Discuss your experiences taking the the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Working Alliance Self-Efficacy Scale and the Arab-Muslim IAT:
- What strengths and weaknesses are revealed in the scale and assessment?
- Revisit your response to the Unit 1 discussion question “How does your identity align with the Thomas and Schwarzbaum discussion of oppression? Explain how your identity and experiences with oppression are connected to your scores on the scale and assessment.
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Working Aliance Self-Efficacy Scales (LGB-WASES)
Acronym:LGB-WASESSource Used:The majority of metadata for this record was created from PsycINFO Record: 2009-01388-005Purpose:The Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Working Alliance Self-Efficacy Scales (LGB-WASES) was developed to provide reliable and valid measure designed to assess counselors’ LGB-affirmative self-efficacy beliefs with regard to their ability to form a working alliance with an LGB client.Description:The Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Working Alliance Self-Efficacy Scales (LGB-WASES, 2009) was constructed to provide reliable and valid measure designed to assess counselors’ LGB-affirmative self-efficacy beliefs with regard to their ability to form a working alliance with an LGB client. The development of the LGB-WASES was based on a synthesis of theory on the working alliance (Bordin, 1979, 1994) and LGB-affirmative counseling (APA, 2000; Fassinger, 1991; Fassinger & Richie, 1997; Perez et al., 2000). Items were developed by the authors for each of the three theorized components of the working alliance (i.e., goals, tasks, bond). An initial pool of 90 items was written for the experimental form of the LGB-WASES. Three doctoral-level counseling psychology graduate students and three licensed mental health professionals reviewed and then rated each item for fit with the hypothesized subscale. Additionally, graduate students and the mental health professionals provided feedback on the clarity of items, and indicated if items reflected the types of concerns that students may experience when learning to work with and form a working alliance with an LGB client. These procedures resulted in 19 items being rewritten and the deletion of six items. This item development process resulted in 84-items for the experimental version of LGB-WASES. Participants (303 psychology students) were asked to respond to the items on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 to 10 (0 = cannot do at all, 5 = moderately certain can do, 10 = certain can do). A Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value of .98 was found, indicating that the sample size and distribution of values were appropriate for a factor analysis. The Test of Sphericity was also significant (p < .01), indicating multivariate normality and suggesting that the data set was appropriate for a factor analysis. Factor analyses resulted in the retention of 32 items for the final measure, and a three-factor solution accounted for 73% of the total variance. Factor 1 accounted for 60% of the variance and consisted of 13 items. This factor was named Emotional Bond. The second factor consisted of 13 items and accounted for 9% of the variance. This factor was named Task. Factor 3 consisted of six items and accounted for an additional 4% of the variance. This factor was named Goal. Using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients we computed internal reliability estimates, which were: Emotional Bond (.97), Task (.96), Goal (.94), and LGB-WASES total scale (.98). The total scale scores of the Counselor Activity Self-Efficacy Scales and Multicultural Counseling Inventory were used to examine convergent validity. Results indicated that both counselor general self-efficacy (correlations from .19 to .43) and multicultural counseling competency (correlations from .35 to .46) were positively and moderately related to LGB-WASES subscale and total scores. The LGB-WASES had moderate (r = -.39) to strong (r = -.63) inverse correlations with Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men subscales, indicating that less negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men were associated with higher perceived abilities among counselor trainees in developing an emotional bond, developing counseling goals and identifying appropriate counseling tasks. (PsycTESTS Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)Test Year:2009Author:Burkard, Alan W.; Pruitt, Nathan T.; Medler, Barbara R.; Stark-Booth, Ann M.Email:Burkard, Alan W.: email@example.comAffiliation:Burkard, Alan W.. Marquette University, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
Pruitt, Nathan T.. Marquette University, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
Medler, Barbara R.. Private Practice, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Stark-Booth, Ann M.. North Dakota State University Counseling Center, Educational Counseling and Chemical Dependency Counseling Services, North Dakota, United StatesCorrespondence:Burkard, Alan W., Marquette University, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology P. O. Box 1881Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States, 53201-1881, firstname.lastname@example.org Instrument Type:Rating ScaleFormat:Thirty-two-item measure; 11-point scale ranging from 0 to 10 (0 = cannot do at all, 5 = moderately certain can do, 10 = certain can do).Language Present:EnglishLanguage Available:EnglishConstruct:Working Alliance; Self EfficacyTest File:Full text; 999900319_full_001.pdfCommercial Availability:NoPermissions:May use for Research/TeachingFee:NoTest Items Available:YesClassification:7900 Treatment, Rehabilitation, and Therapeutic ProcessesReliability:Internal consistency: Internal consistency coefficient alphas were .98, .97, .96, .94 for the total scale and Bond, Task, and Goals factors, respectively. Test-retest reliability: The stability coefficients were in the moderate to high range on Factors 1 (Bond; r = .90) and 2 (Task; r = .79), and total scale (r = .83), whereas Factor 3 was in the low range (Goal; r = .63).Validity:Convergent validity: Using the total scale scores of the CASES and MCI to examine convergent validity, both counselor general self-efficacy (correlations from .19 to .43) and multicultural counseling competency (correlations from .35 to .46) were positively and moderately related to LGB-WASES subscale and total scores. Discriminant validity: There were no strong associations between LGB-WASES scales and the SDS, although the Goal subscale had a statistically significant correlation of small magnitude (r = .23). Additionally, the LGB-WASES had moderate (r = -.39) to strong (r = -.63) inverse correlations with the ATLG subscales.Factor Analysis:No factor analysis indicated.Methodology:1000 Test Validity
1040 Convergent Validity
1060 Discriminant Validity
1100 Test Reliability
1110 Internal Consistency
1140 Test-Retest ReliabilityNumber of Test Items:The LGB-WASES consists of 32 items with a three-factor model: (a) Emotional Bond, (b) Establishing Tasks, and (c) Setting Goals.Administration Method:PaperAge Group:Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Young Adulthood (18-29 yrs); Thirties (30-39 yrs); Middle Age (40-64 yrs)Population Group:Human; Male; FemaleOther Population Details:Location: US
Sample: Counseling TraineesKeywords:Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Working Alliance Self-Efficacy Scales; Test Development; Lesbian; Gay; Bisexual; Working Alliance; Counseling Self EfficacyIndex Terms:Bisexuality; Counselor Characteristics; Factor Structure; Homosexuality; Lesbianism; Professional Competence; Test Construction; Test Reliability; Test Validity; Therapeutic AllianceSource Citation:Test Development
Burkard, Alan W. (2009). Validity and reliability of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Working Alliance Self-Efficacy Scales. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3(1), 37-46. doi: 10.1037/1931-3922.214.171.124
PsycINFO Record: 2009-01388-005Test Release Date:20110912Test Correction Date:20151109Digital Object Identifier:http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1037/t00319-000 Accession Number:9999-00319-000