaboration. Finally, we explored the reliability properties of the CSS. Methodology Participants Demographics for participant ( N = 369) cultural background, gender identity, age, years of experience, counseling specialty, training in consultation, and highest degree earned are reported in Table 1. Only participants who completed all measures plus the demographic information were included in the present study.