Cultural Competence Assessment of Interdisciplinary Faculty and Staff

Saturday, 27 July 2019

Loretta Heuer, PhD, RN, FAAN
School of Nursing, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA

Background or Context: The ever increasing diverse multicultural and multigenerational student population in the United States requires that educators at all levels develop cultural knowledge, awareness, and sensitivity to help diverse learners fulfill their potential and to avoid cultural misunderstandings that can become obstacles or barriers to learning (Hawala-Druy & Hill, 2012).

Purpose: The purpose of this project was to assess the cultural competence of interdisciplinary faculty and staff teaching and/or mentoring students in their professional programs.

Theoretical Model: Campinha-Bacote Model of Cultural Competence guided this study (http://transculturalcare.net/the-process-of-cultural-competence-in-the-delivery-of-healthcare-services/).

Methods: A prospective, descriptive survey design used a convenience sample. Instruments utilized in this study included a demographic data instrument, Campinha-Bacote’s Inventory for Assessing the Process of Cultural Competence Among Healthcare Professional–Rev (IAPCC-R©) and Inventory for Assessing the Process of Cultural Competence Among Healthcare Professional in Mentoring (IAPCC-M©).
The IAPCC-R © measures the level of cultural competence among healthcare professionals in the allied health fields. The survey consists of 25 items that measure the five cultural constructs of desire, awareness, knowledge, skill, and encounters. Scores range from 25 to 100 and indicate whether a healthcare professional is operating at a level of cultural proficiency, cultural competence, cultural awareness, or cultural incompetence. Higher scores depict a higher level of cultural competence.

The IAPCC-M© consists of nine items that measure the cultural competence as it relates to the mentoring process. Scores range from 9 to 36 and indicate whether a faculty/staff mentor are operating at a level of cultural proficiency (34-36), cultural competence (29-33), cultural awareness (19-28), or cultural incompetence (9-18) in their mentoring relationships. Higher scores depict a higer level of cultural competence in mentoring (Campinha-Bacote, 2010).

Results: Overall, 67 (79.8%) faculty and 17 (20.2%) staff participated for a total of 84 completed the surveys. Respondents: 36 (44%) Nursing, 38 (44%) Pharmacy and 10 (11.9%) staff. Ethnicity: White 72 (88.9%), Asian 7 (8.6%), Black 1 (1.2%), and American Indian 1 (1.2%). Fifty-nine (72.8%) were female. Education: 9 (11.1%) Bachelors, 23 (28.4%) Masters, 41 (50.6%) Doctorate and 8 (9.9%) Other. Years of teaching: 56 (69.1%) 10 years or less, 16 (19.8%) 11-19 years, 7 (8.6%) 20-29 years, and 1 (1.4%) 30-39 years. Forty-five (68.2%) of faculty had practice appointments whereas, 21 (31.8%) Tenure/Tenure Track.
The average total IAPCC-R © cultural competence score is 71.75 for respondents overall, 72.28 for respondents in the nursing department, and 71.55 for respondents in the pharmacy department, demonstrating cultural awareness among each sample group. Among respondents overall, 65% are culturally aware, 32% are culturally competent, and 3% are culturally proficient.

The IAPCC-M© average total cultural competence score, the summation of the average score of each question is 24.91 for respondents overall, 25.89 for the nursing department, and 23.92 for the pharmacy department, demonstrating cultural awareness among each sample group. Among respondents overall, 1% is culturally proficient, 84% are culturally aware, 14% are culturally competent, and 1% is culturally incompetent.

Conclusion: The results of this study indicate most the faculty and staff are culturally aware; however, much smaller percentages are culturally competent and culturally proficient. Professional educational offerings should be made available to faculty to assist them in becoming cultural proficiency.