critical issues of literature on counseling international students

Critical Issues of Literature on Counseling International Students

Eunju Yoon and Tarrell Awe Agahe Portman

A review of the American professional counseling literature brings to light 5 patterns concerning research related to counseling international students. Emergent themes include universal vs. subgroup characteristics, environmental vs. personal factors, developmental vs. pathological perspectives, counseling goals, and methodological problems. Suggestions for future research and practice are provided.

En un repaso de la literatura profesional de consejeria americana salen a relucir cinco modelos que tratan la consejeria de estudiantes internacionales. Algunos temas que resaltan: las caracteristicas universales en oposicion a las sub-grupales; 10s factores medioambientales en oposicion a 10s personates; las perspectivas de desarrollo en oposicion a las de patologia; las metas de consejeria; y 10s problemas metodologicos. Se hacen sugerencias para investigaciones y practicas futuras.

n 1995, more than 450,000 international students were enrolled in U.S. universities and colleges (Spencer-Rodgers & Cortijo, 1998). In 2000- I 2001, more than 540,000 international students were enrolled in U.S. universities

and colleges. The three largest groups of international students were from South and East Asia (550/(1), Europe (15oh), and Latin America (12oh1; National Center for Educa- tional Statistics, 2002). The representation of international students on U.S. campuses varies considerably, but all of these students need to have access to appropriate student resources such as counseling services. Therefore, the increase of international students on U.S. campuses necessitates examining how such services are provided.

International students on U.S. campuses may have problems that are common to American students, especially undergraduates, during the adjustment period of young adulthood or the first time living away from their families (Pedersen, 1991; Sheehan & Pearson, 1995). However, there are also problems that are unique to international students (Pedersen, 1991), such as language barriers, different academic systems, cultural differences, racial discrimination, social interaction, and personal adjustment (Abe, Talbot, & Geelhoed, 1998; Anderson & Myers, 1985; Heikinheimo & Shute, 1986; Luzzo, Henao, & Wil-

Eunju Yoon, Department of Counseling and Student Personnel Psychology Program, Universily ofMinne- sota; Errell Awe Agahe Portman, Department of Counselor Education, Rehabilitation, and Studenl De- velopment, University of Iowa. The aulhors [hank Kathryn C. Gerken, Daniel L. Clay, and William M. Liu a1 the University of Iowa for their feedback on this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed lo Errell A. Portman, N356 LC, Counselor Education, Rehabililation and Studen! Development, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 (e-mail: [email protected]).

JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT Janualy 2004 Vol. 32 33

son, 1996; Parr, Bradley, & Bingi, 1992). Helping professionals might gener- ally anticipate language barriers and cultural difference issues. However, racial discrimination targeting international students may be unanticipated by these students because many have been in the majority racial groups in their home countries. Also, the academic institutional system norms may be quite different (e.g., interacting with professors). Social interactions and personal adjustments may create anxiety for these students, yet these concerns might be unexplored by helping professionals. In spite of encountering additional barriers to success in college, international students have access to fewer resources to help them (Pedersen, 1991; Wong-Rieger, 1984). International students have fewer opportunities to establish informal social support networks than American students (Leong & Sedlacek, 1986; Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992).

Considering international students’ difficulty in developing these networks, understanding and assisting of these students by formal counseling resources are critical. However, research findings indicate that, overall, international students are reluctant to use campus counseling services (Abe et al., 1998; Dillard & Chisolm, 1983; Pedersen, 1991; Sandhu, 1994; Surdam & Collins, 1984). They delay seeking professional assistance, perhaps because of their uneasiness in seeking help from counselors (Dillard & Chisolm, 1983). Even when international students overcome their uneasiness, research has indicated that they have higher rates of “no shows” at counseling centers after an intake session than have American students (Anderson & Myers, 1985; Sue, McKinney, Allen, & Hall, 1974).

In spite of the unique needs international students may have in a counseling situation, there is little training in the graduate counseling programs to prepare graduates to work with international students (Fouad, 1991). For example, most textbooks that address multicultural issues in counseling do not deal with issues regarding the counseling of international students. Theories and skills presented for use in counseling American minorities are often generalized to counseling international students. There are some limitations in this application. Although international students and American minorities might share some common fea- tures regarding cultural heritage and minority status, there are differences as well (Fouad, 1991). For example, the acculturation level of American minorities and international students may be quite different. Change of status for international students from members of a majority to that of a minority might be a very uncom- fortable experience. International students experience culture shock as a result of transition from one culture to another and may have more language problems than their American minority counterparts. Counseling goals may be different as well. Therefore, there is a need to develop counseling theories and skills that are more relevant to international students’ unique experiences and problems.

After an extensive literature review concerning counseling issues related to international students, Pedersen (1991) pointed out the lack of a “grand theory” to tie the research in this area together. According to Pedersen (1991), research in this field has been characterized by “isolated, uncoordinated, and fragmen-

34 JOURNALOFMULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT January 2004 Vol. 32

tary studies on specialized variables with no clear application of results to comprehensive theory building or to practical implications for institutional policy” (p. 50). This lack of a comprehensive theory and systematic research has delayed any changes in the practical application of research findings to counseling. There is a need to further examine the current counseling literature related to international students.

Rather than provide a comprehensive synthesis of literature, I present a critical examination of the counseling literature concerning international students is presented to extract new perspectives. I reinterpret and present a critical analysis of counseling literature from the perspective of an international student, thus, add- ing a within-group perspective. Five emergent themes are discussed.

UNIVERSAL VERSUS SUBGROUP CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

One pattern that is repeatedly found in the literature is the overgeneralization of research findings to all international students and the underemphasis of within- group differences. Too often, convenience samples have been used rather than samples that included persons who would be most affected by the research findings. This lack of rigorous examination appears to promote overgeneralization to all international students instead of the population group in the sample.

Two examples are presented for clarity. First, according to Leong and Chou’s (1996) review of literature, many articles focused on the tendency of international students to somatize psychological problems. Are there shared experiences that make international students in general have somatizing tendencies, or is it more reasonable to interpret somatization as a characteristic of some cultural groups rather than a characteristic of all international students in contrast with American students? Compari- son studies with American students can provide a point of reference for helping international students. However, there is a problem if one compares international students, in general, with American students on characteristics that have little to do with the experiences international students share.

The second example related to sampling is derived from Yau, Sue, and Hayden’s (1992) exploratory study on counseling style preferences of international students. Their data for a sample of international students composed of 5 Japanese students and 1 Iranian student indicated that there was no clear evidence that international students preferred directive counseling interventions to nondirective approaches. Using such a small sample of 5 Japanese students and 1 Iranian student as representative of all international students is far-reaching even with acknowledged limitations. The question remains regarding whether counseling style preference can be assessed with the general population of international students without considering cultural subgrouping.

JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT January 2004 Vol. 32 35

The preceding examples provide an illustration of inappropriate sampling and overgeneralization of results that occurs when all international students are combined under one label regardless of the nature of the research question. In both cases, researchers make the erroneous assumption that international students share common characteristics in all circumstances. Although some characteristics may be shared due to common experiences as international students in a foreign country, there may also be differences that are based on individual cultural groups (Arthur, 1997; Pedersen, 1997; Sodowsky & Plake, 1992). This important distinction mandates sample selection that is appropriately based on the research question, thus determining the generalizability or transferability of findings.

Sociocultural variables may need to be considered in sample selection. For example, the acculturation efforts and career goals of an international exchange student who plans to be in the United States for 6-months and an international student who plans to stay and settle in the United States after graduation may be dissimilar. According to Yang, Teraoka, Eichenfield, and Audas’s (1994) study, Asian students who represented three nationalities-Chinese, Taiwanese, and Japanese-showed considerable differences in their meaningful relationships with U S . college students, even though the students in the three groups had similar backgrounds in terms of culture, language, race, and geographic loca- tion. Leong and Sedlacek’s (1986) method of first-stage data analysis, in a comparative study of international and US. students’ preference for help sources, assessed the differences among the subgroups of international students before collapsing and comparing the data to those of U.S. students. This methodology of using subgroup analysis prior to the universal analysis may be the epitome of ethical research practices with international student populations.

We concur with Althen (1991) conceptually that when counselors have better knowledge and understanding about each cultural group in addition to knowledge and understanding of international students, in general, and cultural tran- sitions, in general, they can work more effectively with each group of international students. This may allow counselors to start from an awareness of specific groups and modify interventions according to individual client differences. Leong’s (1996) three-dimensional model may prove to be a more useful frame- work than more typical approaches when working with international students. The three dimensions (universal, group, individual) are used as a method for the counselor to shift from one dimension to another compatibly with clients during counseling interventions. Thus, counselors require enhanced knowledge and understanding concerning specific international cultural groups.

ENVIRONMENTAL VERSUS PERSONAL FACTORS

In order to both understand the problems that international students face and to develop strategies to help them, helping professionals need to view the issues from

36 JOURNALOFMULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT January 2004 Vol. 32

two levels: personal and environmental. Previous studies have focused almost ex- clusively on the relationship between personal factors and dependent variables such as international students’ problems, adjustment, or social network. Examples of these personal factors include age, gender, social contact, geographical home region, length of time in the United States, graduate versus undergraduate status, English profi- ciency, and other familial or personal background variables. These studies add valu- able knowledge to the field for understanding individual international students and their experiences. However, exclusive emphasis on personal factors without consideration of environmental factors can lead to attributing adjustment difficulties or problems of the international students solely to the individual without adequately acknowledging the role of environment in the students’ problems.

Several studies emphasized the importance of environmental factors. Sodowsky and Plake’s (1992) and Surdam and Collins’s (1984) studies indicated that per- ceived prejudice and discrimination were negatively related to international students’ adjustment and acculturation. In other studies, in spite of international students’ desire to have more contacts with host citizens (Alexander, Klein, Workneh, & Miller, 1981; Hayes & Lin, 1994), they reported mostly superficial relationships with US . citizens (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992; Sodowsky & Plake, 1992; Yang et al., 1994). These findings suggest that building social networks may require a willingness and effort from the U.S. citizenry. Mallinckrodt and Leong’s (1992) study indicated that support from international students’ academic programs had positive effects on these students’ stress symptomatology. As Fouad (1991) stated, environmental and social factors can be more predictive of international students’ successful adjustment than individual intrapersonal factors. Most of all, a supportive campus environment is essential for international students to attain their academic and personal goals (Arthur, 1997). A delicate balance needs to be established between exploring personal factors and environmental factors with each variable under consideration. This change in perspective may help professionals understand the issues of international students within the context of the institutional environment. Discovering ways to improve environmental support rather than assigning all problems to international students (in essence blaming the victims) may be the next step.

Counselors and other university helping professionals need to implement helping strategies at both the individual and the institutional level. At the individual level, professionals can help empower the individual student to cope with problems and to achieve his or her goals. At the institutional level, these same professionals can seek to change institutional policies, develop programs, and provide a supportive atmosphere, thus enabling the institution to provide a friendlier environment for international students. A commitment to multicultural change from the top of the institution can influence faculty, staff, and students through a trickle-down effect (Sue et al., 1998). In fact, institutional change and environmental support may be more powerful than helping students at the individual level. Indeed, the institutional atmosphere may be as influential and perva-

JOURNALOF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT January 2004 Vol. 32 37

sive as the air that we breathe every day, and without environmental support, individual change cannot be sustained over a long period.

DEVELOPMENTAL VERSUS PATHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

In their review of literature on counseling with international students, Leong and Chou (1996) noted the great number of studies on client variables and their problems. Pedersen (1991) also pointed out the overemphasis on identifying adjustment problems and the tendency to overemphasize pathology in studying international students. An overemphasis on such problems may create a tendency among counselors to stereotype international students as prob- lematic and deficient. This may lead counselors to patronize the students.

Although international students may experience problems related to cultural transition and adjustment to an entirely new environment, they need to be viewed from a developmental perspective rather than from a pathological perspective (Siegel, 1991). Furnham and Bochner (1986) addressed a developmental “learning” view instead of a medical model. From this perspective, international students’ problems can be regarded as resulting from a lack of learned skills rather than as evidence of an underlying pathology (Leong & Chou, 1996; Pedersen, 1991).

Although they might experience some problems in making a cultural transition, international students have unique strengths, including bilingualism, biculturalism, and having different perspectives that are based on diverse cultural and academic backgrounds. Given the elevated learning curve of international students, many are still very select and resourceful students. Researchers have suggested the need for using these students as resources within university environments (Arthur, 1997; Pedersen, 1991, 1997; Sandhu, 1994). Research identifying international students’ unique strengths, knowledge, and skills, as well as how these traits can be used, would enrich the educational environment of U.S. campuses and also empower international students. Because many international students’ problems are related to their marginalization from campus activities and culture, using their resources can be a proactive way of encouraging their involvement.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING COUNSELING GOALS

Viewing international students from a different perspective (developmental vs. pathological) is important to the establishment of counseling goals. When one views international students from a developmental perspective, counseling goals will change from “fixing” the student to helping the student progress along a continuum. As Furnham and Bochner (1986) concluded, assimilating a person into a culture rather than helping someone learn a second culture could be ethnocentric. In Kagan and Cohen’s (1990, p. 133) study on the cultural adjustment of international students, they supported a “native-extinction, host-association model” of cultural adjustment. They concluded that interna-

38 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT January 2004 Vol. 32

tional students, who immerse themselves in the host culture, especially by making friends and using the host language at home, would adjust well to the host culture. However, the focus should be on obtaining competence to function in the host culture rather than the extinction of the native culture. International students function within the American culture and within their culture of origin, requirhg them to function competently in either culture. For this reason, the counselor’s goal when working with international students is to help them gain bicultural competence rather than to assimilate them to American culture at the expense of rejecting their cultures of origin.

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Samplingprocedures. As stated earlier, sampling procedures are a methodological concern. Pedersen (1991) discussed the problem of contradictory research results. These contradictory findings could be due, in part, to the methodological problem of sampling. International students are diverse groups of people despite the fact that they have common experiences. Therefore, convenience sampling without a solid rationale for including specific international subgroups may lead to contradictory findings. The key point in sampling is to pinpoint the kind of sample needed to answer the research questions. Additionally, researchers must consider where they will use the sample and the extent to which research results will be generalized.

Suruey/analog versus actual study. Great differences may exist between expecta- tions and attitudes toward counseling in survey/analog studies and actual be- haviors in the real situation. For example, even though some research results indicate that international students are open to receiving counseling (Angelopoulos & Catano, 1993; Leong & Sedlacek, 1986), the actual utilization rate is relatively low. Some studies regarding the counseling styles preferred by international students have used questionnaires and surveys with international students who were not receiving counseling. Results from these studies indicated that international students expected counselors to be more directive than U.S. students (Fukuhara, 1973; Mau & Jepsen, 1988; Yuen & Tinsley, 1981). However, when Yau et al. (1992) examined the counseling style preferences of international students who were actual clients in counseling sessions, they could find no overall preferences for either directive or nondirective style. These contradictory findings imply that there may be differences between participants’ reactions to the survey/analog situations and in the real situations. When research findings are compared without considering methodological differences, the research results may seem to be contradictory.

Instruments. A major problem regarding the use of instruments to assess international students’ level of social emotional functioning is the scarcity of instruments developed for international students. Most researchers have used instruments developed for American or American minority individuals. The use


of such instruments can result in misleading interpretations due to lack of con- struct validity across cultures.

Sheehan and Pearson (1995) examined Asian international and American students’ psychological development by using the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory. They found that Asian international students scored significantly lower than American students on the tasks of (a) establishing and clarifying purpose, (b) developing mature interpersonal relationships, and (c) intimacy. However, the instrument is not appropriate for use with Asian international students in several respects. First, the instrument measures the psychological development from the perspective of American values. The aspects and degrees of psychological development depend heavily on culture-specific values. For example, independence or emotional autonomy is an indicator of mature interpersonal relationships on this instrument, but they can be inter- preted differently in some other cultures in which collectivism rather than indi- vidualism is an important value. Second, specific situations as an international student may result in lower scores on some subscales. For example, it seems natural that international students score lower than American students on such a subscale as Establishing and Clarifying Purposes. Factors that may lead to Asian international students’ lower scores on this subscale might include having to decide whether to return to their home countries after completing their studies or whether to stay in the United States and not being as well informed of U.S. career markets as U.S. students. Third, although researchers addressed the limitations of using a measure of development that is based on Western values for Asian students (Sheehan & Pearson, 1995), the general message that readers receive from this kind of study is that, overall, Asian international students are developmentally inferior to U.S. students. Therefore, when selecting a research instrument, researchers need to examine thoroughly whether the instrument is appropriate and fair to use with a particular group of international students.

dnpllca- the fmf! SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Future research requires consideration of specific factors. We suggest six considerations for future research with international students. First, longitudinal studies are needed to follow up international students far beyond graduation (Pedersen, 1997; Surdam & Collins, 1984), so as to help international students set more satisfactory long-term goals. Second, many students-especially fe- male students-from strongly patriarchal societies may go through the experience of gender role change. The impact of gender role change on the family system and possible conflicts in case of reentry to the home country is also a potential research area. Third, a comparative study of international students’ manner of developing interpersonal relationships with Americans and with

40 JOURNALOF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT January 2004 Vol. 32

conationals may provide insight concerning the influence of sociocultural factors on international students’ social networking. Fourth, a comparative study of racial identity development of international students whose status has changed from a member of a majority to a minority with that of American minorities who were born in the United States may provide useful insights about international students’ racial identity development. Fifth, a call for further research in the neglected areas of international students’ spouses and families as well as international students in K-12 settings has been proposed by researchers (Na- tional Center for Educational Statistics, 2002; Pedersen, 1991). Finally, as Leong and Chou (1996) emphasized repeatedly, more research is needed to examine therapist variables, counseling process variables, and outcome variables, in addition to client variables, to provide more comprehensive guidelines for counseling international students.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE PRACTICE

Anderson and Myers (1985) compared “no shows” of international students and American students from case files spanning 1 academic year at a university- affiliated counseling center. The international students demonstrated a significantly higher no-show rate after intake sessions when compared with American clients. However, no significant difference regarding total no-show rates was found between the two population groups. Counselors need to develop strategies to retain international students after intake sessions (Anderson & Myers, 1985). As the findings from Anderson and Myers’s study imply, if counselors succeed in building rapport and trust with international students initially, international students can be helped by counseling services.

In addition, Leong and Sedlacek (1986) found that incoming international students were more likely than American students to seek out counselors for both educational-vocational and emotional-social problems. This result may be due in part to the lack of an informal support network for the incoming international students (Leong and Sedlacek, 1986), but it also indicates their basic openness to counseling. The gap between international students’ basic openness toward counseling and reluctance to seek actual counseling help suggests that campus counselors need to develop some innovative and proactive approaches to make international students feel that counseling services are available and helpful.

There is also a need for counseling centers to work cooperatively with the office for international students and scholars. Abe et al.’s (1998) research findings showed that the most frequently used campus resource by international students was the office for international students and scholars. In contrast, the findings indicated that the counseling center was one of the least frequently used resources. In view of international students’ familiarity with the office for international students and scholars and the expertise of the staff of that office


in addressing the needs of international students, it may be effective for counselors to develop helping strategies in connection with that office.

A needs assessment could enhance counselors’ understanding of international students. It could also be a way of advertising the availability of counseling services and give international students an opportunity to contemplate their problem areas (Day & Hajj, 1986). The needs assessment could also be a way of demonstrating genuine concern for international students.

According to Boyer and Sedlacek’s (1989) study, variables that were shown to be predictive of college grades and retention for international students were also predictive of counseling center use by international students. These findings could be useful in decreasing the stigma attached to counseling and nor- malizing receiving counseling services.

The availability of a counselor who has a background as an international student could be both practically and symbolically meaningful to international students. Not only could the counselor have a better understanding of the needs of international students, but also international students could feel that the counseling center is a more accepting resource. In the process of recruiting counselors for the campus counseling center or student affairs offices, this needs to be considered, in addition to the considerations of racial diversity, gender, age, language, or specialty area.

Finally, counselors need to continuously enhance their understanding of specific cultural groups and individuals so that they can match their counseling skills with the needs of specific groups or specific individuals (Anderson &Myers, 1985; Locke & Velasco, 1987; Pedersen, 1991). This should be an ongoing learning process.

Much work is needed to provide appropriate counseling services to international students. There has been little systematic research in this field, which may reflect the status of international students on U.S. campuses, or it may reflect other priori- ties in research. We hope that this article will have heuristic value that can stimu- late original research in this field, so that the findings might be used to develop more effective helping strategies for this silent population. As Parr et al. (1992) said, we need “creative efforts to convey the message that international students are cherished guests who enrich our college campuses” (p. 25).

references

Abe, J., Talbot, D. M., & Geelhoed, R. J. (1998). Effects of a peer program on international student adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 539-547.

Alexander, A., Klein, M., Workneh, F., & Miller, M. (1981). Psychotherapy and the foreign student. In P. Pedersen, J. Draguns, & J. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (2nd ed., pp. 227-243). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

42 JOURNALOF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT. January 2004 Vol. 32

Althen, G. (1991). Some help and some myths. Counseling Psychologist, 19, 62-65. Anderson, T., & Myers, T. (1985). Presenting problems, counselor contacts, and “no shows”:

International and American college students. Journal o f College Student Personnel, 26,500-503. Angelopoulos, M., & Catano, M. (1993). International and Canadian students’ choice of helping

source: I t depends on the problem. Journal o f College Student Development, 34,377-378. Arthur, N. (1997). Counselling issues with international students. Canadian Journal of Counselling,

Boyer, S . P., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1989). Noncognitive predictors of counseling center use by international students. Journal of Counseling &Development, 67, 404-407.

Day, R. C., & Hajj, F. M. (1986). Delivering counseling service to international students: The experience of the American University of Beirut. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27,353-357.

Dillard, J., & Chisolm, G. (1983). Counseling the international student in a multicultural context. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 101-105.

Fouad, N. A. (1991). Training counselors to counsel international students: Are we ready? Coun- seling Psychologist, 19, 66-71.

Fukuhara, M. (1973). Student expectation of counseling: A cross-cultural study. Japanese Psycho- logical Research, 15, 179-193.

Furnham, A,, & Bochner, S. (1986). Culture shock: Psychological reactions to unfamiliar environments. London: Methuen.

Hayes, R. L., & Lin, H. (1994). Coming to America: Developing social support systems for international students. Journal ofMulticultura1 Counseling and Development, 22, 7- 16.

Heikinheimo, P. S., & Shute, J. C. M. (1986). The adaptation of foreign students: Student views and institutional implications. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 399-406

Kagan, H., & Cohen, J. (1990). Cultural adjustment of international students. Psychological Sci- ence, 7, 133-137.

Leong, F. T. (1996). Toward an integrative model for cross-cultural counseling and psychotherapy. Applied & Preventive Psychology 5, 189-209.

Leong, F. T., & Chou, E. L. (1996). Counseling international students. In P. B. Pedersen, J. G. Draguns, W. J. Lonner, &J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (4th ed., pp. 210-242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leong, F. T. L., & Sedlacek, W. (1986). A comparison of international and U.S. students’ preferences for help sources. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 426-430.

Locke, D.C., & Velasco, J. (1987). Hospitality begins with the invitation: Counseling foreign students. Journal of College Student Development, 28, 115-1 19.

Luzzo, D. A., Henao, C., & Wilson, M. (1996). An innovative approach to assessing the academic and social needs of international students. Journal o f College Student Development, 37, 351-352.

Mallinckrodt, B., & Leong, F. T. L. (1992). International graduate students, stress, and social support. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 71-78.

Mau, W., & Jepsen, D. A. (1988). Attitudes toward counselors and counseling processes: A comparison of Chinese and American graduate students. Journal of Counseling &Development, 67, 189-192.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Digest of educational statistics, 2002. Avail- able from the National Center for Educations1 Statistics Web site http://nces.ed.gov/edstats/

Parr, G., Bradley, L., & Bingi, R. (1992). Concerns and feelings of international students. Journal o f College Student Development, 33, 20-25.

Pedersen, P. (1991). Counseling international students. Z7ie Counseling Psychologist, 19, 10-58. Pedersen, P. B. (1997). Culture-centered counseling interventions: Striving f i r accuracy. Thousand

Sandhu, D. S. (1994). An examination of the psychological needs of the international students:

31, 2.59-274.

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Implications for counseling and psychotherapy. Internalional Journal fir the Advancement of Counseling, 17, 22 9-23 9.

Sheehan, 0. T. O., & Pearson, F. (199.5). Asian international and American students’ psychoso- cia1 development. Journal o f College Student Development, 36, 522-530.

Siegel, C. (1991). Counseling international students: A clinician’s comments. Counseling Psy- chologist, 19, 72-75.


Sodowsky, G. R., & Plake, B. S. (1992). A study of acculturation differences among international people and suggestions for sensitivity to within-group differences. Journal of College Student Develo#ment, 33, 53-59.

Spencer-Rogers, J., & Cortijo, A. (1998). An assessment of the career development needs of international students. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 509-513.

Sue, D. W., Carter, R. T., Casas, J. M., Fouad, N. A., h e y , A. E., Jensen, M., et al. (1998). Multicultural counseling compencies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sue, S., McKinney, H., Allen, D., & Hall, J. (1974). Delivery of community mental health services to Black and White clients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42 , 794-801.

Surdam, J. C., & Collins, J. R. (1984). Adaptation of international students: A cause for concern. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 240-244.

Wong-Rieger, D. (1984). Testing a model of emotional and coping responses to problems in adaptation: Foreign students at a Canadian university. InternationalJournal ofIntercultura1 Relations,

Yang, B., Teraoka, M., Eichenfield, G. A., & Audas, M. C. (1994). Meaningful relationships between Asian international and U.S. college students: A descriptive study. College Student Journal, 28, 108-1 15.

Yau, T. Y., Sue, D., & Hayden, D. (1992). Counseling style preference of international students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 100-104.

Yuen, R. K. W., & Tinsley, H. E. A. (1981). International and American student expectancies about counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28 , 66-69,

8, 153-184.

44 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT January 2004 Vol. 32

critical issues of literature on counseling international students

Documents