The school-wide cultural competence observation checklist for school counselors: an exploratory factor analysis

Professional School Counseling, April, 2008 by Judith A. Nelson, Rebecca M. Bustamante, Eric D. Wilson, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie

Pre-Exploratory Factor Analysis Findings

At the development stage of the SCCOC, participants had the option to record a "don't know" response. If we can assume that responding to this "don't know" category represents a fifth response option, and a participant had responded to the 33 items at random, one would have expected him or her to have selected this "fifth" response option on approximately seven occasions (i.e., 20%). Thus, any participant who selected the "don't know" category more than on seven occasions was doing so more often than chance would have predicted. Thus, upon reviewing the frequency of each response, we decided to discard responses from participants who selected the "don't know" option for more than seven items. This led to 19 participants being removed from the exploratory factor analysis, thereby yielding a final sample of 132.

Exploratory Factor Analysis Findings

Responses (n = 132) to the 33-item survey were factor analyzed using principle component analysis and Varimax (i.e., orthogonal) rotation with Kaiser normalization. The final solution comprised two factors that accounted for a total of 72.1% of the variance in the items (see Table 1). Interestingly, this proportion of total variance explained is much larger than that typically explained in factor solutions (Henson, Capraro, & Capraro, 2004; Henson & Roberts, 2006). Thus, this total proportion of variance, which provides an effect size index, can be considered extremely large. Using a cutoff correlation of 0.3, recommended by Lambert and Durand (1975) as an acceptable minimum value for pattern/structure coefficients, Table 1 reveals that 22 items had pattern/structure coefficients with large effect sizes on the first factor. Based on these items, Factor 1, which explained approximately 52% of the variance, was labeled "Policy." Table 1 also reveals that 11 items had pattern/structure coefficients with large effect sizes on the second factor. Based on these items, Factor 2, which explained approximately 20% of the variance, was labeled "Practice."

Factor scores were obtained by averaging the items represented by each of the two scales, namely, the Policy Scale and the Practice Scale. The Policy Scale yielded a score reliability estimate of .97 (95% confidence interval = .96, .98) and the Practice Scale yielded a score reliability estimate of .89 (95% confidence interval = .85, .92). Thus, in addition to representing large effect sizes, both factors yielded very high score reliability estimates.

Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis Findings

In summary, findings revealed two major factors focusing on Policy and Practice. Participants appeared to perceive that policy should or could drive cultural competence within a school setting. Policy provides an impetus for change and a framework for accountability. Examples of culturally competent policy might include recruitment of diverse faculty, class placements of traditionally excluded groups in special programs, and allowable student organizations such as the Gay Straight Alliance. Practice represents the implementation of actual behaviors and programs that indicate levels of school-wide cultural competence. For example, professional development programs that focus on teaching diverse learners and culturally responsive teaching would exemplify a culturally competent practice. Observed intercultural interaction between students in the cafeteria would be another example of such practices. Because both Policy and Practice factors yielded high reliability scores, we can infer that the items on the instrument support the construct of school-wide cultural competence.