TPC Journal-Vol 10- Issue 1

4 The Professional Counselor | Volume 10, Issue 1 intensive, mid-Atlantic public university at the time of data collection. A total of 221 faculty members clicked on the electronic link to the survey and 11 responses were omitted from the data set because of 100% missing data, resulting in a useable sample size of 210, yielding a response rate of 21%. This response rate is consistent with the response rates of other investigators (e.g., Brockelman & Scheyett, 2015; Kalkbrenner & Carlisle, 2019) who conducted survey research with faculty members. For gender, 58% ( n = 122) identified as female, 41% ( n = 86) as male, and 0.5% ( n = 1) as non-binary or third gender, and 0.5% ( n = 1) did not specify their gender. For ethnicity, 79.0% ( n = 166) identified as Caucasian, 6.2% ( n = 11) as African American, 3.8% ( n = 8) as Hispanic or Latinx, 2.9% ( n = 6) as Asian, 2.9% ( n = 6) as multiethnic, 0.5% ( n = 1) as Hindu, and 0.5% ( n = 1) as Irish, and 5.2% ( n = 11) did not specify their ethnic identity. Participants ranged in age from 31 to 78 ( M = 50; SD = 11). Participants represented all of the academic colleges in the university, including 28.6% ( n = 60) Arts and Letters, 22.9% ( n = 48) Education, 18.1% ( n = 38) Sciences, 12.9% ( n = 27) Health Sciences, 9% ( n = 19) Engineering and Technology, and 7.6% ( n = 16) Business, while 1% ( n = 2) of participants did not specify their college. Instrumentation Demographic questionnaire Following informed consent, participants were asked to indicate that they met the inclusion criteria for participation, including (1) employment as a faculty member, and (2) teaching at least one course at the time of data collection. Participants then responded to a succession of demographic items about their gender, ethnicity, age, academic college, and highest level of education completed. Lastly, respondents indicated their rank and help-seeking history (previous attendance in counseling or no previous attendance in counseling) and if they had referred at least one student to mental health support services. Mental Distress Response Scale (MDRS) The MDRS is a screening tool comprised of two subscales (Approach/Encourage and Diminish/ Avoid) for measuring university community members’ responses to encountering a student in mental distress (Kalkbrenner & Flinn, 2020). The items that mark the Approach/Encourage subscale appraise responses to mental distress that are consistent with providing support and encouragement to a student in mental distress (e.g., “suggest that they go to the health center on campus”). The Diminish/ Avoid subscale measures adverse or inactive responses to encountering a student in mental distress (e.g., “try to ignore your concern”). Kalkbrenner and Flinn (2020) found adequate reliability evidence for an attitudinal measure ( α > 0.70) and initial validity evidence for the MDRS in two major phases of analyses (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]) with two samples of college students. Kalkbrenner (2019) extended the line of research on the utility of the MDRS for use with community college students and found adequate reliability ( α > 0.80) and validity evidence (single and multiple- group confirmatory analysis). Data Analysis A CFA based on structural equation modeling was computed using IBM SPSS Amos version 25 to cross-validate scores on the MDRS with a sample of faculty members (research question #1). Using a maximum likelihood estimation method, the following goodness-of-fit indices and thresholds for defining model fit were investigated based on the recommendations of Byrne (2016) and Hooper et al. (2008): Chi square absolute fit index (CMIN, non-significant p -value with an x 2 / df ratio < 3), comparative fit index (CFI > 0.95), incremental fit index (IFI > 0.95), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI > 0.95), goodness-of-fit index (GFI > 0.95), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < 0.07), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR < 0.08). Based on the findings of past investigators (e.g., Kalkbrenner & Sink, 2018) regarding demographic differences in faculty members’ propensity to support college