Multicultural Counseling Competence: A Construct in Search of Operationalization

Indistinct Purpose: What About Therapeutic Change?

Many definitions of multicultural counseling competence do not explicate the purpose of the construct. This is akin to omitting the destination of our journey. D. W. Sue (2001) captured this concern when he asserted that proponents of cultural competence themselves tend not to “provide direction for practice, education and training, and research” (p. 791). Without a distinct purpose, statements about the construct’s importance may be unconvincing, and a sound definition of the construct is impossible. Writings on multicultural counseling competence usually imply that it exists for one of two reasons: to enhance the quality of cross-cultural relationships or to facilitate therapeutic change (Ridley et al., 2001). However, most definitions do not state explicitly which reason the authors endorse, so interested readers must surmise from the text the reason invoked for the construct.

Barden et al. (2017) declared multicultural competence as “paramount” for counselors, noting, “Professional counselors need to be knowledgeable of cultural values, aware of their own cultural background and personal biases, and able to integrate culturally relevant and appropriate interventions in their work with all clients” (p. 203). Although they declare what clinicians need to do, the paramount nature of multicultural counseling competence remains unarticulated. Thus, there is no sound reason for following those instructions.

We contend that the superordinate purpose of multicultural counseling competence is therapeutic change, and accordingly, definitions need to state this explicitly. Although effective cross-cultural relationships are important in therapy, they are not the sole objective. The therapeutic alliance is a tool meant to facilitate the higher goal of therapeutic change. A variety of professionals, such as sales people or business executives, may aim for better cross-cultural relationships, but therapeutic change is the unique purview of psychologists and counselors (Ridley et al., 2001). If a culturally sensitive intervention does not contribute to therapeutic change, does it equate to multicultural counseling competence? We argue that this is not necessarily the case. Therefore, definitions of the construct need to delineate that distinction.

Since not all professions aim for therapeutic change, we advocate for consistent linguistic differentiation between the phrases multicultural competence and multicultural counseling competence. When a better relationship is the main, motivating purpose, we should call the construct multicultural competence. When therapeutic change is the ultimate, superordinate purpose, we should call the construct multicultural counseling competence. Not only will this linguistic change better reflect psychotherapy’s unique objective, but distinct terminology also will ease communication among scholars in this field. Furthermore, researchers no longer will need to wade through as many writings on multicultural competence, particularly those from other fields lacking investment in a commitment to therapeutic change.

Culturally General/Culturally Specific Divide: Whom Can I Treat?

There has been considerable disagreement as to whether multicultural counseling competence is culturally general or specific. Authors who advance a general perspective believe that counselors should have an ability to work with clients of any cultural background. Ivers et al. (2016) advocated this stance: “MCC [multicultural counseling competence] refers to the effectiveness with which a counselor provides counseling services to clients whose cultural worldviews and cultural group affiliations differ from those of the counselor” (p. 72). These authors refrain from delineating groups, instead indicating that multicultural competent counselors are effective with everyone who is different from themselves. They imply that clinicians need this general knowledge rather than specific skills for each group of people. Moreover, they assume that multicultural counseling competence is relevant only when counselors and clients differ along cultural lines. This assumption is problematic because all who participate in therapeutic encounters are cultural beings, and cultural biases may underlie clinicians’ clinical judgments, while cultural values and beliefs may underlie clients’ psychological presentations.

By contrast, those advocating the specific stance see multicultural counseling competence as applicable to each cultural group. Consider this earlier view Castro posited (1998):

Developing cultural competence in a new cohort of health professionals aims to enhance quality in the health services and research that is delivered to members of various ethnic minority groups, including African-Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. (p. 127)

This definition focuses on ethnic minorities, excluding White clients as beneficiaries of multicultural counseling competence. The naming of specific groups implies that multicultural counseling competence may vary from one culture to another. This definition also relies on ethnic identity, seemingly ignoring other vital and intersecting identities. Although recent literature rarely endorses a culturally specific perspective so overtly, it still is evidenced in scholarly work. For instance, some scholars urge the tailoring of treatments and assessments to specific groups (e.g., Khoury & Manuel, 2016; Wendt & Gone, 2012). We agree with the idea of tailoring, but we speculate that some definitions are explicitly general while applications remain implicitly specific. This discrepancy between culturally general and specific perspectives perpetuates confusion about the true meaning of the construct. The exclusion of White clients from the equation further muddies the definition. Individuals who identify as White also have a racial and ethnic identity and a cultural context that bears consideration.

Some authors have attempted to create a definition that is simultaneously general and specific. For example, Tao et al. (2015) stated: “Multicultural competence has generally been defined as having both the ability to work effectively across diverse cultural groups and the specific expertise to treat clients from certain culturally diverse groups as well as minority and underrepresented groups” (p. 337). These authors’ definition concludes that both general knowledge and specific skills should constitute multicultural counseling competence. Although this is an effort to resolve the tension between inclusivity and exclusivity, the field overall still needs to clarify its stance. S. Sue (1998) was astute in pinpointing the issue when he asked several questions:

If a person is culturally effective with one group, is that person a culturally competent therapist? Or does culturally competent mean that one is effective with more than one culturally distinct group? If one of the characteristics of cultural competency is knowing the cultures of groups, and if it is impossible to really know the cultures of all groups in society, can one even be truly culturally competent? (p. 445)

S. Sue’s (1998) questions pinpoint the heart of the debate. He offered a core reason for his questions. The field has not reached a consensus on whether multicultural counseling competence is a culturally general construct, culturally specific construct, or culturally a construct combining the two perspectives. Allowing this issue to remain unresolved means that any definition of the construct will undermine the achievement of its purpose. The resolution requires a cogent rationale for the preference of one stance over the other.

We assert that the general–specific divide is artificial because the broader issue is the unaddressed meaning of multicultural. The assumption underlying the divide is that various groups, defined by phenotypic characteristics, are constitutionally different from each other. The implication is that members of one group undergo change differently from members of other groups. The assumption begs the issue of race as a social construction, not a biological fact, creating a distortion of the term multicultural. We argue that because all human beings have the same biological and psychological constitution, they change in similar ways. After all, everyone shares 99% of the underlying gene sequence (Venter et al., 2001). We suggest the descriptor multicultural in multicultural counseling competence should indicate that we incorporate culture in counseling to facilitate the common internal process of therapeutic change applicable to all people. The competence lies in the intentional incorporation of culture, not use of different interventions specific to each group.

Terminological Interchange: Aren’t They Really the Same?

It is tempting to interchange a number of phrases with multicultural counseling competence, especially given the construct’s current lack of a sound definition (e.g., McRae & Johnson, 1991). Some of the common terms used synonymously but erroneously with multicultural counseling competence are: cultural sensitivity, cross-cultural effectiveness, cultural competency, cultural expertise, cultural proficiency, cultural relevance, cultural responsiveness, multicultural therapy competence, and cultural appropriateness. In addition, scholars often use terms such as cultural, cross-cultural, and multicultural interchangeably as prefixes or modifiers of the noun competence, or one of its variants. Finally, scholars also use the phrases multicultural competence and multicultural counseling competence interchangeably—a problem we have attributed to the construct’s currently indistinct purpose in the literature.

This jumbling of terms is an easy mistake to make. The consequences are many constructs with indeterminable meanings. On the surface, some of the constructs seem to be more related than are others, and scholars frequently use them as though they are synonymous. Returning to Castro’s (1998) chapter, “Cultural Competence Training in Clinical Psychology: Assessments, Clinical Intervention, and Research,” illustrates this problem:

The chapter presents a three-factor model for describing and rating the capacity of a clinical psychologist or other health professionals to conduct culturally effective assessments, clinical interventions, and research with members of ethnic minority populations. The overall aim of this model is to provide a specific and clinically useful system that guides skills training towards the development of cultural competence. . . . It assumes that attaining the highest level of cultural capacity, which is cultural proficiency. (pp. 127–128)

How are the phrases culturally effective, cultural competence, cultural capacity, and cultural proficiency similar in this passage? How are they different? It is difficult to tell, but Castro (1998) seemed to use them interchangeably. To his credit, he presented a six-level continuum of cultural capacity and made sure to define each level, labeling the three highest levels as cultural sensitivity, cultural competence, and cultural proficiency. His developmental perspective of cultural capacity is useful, but it could be even more helpful if he sharply defined his levels. Indeed, without explicit information about the various terms, it is difficult to assess a professional’s level of functioning or mastery of each level. Moreover, Castro left readers to ponder: first, whether the levels are really similar or different; and second, to what extent they are similar or different. The lack of clarity renders the concepts of cultural sensitivity, cultural competence, cultural capacity, and cultural proficiency as indistinguishable from one another.

Successive literature perpetuates the problem. The most frequently interchanged terms are multicultural competence, cultural competence, and multicultural counseling competence (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017; Barden et al., 2017; Ivers et al., 2016; D. W. Sue, 2001). Other phrases like multicultural self-efficacy, cross-cultural competence, cultural validity, and cultural humility add to the intermingling (Hook & Watkins, 2015; Robitschek & Hardin, 2017; S. Sue et al., 2009; Wei et al., 2012). Are these terms really the same? Do the authors intend them to be synonyms or represent different concepts? Consider Hook and Watkins’ (2015) suggestion that cultural humility is a foundational component of the construct: “cultural humility—an important component of multicultural competence and multicultural orientation—has recently begun to gain increasing traction as a vital construct and practice-crucial variable in psychological service provision” (p. 661). In reading their work, it is difficult to distinguish their description of cultural humility from how other scholars describe multicultural competence. Accordingly, we need to disentangle these terms.

Confusing Competency With Competence: Aren’t They Different?

Widespread misuse of the terms competency and competence has largely been unaddressed in the literature. We take the position that competence is the determination, facilitation, evaluation, and sustainment of intended outcomes, while competency is a demonstrable component of competence (Leigh et al., 2007; Ridley et al., 2011). Each competency under the umbrella of competence has a distinct purpose that contributes to achieving the intended outcomes. Many scholars equate multicultural counseling competence with multicultural counseling competencies (e.g., Owen, Leach, et al., 2011). Examine two sequential sentences in an article by Pope-Davis et al. (1995): “Until these training efforts and the multicultural competence level of psychology trainees are evaluated. . . . Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the multicultural counseling competencies of graduate students in counseling and clinical psychology” (p. 323). Not only are terms interchanged in this passage, but this swap also implies that multicultural counseling competence can be directly determined by measuring multicultural counseling competencies. We are concerned that using these terms interchangeably obscures their meaning and the relationship between the two terms.

Consider this sentence Wei et al. (2012) wrote: “Thus far, a few scales have [been] developed to assess multicultural competences” (p. 108). What are competences? Although this just may have been an editorial oversight, using these terms as synonyms has occurred in so many other writings that this disregard for precision reflects a greater problem among scholars: widespread misconceptions about the distinction between the two constructs.

Equating competence with competencies leaves both concepts undefined and makes the relationship between them fuzzy at best. Competencies are the components of competence. Does that mean that competence is nothing more than a group of competencies? The word competencies is actually the plural of competency, not competence, while the plural of the word competence is competences, not competencies. Grammatically, the words competence and competency are already distinct from each other, so conceptually they also should be unique. However, we have observed that many authors overlook any difference between the two terms.

At first glance, the linguistic use of these words may seem to be a trivial issue, but we argue that this lack of distinction in using the terms competence and competency has enabled a conceptual flaw in our understanding of each. Whether swapping the terms fostered the misconception or the conceptual flaw engendered the swapping, the fact remains that there is a misconception that multicultural counseling competence is equivalent to its individual components. We assert that scholars must renounce the indiscriminate use of competence and competency. Multicultural counseling competence is a construct of much greater complexity than just the collection, aggregate, or set of various competencies.

Lack of Integration: Is the Whole Just the Sum?

Hladik’s (2016) definition of multicultural counseling competence exemplifies the misconception inherent in confusing competence with competencies. The confusion leads to another definitional problem, which is the lack of integration among the components of the construct. Note the use of “set”:

Multicultural competence is a set of skills and knowledge (the cognitive component), attitudes (the affective or emotional component), and skills (the behavioral component) used by an individual for effective and conflict-free communication with members of diverse cultures, nationalities, ethnicities, and races. (Hladik, 2016, pp. 42–43)

Set is “a collection of articles designed for use together” (Dictionary.com, n.d.). By describing multicultural competence as a set, Hladik (2016) implies that the three components of knowledge, attitudes, and skills are not only a collection but also function together based upon a predetermined design. The implication of these components functioning together is unsubstantiated and has been a problem in the definition for a long time, as an older example from Constantine and Ladany (2000) illustrates. Note the use of “aggregate”: “Multicultural counseling competence has been defined as the aggregate of counselors’ attitudes/beliefs, knowledge, and skills in working with individuals from a variety of cultural (e.g., racial, ethnic, gender, social class, and sexual orientation) groups” (p. 155).

Multicultural counseling competence is more than the aggregation or collection of competencies. Even excelling in every competency separately does not automatically equate with competence. Counselors may have knowledge of between-group differences, be culturally self-aware, and manage a client’s cultural transference. However, if counselors do not know how these individual components work together, they simply may be executing these areas of knowledge in a rote fashion. This execution would be an exercise in futility. Counselors really need to coordinate and integrate the various competencies to facilitate therapeutic change. Thus, integral to multicultural counseling competence is not aggregation but coordination and integration of specific competencies to achieve a predetermined outcome.

The error in assuming that mastery of individual competencies equates with multicultural counseling competence has been prevalent in efforts to evaluate multicultural counseling competence. A few sentences after his definition, Hladik (2016) wrote, “Multicultural competence is typically divided into subcomponents that represent the components of the multicultural competence and are observable (measurable) separately. These subcomponents form a model of multicultural competence” (p. 43). Even if one can observe the subcomponents separately, they must be careful not to assume that doing so is an accurate evaluation of multicultural counseling competence itself. In any systematic process, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore, a measurement of the parts, especially disjointedly, does not necessarily indicate an appraisement of the whole.

Most measures that claim to assess clinicians’ multicultural counseling competence do not account for the necessary coordination and integration of specific competencies. They really only ask clinicians to rate their agreement to statements that separate knowledge, skills, and awareness. Notable of these measures are the Multicultural Awareness/Knowledge/Skills Survey (D’Andrea et al., 1991), Multicultural Counseling Inventory (Sodowsky et al., 1994), Multicultural Counseling Competence toward Arabs and Arab Americans (Khoury & Manuel, 2016), and Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale-Revised (Lu, 2017). The assumed aggregation of items within these measures delegitimizes their operational validity. Even if developers of these instruments reach reasonable psychometric properties, this still does not address the inherent complexity of the construct and therefore interactions among the constituent components. To rectify the problem, scholars must reconceptualize multicultural counseling competence to include the interactions between and among the different components. We agree with Trimble (2013) who proffered, “If we cannot come to an agreement on what the constructs mean then we have no business developing scales to measure them” (p. 58).

No Definition: Is It Useful If It Is Undefined?

Although the phrase multicultural counseling competence and its variants appear widely in the literature, explicit definitions of the construct often are conspicuous by their absence (e.g., Ancis, 1998; APA, 2017: Beckett et al., 1997; Salzman, 2000). Citing the tripartite model of D. W. Sue et al. (1982) and D. W. Sue et al. (1992) is a common way authors try to define multicultural counseling competence (e.g., Lu, 2017; Shaw, 2016; Smith & Trimble, 2016). At first glance, this may seem acceptable. However, we need to realize that Sue et al. designed a model—a guide for demonstrating multicultural counseling competence—not a definition of the construct itself. Definitions serve as the conceptual foundation for models. Therefore, before building or referring to a model, scholars need to define the entity they purportedly are modeling. Otherwise, they are building on volatile ground. It is a mistake to reference models by bypassing the intellectual task of defining constructs that undergird them. Thus, some authors who appear to define multicultural counseling competence actually have not done so at all.

Other authors prioritize explaining their perspective about the construct but lack strong statements about their definition of the construct. For instance, Collins and Arthur (2010a; 2010b) wrote two sequential articles to propose an alternative to multicultural counseling competence (i.e., culture-infused counseling). The statement most indicative of their understanding of multicultural counseling competence is, “Each of us faces the challenge of identifying our current level of multicultural competence and identifying the attitudes and beliefs, knowledge, and skills that we require to work with clients who are culturally different from ourselves” (Collins & Arthur, 2010b, p. 217). This statement falls short of being an actual definition. In fact, it can be interpreted in conflicting ways. On one hand, the statement could imply some close relationship between multicultural counseling competence and the clinician’s attitudes and beliefs, knowledge, and skills. What that relationship might be, though, is unspecified. On the other hand, the statement could imply that identifying your level of multicultural competence is something different from identifying your attitudes and beliefs, knowledge, and skills, indicating some separation between the two. It is hard to distinguish which implication is being argued. Therefore, without clarity, evaluating the criticisms offered of the flaws in multicultural counseling competence places its constructiveness in doubt.

This raises an important question: Can you evaluate a construct without defining it? The literature espouses a variety of conceptualizations of multicultural counseling competence, so if the authors do not first provide a clear definition, readers cannot be sure which version the authors mean to critique. We appreciate scholars’ critical thinking about multicultural counseling competence, but any criticisms would be stronger if authors first defined the construct. Even when scholars want to replace multicultural counseling competence, they first should define what they are replacing and then define their proposed replacement. Clear definitions build the foundation for meaningful discussions.

Ambiguity: Is It This, That, or Something Else?

A construct is ambiguous if it can be assigned more than one meaning depending on the context or if the appropriate meaning is unclear in a particular context (Halpern, 2014). Ambiguous constructs compel readers to guess at the author’s intended meaning from among the multiple possibilities. Guessing introduces the risk that readers miss the author’s important points. Even S. Sue’s (1998) classic article, “In Search of Cultural Competence in Psychotherapy and Counseling,” contains some ambiguity, “. . .cultural competence involves effectiveness in psychotherapy” (p. 445). In using the word “effectiveness,” S. Sue’s definition of cultural competence corresponds with the concept we call multicultural counseling competence. His usage connotes the purpose of therapeutic change, making his quote relevant to our critique.

What does his definition actually mean? We arrived at three possibilities. First, it could mean that any competent psychotherapist is automatically competent as a multicultural therapist. Used in this manner, cultural competence is one criterion among many criteria needed for effectiveness as a therapist. Second, it could mean that effectiveness, as a therapist in general, is a prerequisite for becoming competent as a multicultural therapist. Used in this way, effectiveness in psychotherapy could be one criterion among a group of criteria for multicultural counseling competence. Third, it could mean that only therapists who have multicultural competence are effective as therapists. Used in this manner, cultural competence is the only criterion needed for effectiveness as a therapist.

Why are so many interpretations possible? The use of the word “involves” is ambiguous. In S. Sue’s (1998) definition of cultural competence, the word involves could indicate a sole criterion of effectiveness, one of the multiple criteria of effectiveness, or effectiveness as one of the multiple criteria for multicultural counseling competence. Unfortunately, readers cannot ascertain from the text which of these meanings S. Sue intended but can only make their own assumptions.

When defining multicultural counseling competence, scholars should determine whether readers could glean more than one meaning from their definition. If the answer is yes, they should revise the definition to reflect the greater accuracy of their perspective. Specifically, they should scrutinize the verbs in their definitions to avoid unintended interpretations. To be fair, we acknowledge S. Sue for later revising his definition by adding concrete steps to his multidimentional process (S. Sue, 2006). We balance this acknowledgment with the recognition that his earlier article is widely cited in the literature and therefore, remains influential on the thinking of the field.

Equivocation: Wait! Did It Change Meaning in the Same Text?

Imagine reading one definition of a term, only later to find it defined differently and then the difference eludes your attention. Equivocation occurs when the meaning of a construct changes in the course of the same discussion (Halpern, 2014). Sometimes the change is so subtle that readers and authors themselves are oblivious to the change. Subtle changes may be difficult to detect in theoretical writings, especially when scholars in the field are still trying to determine the construct’s meaning.

Equivocation surfaces in Lopez’ (1997) chapter where he first used the phrase cultural competence. At the outset of his chapter, he stated, “Cultural competence, multicultural competence, and cultural sensitivity all concern therapists’ ability to treat people of diverse cultural backgrounds in ways that respect, value, and integrate their sociocultural context” (Lopez, 1997, p. 570). Later in the chapter, he stated, “The essence of cultural competence in working with clients from diverse cultural groups is moving between two cultural perspectives, that of the therapist and that of the client” (Lopez, 1997, p. 575).

Examine the differences between these definitions. In the first one, Lopez (1997) emphasized the nature of the therapist’s behavior toward clients from diverse cultural backgrounds. The behavior consists of respecting, valuing, and integrating the client’s sociocultural context. In the second definition, however, he emphasized the nature of the therapist–client interaction, which consists of moving between the cultural perspectives of both participants. Lopez warned clinicians against imposing their cultural perspectives onto clients but also acknowledged that their own perspectives may be alternatives for clients to consider.

Granted, based on subsequent information in the chapter, readers can infer that Lopez (1997) primarily emphasized therapist–client collaboration. This collaboration leads to an interpretation of the client’s behavior that considers the lay as well as the professional perspective, with the full respect and consideration of both. However, the author’s first definition does not suggest that the clinician’s cultural perspective influences the interpretation of the client’s behavior. Indeed, it excludes the interactional emphasis found in the second definition and falls just short of implying that all that matters is the client’s cultural perspective.

Circular Reasoning: Can It Define Itself?

Many definitions of the construct are a tautology, the basis of which is circular reasoning. Circular reasoning entails using a word to define itself, thereby failing to clarify the word’s meaning. Note this example from Lecca et al. (1998):

Current literature stresses the importance of cultural competency, urging practitioners to utilize skills and knowledge that are culturally competent in order to prevent the underutilization and premature termination of services by minority individuals. If practitioners do not incorporate culturally competent skills and knowledge in their assessments, diagnosis, and treatment, many minority patients will fall victim to the ‘culturally encapsulated’ practitioner. (p. 7)

The tautology is the use of the phrase culturally competent to define cultural competency. As a point of clarification, the authors did not define cultural competency elsewhere in the text. Such a definition would indicate that becoming culturally encapsulated results from a lack of cultural competence, and therefore, as worded, it would not be a tautology. Circular reasoning also appears more subtly in other definitions of multicultural counseling competence. For example, authors often use the word effective or ability to define the construct. However, the Pocket Oxford American Thesaurus (Zimmer, 2008) identified the word competence as a synonym of effectiveness and ability. Therefore, using a form of the word effective or ability to define competence fails to add meaning.

We revisit this statement by Tao et al. (2015): “Multicultural competence has generally been defined as having both the ability to work effectively across diverse cultural groups and the specific expertise to treat clients from certain culturally diverse groups” (p. 337). Discussing work with diverse cultural groups adds some meaning to the definition. However, to further illustrate the circular reasoning inherent in using effective to define competence, let us exchange the two words with each other. The exchange reads, “Multicultural effectiveness has generally been defined as having both the ability to work competently across diverse cultural groups and the specific competence to treat clients from certain culturally diverse groups. . .”

This new wording hardly affects the meaning of the statement. This inconsequential change in meaning results from the fact that the authors essentially are saying: “To be competent is to be effective.” In fact, Nickerson (2015) offered a similar definition, “Competence is defined as ‘the capacity to function effectively’” (p. 5). However, since competent has a meaning similar to effective, this is akin to saying, “To be competent is to be competent.”

Divergence: Is it a Character, Skill, or Process?

Scholars thwart intellectual discourse by holding differing assumptions about the nature of multicultural counseling competence. Some authors regard the construct as a characteristic of the clinician. Others view it as the application of skills, and still others see it as a process that unfolds in therapy. S. Sue et al. (2009) also noted this discrepancy in defining the construct, stating that “one meaningful way of conceptualizing the definitions of competency is to note that some emphasize the (a) kind of person one is, (b) skills or intervention tactics that one uses, or (c) processes involved” (p. 529).

This divergence is troublesome in an antithetical way to the previously noted problem of the terminological interchange. Here scholars use the same vocabulary, yet they define the words in entirely different ways. On the surface, they all may seem to be discussing multicultural counseling competence, but in actuality, they have unacknowledged, disparate assumptions about the nature of the construct. This precludes meaningful discourse on the topic. Essentially, although they use a common vocabulary, they actually are not speaking a common language. They compound the problem by not stating their assumptions.

How one theorizes this construct directly influences the advice for developing this competence and constructing measures of it. Those who see multicultural counseling competence primarily as a characteristic of the clinician are likely to focus on increasing the therapist’s awareness, flexibility, and communication. Those who see the construct primarily as a skill of the clinician are likely to focus on the suitability of interventions. Those who see the construct primarily as a process are likely to focus on the type of interactions that occur between clinicians and clients. Unless a theoretical conceptualization intertwines the three foci, they separately are problematic for defining the foci.

Three Major Models

Despite how numerous and disparate the models seem, they share commonalities that form the basis of a classification system. Huey et al. (2014) showed impressive insight by sorting the models into three major groups: (a) skills-based models, (b) adaptation models, and (c) process-oriented models. We appreciate this classification system and offer a description of these models. However, it does not escape our notice that these three categories are direct outgrowths of the definitional issue of divergence.

Limitations Across Models

Each of the three types of models has contributed to our understanding of how to apply multicultural counseling competence. However, they also share common limitations, comparable to flaws in GPSs. These flaws can result from the inadequately surveyed landscape they represent, which is analogous to the definitional problems of the construct. They also can be attributable to disproportionate or misrepresentative depictions of the actual landscape, which is not necessarily a reflection of a deficiency in the survey. Useful GPSs are the result of an adequate survey and accurate representation of the landscape.

We identified six limitations across the three models that hinder the utility of the models. In our opinion, the limitations stem primarily from the pervasive definitional problems. Even if scholars adequately surveyed the multicultural landscape, the models still may be misleading due to design flaws that misrepresent the terrain of the construct.