articles

race and ethnicity in empirical research:

an 18-year review
Kimber L. Shelton, Edward A. Delgado-Romero,
and Eliza M. Wells
extending previous research (e. a. delgado-romero, n. galván, p. Maschino,
& M. rowland, 2005) regarding race and ethnicity in counseling and counseling
psychology, this article examined how race and ethnicity were reported and
used in empirical studies published in diversity-focused journals from 1990
to 2007. the results are discussed and compared with previous findings.
ampliando investigaciones anteriores (e. a. delgado-romero, n. galván, p. Mas-
chino, & M. rowland, 2005) sobre raza y etnicidad en la consejería y psicología
terapéutica, este artículo examina cómo la raza y etnicidad fueron presentadas
y utilizadas en los estudios empíricos aparecidos en publicaciones centradas en
la diversidad desde 1990 hasta 2007. los resultados se analizan y comparan
con los de hallazgos anteriores.

A
lthough counseling has a mixed history regarding service provision
and research with racial and ethnic minority populations in the United
States (e.g., Guthrie, 2004), a consensus seems to be emerging that
racial and ethnic minority-focused practice and research should be valued
among mental health professionals (e.g., Arredondo et al., 1996; Sue, Arre-
dondo, & McDavis, 1992). The attention to minority populations is reflected
in the code of ethics of the American Counseling Association (Glosoff & Ko-
cet, 2006) and in the increased number of publications focused on diversity,
race, and ethnicity. For example, Arredondo, Rosen, Rice, Perez, and Tovar-
Gamero (2005) documented an increase in the number of articles related to
multicultural counseling in the Journal of Counseling & Development. Similarly,
D’Andrea and Heckman (2008) reviewed 40 years of multicultural counseling
outcome research and noted the increase in interest and sophistication of
this line of research. The Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development
(JMCD) in particular has made consistent and significant contributions to
the area of diversity-focused research throughout its history (see Lau, Cisco,
& Delgado-Romero, 2008; Leach, Behrens, & Rowe, 1996; Ponterotto, 1986;
Pope-Davis, Ligiero, Liang, & Codrington, 2001).
Kimber L. Shelton, Edward A. Delgado-Romero, and Eliza M. Wells, Department of Counseling and Human
Development Services, University of Georgia. Kimber L. Shelton is now at Counseling and Testing Center,
Georgia State University; Eliza M. Wells is now at Center for Counseling, Learning and Testing, University
of Memphis. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Edward A. Delgado-Romero,
Department of Counseling and Human Development Services, College of Education, University of Georgia,
402 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602 (e-mail: edelgado@uga.edu).
© 2009 american counseling association. all rights reserved.

130 journal of Multicultural counseling and developMent • july 2009 • vol. 37

 However, even with the expressed endorsement of diversity and ethnic
minority-focused research, issues remain concerning reporting race and
ethnicity and determining research participants’ race and ethnicity (see
Carter, Akinsulure-Smith, Smailes, & Clauss, 1998; Delgado-Romero, Galván,
Maschino, & Rowland, 2005). Although the reporting of race and ethnicity
of sample populations is a matter of policy for research (e.g., American Psy-
chological Association [APA], 2003), researchers do not universally report
the racial and ethnic compositions of research participants. Delgado-Romero
et al. investigated the issue of racial and ethnic categorization in empiri-
cal counseling research through an examination of 796 empirical studies
published from 1990 to 1999 in the Journal of Counseling & Development, the
Journal of Counseling Psychology, and The Counseling Psychologist. Over time,
the reporting of race and ethnicity increased (26% in 1990 to 80% in 1999)
but was not universal. For example, when included, race and ethnicity were
reported in broad, general levels without specifics as to how a participant’s
race or ethnicity was determined.
Historically, the issues related to exclusion of ethnic minority populations in
research led in part to the creation of associations, such as the Association for
Multicultural Counseling and Development (AMCD) and affiliated journals, such
JMCD, which focused on issues related to ethnic and racial minorities (JMCD was
first called the Journal of Non-White Concerns in Personnel and Guidance; Bond, 1988).
Journals such as JMCD have focused on multicultural issues and often featured
the work of racial and ethnic minority authors (Hall & Maramba, 2001).
For the purpose of this study, we define diversity focused as journals that are
focused on ethnic and racial minorities. In the current study, we present the
results of an analysis of racial and ethnic reporting in research over an 18-
year period (1990–2007) in four diversity-focused journals: Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology (CDEMP), Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
(HJBS), The Journal of Black Psychology (JBP), and JMCD. Using information
from the method sections of component research articles, we generated a
profile of the diversity-focused research participants.
In their conclusion, Delgado-Romero et al. (2005) noted that the reporting
of race and ethnicity in the counseling literature was more likely when articles
had an ethnic minority focus. They recommended that future research should
extend beyond general counseling journals and focus on relevant subspecialties,
such as vocational and ethnic minority psychology. The current study explores
how race and ethnicity were reported in diversity-focused journals. From our
literature review, we presumed that (a) diversity-focused journals would report
the race and ethnicity of study participants at a higher frequency than that re-
ported in previous “general” counseling research, (b) diversity-focused journals
would report how racial and ethnic information was determined and obtained
from participants, and (c) the populations in diversity-focused journals would
predominately consist of racial and ethnic minority individuals.

journal of Multicultural counseling and developMent • july 2009 • vol. 37 131

 method
journals
By surveying journal editors and editorial board members in their investigation
of institutional and individual research productivity in multicultural psychol-
ogy journals, Lau et al. (2008) ascertained the names of the most commonly
used diversity-focused journals, which included CDEMP, HJBS, JBP and JMCD
as well as the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. For the purpose of this study,
we chose to exclude the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology because of the cross-
cultural and cross-national focus of the journal (Hall & Maramba, 2001).
Formally titled Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, CDEMP is the
official journal of APA’s Division 45, the Society for the Psychological Study of
Ethnic Minority Issues. CDEMP seeks to publish articles that advance research
and delivery of services to ethnic and racial minorities (Editorial statement,
2007a). HJBS is a multidisciplinary journal that publishes articles related to
Hispanic issues (Editorial statement, 2007b). JBP dates back to 1974 and pres-
ents scholarly research articles, essays, and commentaries on issues relating
to Black populations and is the official journal of the Association of Black
Psychologists (Editorial statement, 2007c). JMCD publishes articles related to
theory, research, and practice pertinent to multicultural and ethnic minority
interests in all areas of counseling and human development (“About JMCD,”
n.d.). The Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Report (2006) indicated
that HJBS had an impact factor of 0.982 and JMCD had an impact factor of
0.620; CDEMP and JBP were not listed at that time.
For the current study, HJBS, JBP, and JMCD were investigated over an 18-
year period (1990–2007), and CDEMP was investigated over a 13-year period
(because publication of this journal commenced in 1995). A 10-year subset
of data (1990–1999) was directly compared with previous research (Delgado-
Romero et al., 2005).

procedure
The current study consisted of 921 empirical articles published in HJBS, JBP,
and JMCD from January 1990 to December 2007 and in CDEMP from January
1995 to December 2007. Articles had to have at least one research participant
to be included in this study. Therefore, articles without research participants,
such as commentaries, editorials, comments, and theoretical examinations,
and articles that used research participants from a previously published study
(e.g., meta-analyses, Census research) were not included in this study.
The research team consisted of a faculty member (second author; hereinafter
referred to as the lead researcher) and five graduate students (two of whom
were the first and third authors) from a university counseling psychology
program in the southeastern United States. Members of the research team

132 journal of Multicultural counseling and developMent • july 2009 • vol. 37

self-reported their race, ethnicity, and gender: one Latino man, two African
American women, one Asian American woman, one biracial (African American
and Indian) man, and one European American man.
The coders (graduate student research team members) were trained in a
series of meetings, and their training was performed following procedures
used in previous research (Delgado-Romero et al., 2005). The lead researcher
presented the preliminary coding sheet to the coders and demonstrated how
to code an empirical article from one of the component journals. Coders
were assigned to one of the four journals and were responsible for coding
articles published from 1995 to 1999. The research team met on a weekly or
biweekly basis to compare their results and identify any questions or issues
regarding coding or the coding sheet. This process resulted in the final cod-
ing sheet, which was then used to revise previously coded articles and collect
the remaining data from articles published from 1990 to 2007.
The coding sheet was used to gather information from the method sec-
tions of empirical articles: (a) total number of participants, (b) number of
male participants, (c) number of female participants, (d) average age of
participants, (e) total number of participants by race and ethnicity, and (f)
the cross-tabulation of gender by race and ethnicity. The goal of this study
was to report specific numbers in each category; therefore, when studies did
not provide specific numbers, a number was not estimated. For articles that
included multiple studies with more than one population, the data from each
study was combined into a single value when possible.
Because this study focused on race and ethnicity and the conceptual problems in
defining these terms, the coding sheet identified specific guidelines for identify-
ing race and ethnicity. Previous research has indicated that the most commonly
used categories were those used by the U.S. Census Bureau (Delgado-Romero
et al., 2005); therefore, we used these general categories, although we allotted
blank space for coders to record deviations from the use of these terms (e.g.,
German or Chicano). In addition, the coding sheet instructed coders to identify
(a) whether the study stated a specific racial or ethnic focus; (b) how the race
or ethnicity of participants was determined; (c) whether the article provided
information regarding generational status or information about acculturation;
(d) whether the study involved U.S. populations, international populations,
or both; (e) the source for research participant recruitment; (f) the research
design; and (g) whether the study was descriptive or race comparative if race or
ethnicity was specified. An auditing procedure was used to check the accuracy
of coding (see Delgado-Romero et al., 2005).

results
General demographic information about the journals used in this study is
presented in Table 1. In the selected journals, 921 empirical studies over

journal of Multicultural counseling and developMent • july 2009 • vol. 37 133

 TABLE 1
Demographics of Diversity-Focused Journals (1990–2007)

Average
Journal Issues/Year Articles/Issue Pages/Volume Articles/Volume
CDEMP 3.7 8.9 379.6 33.7
HJBS 4.0 7.9 526.3 31.9
JBP 3.6 8.0 426.6 28.8
JMCD 4.0 5.4 275.3 21.8

Note. demographics are provided for all articles, including editorials, book reviews, meta-
analyses, and census analyses. CDEMP = Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology;
HJBS = Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences; JBP = The Journal of Black Psychology;
JMCD = Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development.

the 18-year period reported a total of 225,586 research participants. Table 2

presents the number and percentages of articles and participants by journal.
Differences in numbers of articles were tied to the number of pages per article,
frequency of publication, and overall journal size (e.g., pages). Regarding
gender, 34.9% were male participants and 49.2% were female participants;
15.9% of the studies did not identify participant gender. Participant overall
average age was 28.4 years.

racial and ethnic characteristics

The general racial and ethnic composition of the research participants
over the 18-year span is presented in Table 3. The participants were 38.7%
Hispanic, 22.5% Black, 17.8% White, 9.0% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.6%
American Indian, and 0.4% Multiracial/Biracial; 8.3% were categorized as
“Nonrespondent” (i.e., study did not provide information), and 1.7% were
“Other” (i.e., individuals did not identify as any of the listed classifications).
Furthermore, 57.9% of the studies provided a cross-tabulation of race and
ethnicity with gender, and 41.3% provided information on acculturation
TABLE 2
Number and Percentages of Articles and Participants

Articles Participants
Journal No. % No. %
CDEMP 197 21.3 46,443 20.6
HJBS 311 33.8 103,762 46.0
JBP 232 25.2 47,301 21.0
JMCD 181 19.7 28,080 12.4

Note. CDEMP = Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology; HJBS = Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences; JBP = The Journal of Black Psychology; JMCD = Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development.

134 journal of Multicultural counseling and developMent • july 2009 • vol. 37

 TABLE 3
Racial and Ethnic Composition of Research Participants by Journal

Racial/Ethnic CDEMP HJBS JBP JMCD Total

Classification n % n % n % n % n %
american
indian 1,954 4.2 1,165 1.1 7 >0.1 531 1.9 3,657 1.6
asian/pacific
islander 13,780 29.7 344 0.3 271 0.6 5,769 20.6 20,164 9.0
Black 7,291 15.7 2,774 2.7 34,269 72.4 6,512 23.2 50,846 22.5
hispanic 8,728 18.8 74,250 71.6 1,189 2.5 3,110 11.1 87,277 38.7
White 9,291 20.0 17,752 17.1 5,605 11.8 7,454 26.5 40,102 17.8
Multiracial/
Biracial 572 1.2 29 >0.1 176 0.4 147 0.5 924 0.4
other 741 1.6 822 0.8 458 1.0 1,825 6.5 3,846 1.7
nonrespondent 4,086 8.8 6,626 6.4 5,326 11.3 2,732 9.7 18,770 8.3

Note. nonrespondents did not provide information on the specific race or ethnicity of participants.
the label “other” represents the term used by both the reviewed journals articles and the u.s.
census Bureau to categorize individuals who did not identify as any of the other racial/ethnic
classifications listed. CDEMP = Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology; HJBS =
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences; JBP = The Journal of Black Psychology; JMCD =
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development.

or generational status. Regarding participant nationality, 67.1% used U.S.

populations, 6.2% used international populations, 7.5% used both U.S. and
international populations, and 19.2% did not specify the country of origin
of research participants.

research designs and focus

Overwhelmingly, diversity-focused journals sought to provide information on
racial and ethnic minority populations: 93.9% of the articles stated a specific
race or ethnicity focus. However, 58.3% of articles did not specify how race or
ethnicity of participants was ascertained, 31.2% used participant-completed
checklists, and 10.5% used researcher-conducted interviews. Of the 921 articles
in this study, 64.9% were descriptive of a particular race or ethnicity, 25.9% were
race comparative, and 9.2% were neither descriptive nor race comparative.
The majority of studies in the diversity-focused journals used university popu-
lations (53.9%), 41.8% used community populations, and 4.3% used both uni-
versity and community populations. Of the studies using university populations,
22.7% of the studies used predominately White institutions, 12.0% used minority
serving institutions, 13.1% used both types of institutions, and 52.2% did not
specify the type of institution that served as the data collection site. Similar to
research in general counseling and counseling psychology journals, the majority
of diversity-focused research used quantitative methodology (84.5%), 10.7%
used qualitative methods, and 4.8% used a mixed methodology.

journal of Multicultural counseling and developMent • july 2009 • vol. 37 135

 discussion
As hypothesized, over a 10-year period, the diversity-focused journals reported
the race or ethnicity of participants at a frequency higher than that reported
in general counseling research (90% vs. 76%, respectively; Delgado-Romero
et al., 2005). Thus, the targeted journals reported race or ethnicity of their
participants at a much higher rate than general counseling journals did. This
difference is important because it indicates that these diversity-focused journals
are both fulfilling their stated missions and doing a better job of meeting ethical
and scientific obligations regarding adequate participant specification.
As shown in Table 4, data from this study were compared with 1990–1999
data from the U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002) and with Delgado-
Romero et al.’s (2005) general counseling research to investigate how
the racial and ethnic composition of diversity-focused research compared
with the composition of counseling literature and the U.S. population. In
comparison with the U.S. population, we found that Hispanics (39.4% vs.
10.2%), Blacks (22.4% vs. 12.0%), Asian/Pacific Islanders (6.8% vs. 3.3%),
and American Indians (2.0% vs. 0.7%) were overrepresented and Whites
(18.7% vs. 73.8%) were underrepresented in diversity-focused research.
These trends were replicated for 2000–2007, although no comparison group
exists for general counseling research.
As hypothesized, the percentages of racial and ethnic minority participants
included in the target diversity-focused journals were higher than those of

TABLE 4
Comparison of U.S. Census Data to Multicultural and Race/Ethnicity-
Focused and Counseling Psychology Research
Participants (1990–1999 and 2000–2007)
% % Asian/
American Pacific
Data Indian Islander % Black % Hispanic % White
1990–1999
u.s. census data (2002) 0.7 3.3 12.0 10.2 73.8
race/ethnicity-focused
research 2.0 6.8 22.4 39.4 18.7
counseling psychology
research 0.9 6.0 7.0 7.0 78.0
2000–2007
u.s. census data (n.d.)a 1.0 4.5 12.3 14.7 74.0
race/ethnicity-focused
research 2.0 11.5 22.7 37.8 16.7
Note. race/ethnicity-focused research refers to this current study, and counseling psychology
research refers to delgado-romero et al., 2005.
a
the u.s. census Bureau estimates “hispanic or latino and race” separate from other racial
groups; therefore, u.s. census statistics do not total to 100%.

136 journal of Multicultural counseling and developMent • july 2009 • vol. 37

general counseling research. As would be expected, even Asian Americans,
Native Americans, and Bicultural/Multicultural people were included in
larger numbers in the research samples, despite not having journals focus-
ing specifically on their groups (whereas HJBS focuses on Hispanics and JBP
focuses on African Americans). Editorial statements in CDEMP, HJBS, JBP,
and JMCD propose the adherence to research related to diverse populations.
As evidenced by the high overall number of racial and ethnic minorities in
the reported research and owing to the blind peer-review process, we can
assume that these journals are reporting information pertinent to racial and
ethnic minority populations. However, that the diversity in these journals
also includes the White racial and cultural group should be noted. JMCD
in particular, with the highest percentage of White participants relative to
other diversity-focused journals, is an excellent example of inclusion of White
participants within multicultural research. JMCD has a tradition of research
focusing on the multicultural competency of counseling trainees, the major-
ity of whom are White, as per the AMCD Multicultural Competency Model
(Roysircar, Arredondo, Fuertes, Ponterotto, & Toporek, 2003).
Although representation was one of our concerns, we were also interested in
how race and ethnicity were determined. As Helms, Jernigan, and Mascher (2005)
noted, serious issues exist with using participants’ self-reported race or ethnicity
as the sole means to then infer an understanding about the constructs of race
and ethnicity in psychological research. We hypothesized that diversity-focused
journals would report how racial information was determined and obtained
by researchers, particularly because the targeted journals have a stated focus
on diversity. This study revealed, however, that 58.3% of articles published in
the target journals did not report how race and ethnicity were determined by
researchers other than through the use of demographic questions.
Specific to JMCD, previous research (Pope-Davis et al., 2001) noted that JMCD
articles targeted (in order) African Americans, Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders,
Latino/a/Hispanics, Native Americans, international populations, and Whites.
The current study used a different methodology and found that JMCD articles
included (in order) Whites, African Americans, Asian Americans/Pacific Island-
ers, Latino/a/Hispanics, Native Americans, and biracial individuals. Whereas
Whites are targeted to a lesser extent in articles (at least those published before
1999), a recent increase of interest and advances in evaluating multicultural
competence of White trainees is responsible for the difference (see Cates,
Schaefle, Smaby, Maddux, & LeBeauf, 2007; Dickson, Jepsen, & Barbee, 2008;
Roysircar, Gard, Hubbell, & Ortega, 2005).
Although considerable movement has been made in research regarding ra-
cial and ethnic populations, further research on racial and ethnic individuals
by using community samples may provide a more comprehensive picture of
specific racial and ethnic minority populations. The present study indicates
that a majority of diversity-focused research was conducted using university

journal of Multicultural counseling and developMent • july 2009 • vol. 37 137

populations. Although a considerable increase in the university enrollment of
ethnic minorities occurred from 1990 to 1999, the majority of ethnic minority
individuals are not enrolled in postsecondary education (Snyder, Tan, & Hoff-
man, 2006). Because racial and ethnic research in diversity-focused journals
is heavily descriptive, a large pool of noncollege community populations is
missing; therefore, results derived from university populations may not be
applicable to many racial and ethnic minorities.

conclusion
This study provides evidence on how diversity-focused journals, when com-
pared with general counseling research and the demographic composition
of the United States, represent inclusion of racial and ethnic populations in
empirical studies. However, concurrent with our finding that reporting of
race and ethnicity is occurring at a higher rate, we are still left with lingering
questions about exactly how racial and ethnic information regarding the
participants was gathered and verified. Given concerns over the complacency
(Carter et al., 1998) of general counseling research regarding the issues of
race and ethnicity and previous research indicating some limited progress
(Delgado-Romero et al., 2005) in the same area, one can conclude that
diversity-focused journals are fulfilling their missions of focusing on racial
and ethnic issues in counseling in terms of representation. The challenge
for the future remains to engage the complex issues of the evolving meaning
and role of race in U.S. society. The journals of the present study, however,
seem poised to provide leadership in this area.

limitations
Several limitations exist, including the type of journals that were analyzed for
this study. Two of the journals, CDEMP and JMCD, publish articles that are
relevant to several different ethnic populations and diversity issues, whereas
HJBS and JBP publish articles that are specific to Hispanic and African Americans,
respectively. As noted in Table 2, 67.0% of the participants came from studies
published in HJBS (46.0%) and JBP (21.0%); these are larger journals (i.e., have
more pages). Another limitation to this study is linked to sample sizes used in
articles. Some studies in this research had much larger sample sizes than did
others (range = 1–2,671) such that studies with larger sample sizes con-
tributed more to this study. Finally, this study intended to represent only the
reporting of race and ethnicity of research participants and did not measure
the influence or quality (other than the assumed quality of peer-reviewed
research) of any component article. Therefore, although a study may have a
large number of racial and ethnic minorities, the overall sample size is not
reflective of the quality or influence of the study.

138 journal of Multicultural counseling and developMent • july 2009 • vol. 37

 references
About JMCD. (n.d.). Retrieved August 7, 2008, from Antioch University New England, Multicul-
tural Center Web site: www.multiculturalcenter.org/jmcd/
American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research,
practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 377–402.
Arredondo, P., Rosen, D. C., Rice, T., Perez, P., & Tovar-Gamero, Z. G. (2005). Multicultural
counseling: A 10-year content analysis of the Journal of Counseling & Development. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 83, 155–161.
Arredondo, P., Toporek, R., Brown, S. P., Jones, J., Locke, D. C., Sanchez, J., & Stadler, H. (1996).
Operationalization of the multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 24, 42–78.
Bond, M. H. (1988). The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carter, R. T., Akinsulure-Smith, A. M., Smailes, E. M., & Clauss, C. S. (1998). The status of
racial/ethnic research in counseling psychology: Committed or complacent? Journal of Black
Psychology, 24, 322–334.
Cates, J. T., Schaefle, S. E., Smaby, M. H., Maddux, C. D., & LeBeauf, I. (2007). Comparing multi-
cultural with general counseling knowledge and skills competency for students who completed
counselor training. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 35, 26–39.
D’Andrea, M., & Heckman, E. F. (2008). A 40-year review of multicultural counseling outcome
research: Outlining a future research agenda for the multicultural counseling movement.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 356–363.
Delgado-Romero, E. A., Galván, N., Maschino, P., & Rowland, M. (2005). Race and ethnicity
in empirical counseling and counseling psychology research: A 10-year review. Counseling
Psychologist, 33, 419–448.
Dickson, G. L., Jepsen, D. A., & Barbee, P. W. (2008). Exploring the relationships among multi-
cultural training experiences and attitudes toward diversity among counseling students. Journal
of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 36, 113–126.
[Editorial statement]. (2007a). Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, inside cover.
[Editorial statement]. (2007b). Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29, 4.
[Editorial statement]. (2007c). Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 4.
Glosoff, H. L., & Kocet, M. M. (2006). Highlights of the 2005 ACA Code of Ethics. In G. R. Walz,
J. C. Bleuer, & R. K. Yep (Eds.), VISTAS: Compelling perspectives on counseling 2006 (pp. 5–9).
Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Guthrie, R. V. (2004). Even the rat was White: A historical view of psychology. New York: Harper & Row.
Hall, G. C. N., & Maramba, G. G. (2001). In search of cultural diversity: Recent literature in
cross-cultural and ethnic minority psychology. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
7, 12–26.
Helms, J. E., Jernigan, M., & Mascher, J. (2005). The meaning of race in psychology and how to
change it: A methodological perspective. American Psychologist, 60, 27–36.
Lau, M. Y., Cisco, H. C., & Delgado-Romero, E. A. (2008). Institutional and individual research
productivity in five nominated multicultural psychology journals. Journal of Multicultural Coun-
seling and Development, 36, 194–205.
Leach, M. M., Behrens, J. T., & Rowe, W. (1996). The Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development: Then, now, and in the 21st century. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Devel-
opment, 24, 167–175.
Ponterotto, J. G. (1986). A content analysis of the Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Develop-
ment. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 14, 98–107.
Pope-Davis, D. B., Ligiero, D. P., Liang, C., & Codrington, J. (2001). Fifteen years of the Journal
of Multicultural Counseling and Development: A content analysis. Journal of Multicultural Counsel-
ing and Development, 29, 226–238.
Roysircar, G., Arredondo, P., Fuertes, J. N., Ponterotto, J. G., & Toporek, R. L. (Eds.). (2003).
Multicultural counseling competencies 2003: Association for Multicultural Counseling and Development.
Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Roysircar, G., Gard, G., Hubbell, R., & Ortega, M. (2005). Development of counseling trainees’
multicultural awareness through mentoring English as a second language students. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 33, 17–36.

journal of Multicultural counseling and developMent • july 2009 • vol. 37 139

Snyder, T. D., Tan, A. G., & Hoffman, C. M. (2006). Digest of education statistics 2005 (NCES Pub-
lication No. 2006-030). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Report. (2006). Available from ISI Web of Knowledge
Web site: http://isiwebofknowledge.com/
Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and
standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 20,
64–89.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). 2000 census of population and housing. Available from http://www.
census.gov/prod/cen2000/index.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). American community survey. Available from http://www.census.
gov/acs/www/

140 journal of Multicultural counseling and developMent • july 2009 • vol. 37