Skill Assessment: Discuss Your Experiences Taking The LESB

Skill Assessmentdiscuss Your Experiences Taking The The Lesbian Gay

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."

Paper For Above instruction

Participating in self-assessment tools like the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Working Alliance Self-Efficacy Scale (LGB-WASES) and the Arab-Muslim Implicit Association Test (IAT) offers deep insights into personal biases, confidence levels, and professional competencies related to working across diverse identities. Such assessments not only inform personal growth but also enhance the capacity to foster affirmative and effective therapeutic relationships. Reflecting on my experiences with these scales reveals both strengths and weaknesses, which are intertwined with my social identity and awareness of oppression.

Beginning with the LGB-WASES, this tool measures a counselor’s self-efficacy in supporting LGB clients through forming a working alliance based on goals, tasks, and bonds. My engagement with this scale highlighted a significant strength: a high internal confidence in establishing emotional bonds and setting achievable goals with LGB clients. The scale's robust reliability, with alpha coefficients ranging from .94 to .98, underscores its effectiveness in capturing genuine self-efficacy beliefs. My own scores, which reflect positive attitudes and confidence, align with my background of being raised in an environment that prioritized acceptance of diverse sexual orientations, thereby bolstering my comfort level and affirming beliefs in my professional capabilities.

However, a notable weakness surfaced when considering the scale's limitations. Despite high confidence in emotional bonding, the lower test-retest reliability for the goal-setting subscale (r = .63) suggests that my perceived abilities to establish long-term therapeutic goals may fluctuate based on contextual factors or personal states. This variability indicates an area for ongoing development, emphasizing the importance of continual learning and cultural competence to solidify my efficacy in helping LGB clients achieve meaningful therapeutic progress.

Transitioning to the Arab-Muslim IAT, this tool uncovers subconscious biases that may influence interactions, often operating beneath conscious awareness. Engaging with this assessment revealed an implicit bias that I was initially unaware of—an unconscious association negating my awareness of the ingrained stereotypes linked to Arab-Muslim communities. Identifying this bias was a pivotal moment, illustrating a common weakness in the realm of implicit attitudes that can hinder culturally competent practice. Recognizing such biases aligns with Thomas and Schwarzbaum’s discussion of oppression, as it emphasizes the necessity of ongoing self-awareness to combat systemic prejudices within therapeutic and societal contexts.

My identity—as an individual from a relatively privileged background—initially shaped a perception of neutrality; however, the IAT exposed the disparity between perceived and implicit attitudes. This disconnect underscores the importance of ongoing self-examination and cultural humility, especially considering the social and institutional oppression faced by Arab-Muslim communities. Connecting this to my earlier response in Unit 1, where I reflected on the impact of societal oppression on marginalized groups, it becomes evident that my own privilege and unexamined biases could inadvertently perpetuate oppressive dynamics if left unchecked. Therefore, the assessment underscores the necessity of integrating cultural humility into professional practice, ensuring that implicit biases do not compromise therapeutic rapport or reinforce systemic inequalities.

In terms of strengths, these assessments importantly highlight areas of confidence—my ability to form bonds with LGB clients and my openness to acknowledging personal growth. Conversely, weaknesses such as fluctuations in goal-setting self-efficacy and unrecognized biases demonstrate the ongoing need for self-reflection, supervision, and cultural humility. By integrating insights from both assessments, I am reminded that effective, affirming counseling requires a continuous commitment to self-awareness and social justice. Applying Thomas and Schwarzbaum’s framework of oppression, I recognize that understanding my own social position is critical in resisting oppressive practices and fostering an inclusive therapeutic environment.

Ultimately, these assessment experiences reinforce that personal awareness of biases and professional self-efficacy are dynamic and require sustained effort. Embracing these insights empowers me to serve diverse clients more ethically and empathetically, actively challenging systemic oppression and promoting healing from marginalization. Reflecting on my experiences underscores that social identities and their related oppressions are not static but are lived realities that influence therapeutic effectiveness and ethical practice. Therefore, ongoing engagement with such assessments should be an integral part of professional development in counseling and psychotherapy.

References

  • Burkard, A. W., Pruitt, N. T., Medler, B. R., & Stark-Booth, A. M. (2009). Validity and reliability of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Working Alliance Self-Efficacy Scales. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1037/.3.1.37
  • Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.
  • Fassinger, R. E. (1991). Counseling lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients: A manual for mental health professionals. American Psychological Association.
  • Perez, M., Mason, J., & Schein, S. (2000). Counseling lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients: A handbook for therapists. Guilford Press.
  • Thomas, D., & Schwarzbaum, S. E. (2011). Oppression, privilege, and counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(3), 323–333.
  • APA. (2000). Guidelines for psychologists working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. American Psychologist, 55(9), 1001–1017.
  • Fassinger, R. E., & Richie, J. (1997). Understanding faculty self-efficacy in counseling diverse students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 75(2), 152–159.
  • Marquette University. (2009). Development of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Working Alliance Self-Efficacy Scales. PsycTESTS Database.
  • Schwarzbaum, S. E., & Thomas, D. (2012). Addressing implicit biases in counseling practice: Strategies and considerations. Journal of Professional Counseling, Practice, Theory & Research, 39(2), 45–61.
  • Fitzgerald, C. J., & Hurst, S. (2009). Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: A systematic review. Journal of Health Psychology, 20(6), 819–830.

Related Assignments