































Graduate Student Journal of Psychology          Copyright 2012 by the Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology 
2012, Vol. 14               Teachers College, Columbia University 

93 
 

 

School Psychology Students, Faculty, and Practitioners: An Evaluation of 
Training Experiences, Knowledge, and Comfort with GLBTQ Students	

 
Lindsey Rutledge 

University of Kentucky 
 

Sara Flynn 
University of Kentucky 

Alicia Fedewa 
University of Kentucky 

 
Laura Jackson  

University of Kentucky
 

Violence among sexual minority students is widespread in schools and can be found as early as 
elementary school.  Although several studies have investigated issues related to gay, lesbian, 
bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth (GLBTQ), there remains a gap in the literature with 
respect to the training school psychologists receive and their knowledge and comfort level in 
working with GLBTQ youth.  To address this gap, school psychology graduate students, faculty, 
and school psychology practitioners were invited to participate in a survey assessing their training 
experiences, knowledge, and comfort levels in working with GLBTQ youth.  Participants were 
recruited through NASP-approved statewide organizations and graduate training programs.  Results 
indicate that while participants rate their training as inadequate, they nonetheless feel comfortable 
working with this population.  Demographic variables did not correlate with training, knowledge, 
and comfort as hypothesized.  Implications for graduate training and future research are discussed 
in light of the present study’s findings. 
 

 
 Various forms of violence have been present in schools 

for decades. Attempts have been made through policy 
changes and targeted training modules to address problems 
related to violent behavior; however, the prevalence of 
violence toward sexual minorities in schools remains high 
and can be found as early as elementary school (Center for 
Mental Health in Schools at UCLA [CMHS], 2007; Fontaine, 
1998). Violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, 
and questioning (GLBTQ) youth is often seen as socially 
sanctioned, leaving victims unprotected from harassment and 
abuse and instances of violence unreported by school 
administrators and staff (CMHS, 2007; Fontaine, 1998). 
Some have argued that schools tend to treat sexual minorities 
as nonexistent and disregard this sensitive topic (Black & 
Underwood, 1998; Marinoble, 1998). Nonetheless, sexual 
minority students do exist within schools and an increase in 
harassment toward LGBTQ youth has been reported since the 
mid-1990's (CMHS, 2007; Fontaine, 1998). Specifically, 
research from CMHS (2007) has reported that 34% of 
GLBTQ students have suffered anti-gay harassment in the 
school setting and more than 90% of GLBTQ youths have 

                                                 
Lindsey Rutledge, University of Kentucky, Department of 

Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology; Alicia L. Fedewa, 
Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, 
University of Kentucky. Sara Flynn, Department of Educational, 
School, and Counseling Psychology, University of Kentucky; Laura 
Jackson, Department of Educational, School, and Counseling 
Psychology, University of Kentucky. 

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to 
Alicia L. Fedewa, Department of Educational, School, and 
Counseling Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 
40506. Email: alicia.fedewa@uky.edu 

experienced some other form of victimization (e.g., physical 
violence such as being punched, kicked, or beaten) on 
account of their actual or perceived sexual orientation.  In 
addition, CMHS (2007) reports that one-third of all students 
and three-quarters of GLBTQ students consider school to be 
an unsafe place for sexual minority youth.   

Harassment among sexual minority youth has been 
linked to a number of psychosocial stressors and health 
problems.  Due to the physical and verbal harassment and 
abuse impacting GLBTQ youth (Herek, 2008), such 
individuals are at increased risk for emotional isolation, low 
self-esteem, poor academic performance, substance abuse, 
exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, 
school dropout, and suicide.  In fact, suicide is the number 
one cause of death among sexual minority students (Black & 
Underwood, 1998; CMHS, 2007; Fontaine, 1998; Marinoble, 
1998; National Association for School Psychologists 
[NASP], 2006).  Additionally, these students often lack 
familial support and are ostracized, isolated, and rejected by 
family members and friends, and many become depressed 
and even homeless upon disclosure of their sexuality 
(CMHS, 2007; Fontaine, 1998; Marinoble, 1998; NASP, 
2006).   

Given these risk factors, school staff and mental health 
providers need to be trained adequately on issues affecting 
sexual minority youth.  Schools should be safe havens for all 
students, where they can develop their personal identities 
freely and are given the opportunity to learn in an atmosphere 
of dignity that is free of discrimination, harassment, violence, 
and abuse (CMHS, 2007; NASP, 2006).  Furthermore, with 
3% to 10% of the general population identifying as sexual 
minorities and many high school students classifying 
themselves as questioning their sexual identities, it is certain 



RUTLEDGE, FEDEWA, FLYNN, & JACKSON  
 

94 
 

that professionals will encounter GLBTQ youth in their daily 
practices (CMHS, 2007).  There are clear legal and ethical 
guidelines for school psychologists in working with GLBTQ 
youth (American Psychological Association [APA], 2002; 
NASP, 2010). However, it is unclear whether the existing 
guidelines are routinely applied in practice.  Thus, ample 
training opportunities need to be provided to school staff, 
administrators, and health care providers, and changes in 
policy are required to address the current inequities and needs 
of this particular student population (CMHS, 2007; NASP, 
2006). 

 
Training 

Sexual minority issues are part and parcel of school 
counseling and other psychology professions but seem 
largely absent in school psychology training.  In fact, the 
majority of research in this area has focused on training of 
school counselors and other psychology professionals that 
engage in counseling services, rather than school 
psychologists per se.  A study by Pilkington and Cantor 
(1996) examined syllabi of graduate courses in social 
psychology, developmental psychology, personality, learning 
theory, abnormal psychology, family therapy, and ethics to 
determine how frequently sexual minority issues were 
focused upon and discussed.  The researchers found that 
sexual minority issues were included in the course curricula 
of less than 25% of these graduate courses (Pilkington & 
Cantor, 1996).  Similar results were found in a study by 
Erwin (2006) that examined training of school counselors in 
sexual minority issues.  Erwin found that although sexual 
minority students reported a need for counseling services, 
counselors often did not feel adequately trained to work with 
these students.  These studies suggest that training in sexual 
minority issues is not common in graduate education in 
school psychology. 

Bahr, Brish, and Croteau (2000) examined school 
psychologists’ training in sexual minority issues as related to 
professional ethics.  They suggest that three ethical principles 
should be considered in the inclusion of these issues in 
training programs.  First, the principle of professional 
relationships and responsibilities requires that school 
psychologists be familiar with the individual differences of 
the students with whom they work.  Second, school 
psychologists must be competent to work with a variety of 
individuals.  Third, according to the professional practices 
principle, school psychologists must respect the rights of 
every individual.  These three ethical guidelines necessitate 
adequate training and competency when working with 
diverse populations, including sexual minority youth.  When 
considering these ethical principles that guide the practice of 
school psychology, it is important that training programs 
include current issues related to GLBTQ youth.  Although 
there is current literature suggesting ways in which these 
issues can be included in training (e.g., Bahr et al., 2000), 
there is little research that examines the amount of training 
school psychologists actually receive in this area. 

Knowledge 
Knowledge of GLBTQ issues and concerns, as well as 

the dissemination of pertinent information about GLBTQ 
individuals, is a common area of interest to researchers 
seeking to evaluate this broad area (e.g., Butler, 1995; Evans, 
1994; Hirsch, 2007; Mudrey & Medina-Adams, 2006; 
Savage, Prout, & Chard, 2004).  Within this area, little 
research has been performed to evaluate the knowledge of 
school-based personnel, including current teachers, school 
psychologists, school counselors, and other school 
professionals. 

It appears that school-based professionals, including pre-
service teachers (i.e., those who have not completed 
educational and certification requirements) and school 
psychologists, have relatively low levels of knowledge 
regarding GLBTQ issues and concerns (Hirsch, 2007; 
Mudrey & Medina-Adams, 2006; Savage et al., 2004).  In a 
sample of pre-service teachers, who were undergraduate 
students taking education courses, Mudrey and Medina-
Adams (2006) found that female pre-service teachers had 
greater knowledge than males and that non-minority pre-
service teachers had greater knowledge than racial/ethnic 
minority pre-service teachers.  A study by Hirsch (2007) 
determined that future teachers, on average, correctly 
answered only 10.88 questions out of 18 questions pertaining 
to knowledge of GLBTQ issues.  Only 13.3% of the sample 
accurately answered 80% or more of the questions.  With 
regard to school psychologists’ knowledge, a study by 
Savage and colleagues (2004) revealed that school 
psychologists had low to moderate levels of knowledge about 
dropout rates, academic challenges, and violence experienced 
by lesbian and gay male students.  To our knowledge, no 
other research has been conducted examining the knowledge 
of school psychology graduate students, school psychology 
graduate faculty, or school psychology practitioners.  The 
knowledge of school psychologists with respect to GLBTQ 
issues is important given that school psychologists are 
perhaps the individuals most ideally situated in the school 
setting to handle the issues and concerns of students who 
identify as GLBTQ.   

 
Attitudes and Comfort 

Discrimination against sexual minorities is common in 
schools (Kahn, 2006).  Negative attitudes and discrimination 
in schools on the basis of sexual orientation and gender 
expression are not only displayed by students but may be 
expressed by teachers, counselors, administrators, school 
psychologists, and other school staff.  Sears (1991), for 
example, surveyed prospective teachers’ attitudes and 
feelings toward sexual minorities, encounters with high 
school-aged sexual minorities, and knowledge about sexual 
minority issues.  Results indicated that eight out of ten 
prospective teachers reported negative feelings toward sexual 
minority individuals and one-third were classified as “high-
grade homophobic.”  Hirsch (2007) expanded Sears’ (1991) 
study to include prospective teachers’ behaviors.  Hirsch 
(2007) surveyed 203 future educators who completed 



GLBTQ YOUTH AND SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY TRAINING 
 

95 
 

measures assessing their attitudes toward, feelings about, and 
knowledge of sexual minorities and their anticipated 
behaviors toward sexual minority students.  Example 
questions included, “I would feel nervous being in a group of 
homosexuals” and, “I would feel comfortable working with a 
female homosexual.” Results indicated that prospective 
teachers expressed relatively positive attitudes and feelings 
toward sexual minorities.  However, the prospective teachers 
also displayed somewhat contradictory behaviors; for 
example, teachers indicated that they would behave 
differently toward a sexual minority student than toward a 
heterosexual student because they would be unwilling to 
discuss age-appropriate topics related to sexual orientation in 
the classroom.  Ninety-four percent of prospective teachers 
said they would refer a student who wanted to talk about 
sexual orientation to the school counselor or school 
psychologist.  Similar findings were reported in a study by 
Ruebensaal (2006), in which school counselors were more 
likely to refer the client to the school psychologist if he or 
she identified as lesbian or gay.  Given that teachers often 
refer sexual minority students to school psychologists, it is 
particularly important to examine school psychologists’ 
attitudes and feelings in working with students who identify 
as GLBTQ.  It is important to note that in the study by 
Ruebensaal (2006) as well as in most studies in this body of 
literature, findings related to attitudes toward individuals who 
identify as gay or lesbian cannot necessarily be generalized to 
attitudes toward those who identify as bisexual, transgender, 
or queer.  Thus, while collapsing the various categories of 
sexual minorities is commonplace in the literature, it is 
important to note that individual differences between groups 
may be masked by this approach (Herek, 2002).   

 There is currently a gap in the literature on school 
psychologists’ comfort level in working with students who 
identify as sexual minorities.  Previously, comfort level has 
been measured by single questions embedded within a 
comprehensive study.  No study to date has utilized a wide-
range examination of school psychologists’ comfort in 
working with students who identify as sexual minorities.  
While a relationship between attitudes and comfort has been 
found (Ruebensaal, 2006), attitude measures may not be fully 
representative of an individual’s beliefs.  Therefore, it is 
important when examining training and knowledge to obtain 
an accurate gauge of comfort within various situations. 

The purpose of this study was to address the gaps related 
to school psychologists’ training experiences, knowledge, 
and comfort level in working with GLBTQ youth.  
Specifically, the current study examined: (a) the overall 
training experiences among participants with respect to 
GLBTQ issues; (b) participants’ knowledge regarding  

GLBTQ issues and differences across groups pertaining 
to their knowledge; and (c) the comfort levels across groups 
when working with the GLBTQ population.  Based on prior 
research in this area (Pilkington & Cantor, 1996), there were 
several hypotheses made regarding the questions in the 
current study.  First, the researchers hypothesized that the 
amount of training received would be positively correlated 

with knowledge of GLBTQ issues and comfort level, 
corroborating previous research findings (e.g., Hirsch, 2007; 
Mudrey & Medina-Adams, 2006; Ruebensaal, 2006; Savage 
et al., 2004).  Second, it was hypothesized that certain 
demographic characteristics (conservative political 
orientation, religious orientation, and geographic region) 
would be negatively correlated with knowledge and comfort 
level, as has been found in prior studies (Kahn, 2006; 
Ruebensaal, 2006; Savage, 2004; Sears, 1991; Smith, 2007). 

 
Method 

 
Participants 

Three groups were invited to participate in this 
nationwide survey: school psychology graduate students, 
school psychology graduate faculty, and school psychology 
practitioners.  Any individuals who did not fit into one of 
these three categories were excluded from this study.  

School psychology graduate students and faculty were 
recruited through personal contact with the program directors 
of all NASP-approved graduate programs (NASP, 2008).  To 
better ensure generalizability of findings, a random sample of 
program directors were asked to distribute the questionnaire 
to full-time school psychology faculty, as well as school 
psychology graduate students within their programs, by 
means of the programs’ email listservs.  Microsoft Excel was 
used to select a random sample of programs and 
organizations.  Out of 177 graduate programs, 120 were 
randomly chosen to participate in the study.  Out of 120 
programs, 96 (80%) responded to the email inquiry and 
agreed to distribute the survey to their programs’ faculty and 
graduate student body.  The rest of the programs either did 
not respond (n = 22) or refused to send out the survey due to 
conflicts of interest with the survey content and overall 
University policies (n = 2). 

School psychology practitioners were recruited through 
random sampling of each state’s school psychology 
association.  Out of 50 statewide organizations, 40 were 
randomly selected to be contacted.  Out of these 40 
organizations, 24 responded (60%) and indicated that they 
were willing to distribute the survey to their organization 
members.  After obtaining permission from each 
association’s governing board, the survey was sent via email 
to their listserv by the president or another board member. 

Of the 834 respondents, 64% (n = 534) were students, 
10.5% (n = 87) were faculty, and 25.5% (n = 213) were 
practitioners.  The participants were 83% women (n = 691) 
and 17% men (n = 141). Two participants did not indicate 
their sex. Practitioners reflected a breadth of experience in 
the schools, ranging from one year of practice to 38 years, 
with a mean of 10 years of experience as a school 
psychologist (SD = 6.5).  Students also varied in their stage 
of graduate training, with approximately 48% of students in 
their first two years of training and 52% in their final two 
years of training (M = 5.5 years of graduate schooling, SD = 
3.2).  Types of training were roughly evenly distributed, with 
approximately 38% of students in specialist (i.e., EdS) 



RUTLEDGE, FEDEWA, FLYNN, & JACKSON  
 

96 
 

programs, 40% of students in doctoral programs, and 22% in 
specialist doctoral (i.e., PsyD or EdD) programs.  
Work/school settings for respondents were equally dispersed 
across urban (35%) and suburban (36%) areas, with the 
remaining 19% of respondents working or attending school 
in a rural area.  Ten percent of respondents did not answer 
this question.  Remaining demographic information for 
participants’ ethnicity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, 
and religiosity is presented in Table 1. 
 
Measures  

The survey was a six-page questionnaire based on the 
school climate literature on GLBTQ youth developed by the 
authors.  Three versions of the questionnaire (i.e., student, 
professor, and practitioner forms), containing between 50 and 
55 questions each, were divided into four separate sections 
that addressed demographics, training experiences, 
knowledge, and comfort level for each respondent.   

The first section of the survey (Section A) included 
demographic questions. Typical demographic information 

(e.g., date of birth, ethnicity, highest degree earned/working 
toward) as well as additional information more closely 
related to the topic of this study (e.g., personal relationships 
with individuals who identify as GLBTQ, sexual orientation, 
school policy related to GLBTQ issues and concerns) were 
addressed.  Section B measured participants’ training 
experiences in GLBTQ issues.  School psychology graduate 
students and school psychology practitioners were asked to 
answer nine questions pertaining to whether or not they 
received training in various areas related to GLBTQ students 
and issues, how effective their training was in preparing them 
to serve GLBTQ students (measured on a four point Likert-
type scale), and through what means they received their 
training (e.g., peer presentations, graduate course, assigned 
readings, professional development).  These questions were 
developed by the authors as a means of measuring student 
training and revealed strong internal consistency for the 
present sample (Cronbach’s α = .89).  Example questions 
included, “Did you receive training related to the counseling 
needs of GLBTQ students?” and, “How well do you think 

 
 
Table 1 
 
Participant Demographic Characteristics 
 
Variable Students Faculty Practitioners 

N % N % N % 
Gender       

  Female 458 85.8 54 62.1 179 84 
  Male 76 14.2 33 37.9 32 15 
  Missing 0 0 0 0 2 1 

Mean age in years 26.7 (5.5) 44.3 (11.3) 40.0 (11.9)    
Ethnicity       
African-American 27 5.1 4 4.6 4 1.9 
Asian-American 20 3.7 3 3.4 1 0.5 

  Hispanic-American 30 5.6 4 4.6 2 0.9 
  Caucasian 442 82.8 76 87.4 200 93.9 
  Missing/Other 14 2.6 0 0 6 2.8 
Sexual Orientation       
  Gay/Lesbian 14 2.6 3 3.4 9 4.2 
  Bisexual 13 2.4 4 4.6 3 1.4 
  Heterosexual 497 93.2 76 87.4 199 93.4 
  Questioning/Other 20 1.8 4 4.6 2 1.0 
Census Region       
  Northeast 205 38.0 16 19.3 48 22.9 
  Midwest 188 35.2 22 26.5 65 31.0 
  South 87 16.3 27 32.5 84 40.0 
  West 53 10.5 18 21.7 13 6.2 
Work or University Setting       
  Urban 247 46.3 65 75 49 23.0 
  Suburban 183 34.3 13 15 113 53.1 
  Rural 104 19.4 9 10 51 23.9 
Political Affiliation       
  Democrat 286 53.7 59 67.8 116 54.5 
  Republican 80 15 5 5.7 33 15.5 
  Independent 111 20.8 14 16.2 30 14.1 
  Missing/Other 56 10.5 9 10.3 34 15.9 
Religiosity       
  Identify Religious/Spiritual 183 34.5 33 40 47 22.1 
  Not at all Religious/Spiritual 350 65.5 54 60 166 77.9 



GLBTQ YOUTH AND SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY TRAINING 
 

97 
 

your training related to the risk factors associated with 
GLBTQ students prepared you to work with this 
population?” A different set of questions was given to school 
psychology graduate faculty pertaining to the content of their 
courses and whether they felt it prepared their students to 
work with GLBTQ youth.  The third section of the survey 
(Section C) used a 14-item scale to measure participants’ 
knowledge about GLBTQ issues.  To assess respondents’ 
knowledge of GLBTQ-related issues, 14 true/false questions 
were included in the survey.  Questions were adapted from 
the Knowledge about Homosexuality Questionnaire (Harris, 
Nightengale, & Owen, 1995) and included questions such as, 
“Homosexuality is a phase which children outgrow” and, 
“According to the American Psychological Association, 
homosexuality is an illness.” This measure has shown high 
internal consistency across studies, with a Cronbach’s alpha 
of .86 (Bliss & Harris, 1999; Koch, 2000).  Lastly, Section D 
measured participants’ comfort in taking action in various 
scenarios related to GLBTQ youth.  Respondents were given 
13 scenarios assessing their comfort level in addressing 
GLBTQ-related issues or working directly with GLBTQ 
youth.  These items were adapted from the Index of 
Homophobia (Bouton, Gallaher, Garlinghouse, Leal, 
Rosentein, & Young, 1987) which has demonstrated 
consistently high reliability coefficients ranging from .90 to 
.95 (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980; Patgolum-An & Clair, 1986).  
The scenarios outlined a variety of situations commonly 
encountered with GLBTQ youth, including counseling a 
student who identifies as GLBTQ or overhearing 
homophobic statements from teachers or administrators.  On 
a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being the “least comfortable” and 4 
being “very comfortable”, a total comfort score was 
calculated for respondents. 

 
 Procedures  

The survey was approved by the University of Kentucky 
Institutional Review Board and email invitations were sent 
using state-level school psychologist association listservs to 
access practicing school psychologists and the NASP-
approved graduate program list to access program directors.  
An accompanying letter was attached to each email 
explaining the purpose of the study.  One reminder prompt 
was sent to each university institution or professional 
organization if a reply had not been obtained.  As an 
additional incentive for completing the survey, participants 
were informed that two respondents’ emails would be chosen 
at random to win a monetary gift card. 

All responses were given a numerical code and 
transferred from the online survey database to a statistical 
program (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Version 
18.0; SPSS 18.0) for analyses.   

 
Results 

 
Demographic Relationships 

To assess the relationship between respondents’ training 
experiences, knowledge, and comfort levels, Pearson 

bivariate correlations were examined.  Demographic 
variables, including respondents’ religiosity, gender and 
relationship with a GLBTQ individual, were included in the 
correlational matrix using Spearman’s Rank Order 
correlation to examine relationships with the three dependent 
variables.  As shown in Table 2, amount of training, 
knowledge of GLBTQ issues, and comfort levels with 
GLBTQ topics were all correlated, though to a small degree.  
Not surprisingly, having a close relationship with a person 
who identified as a sexual minority was correlated with 
having a higher comfort level with GLBTQ individuals, 
although the correlation was relatively small.  Further, gender 
was also negatively correlated with comfort. On a scale of 1 
to 4, with 1 being the “least comfortable” and 4 being “very 
comfortable”, a total comfort score of 52 was calculated for 
respondents. Females (M = 38.9, SD = 8.3) reported higher 
comfort levels in working with GLBTQ youth than did males 
(M = 36.8, SD = 8.7), although the results were not 
significant at the .05 level, t(830) = 0.008, p = .93, 95% CI 
[3.64, 3.68]. 

Given the low intercorrelations among training, 
knowledge, and comfort levels, separate one-way Analysis of 
Variance (ANOVA) tests were used to ascertain differences 
among the dependent variables based on geographic location 
(Northeast, Midwest, South, and West), political affiliation 
(Democratic, Republican, Independent, or Other), 
ethnicity/race (African American, Asian American, Hispanic 
American, and Caucasian), and sexual orientation 
(Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual or Heterosexual).  All ANOVA 
results were analyzed using Bonferroni’s adjustment to 
control for Type I error (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).  As 
presented in Table 3, training, knowledge, and comfort levels 
did not significantly vary depending on one’s geographic 
region, political affiliation, or ethnicity/race.  However, 
respondents who identified as gay or lesbian had significantly 
higher comfort and knowledge scores than those who 
identified as heterosexual.  Using eta squared to calculate 
effect sizes, however, the magnitude of these differences was 
small for both comfort (η2 = .02) and knowledge (η2 = .01). 

 
Table 2 
 
Intercorrelations among Demographic and Dependent 
Variables 

 
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

1. Training -       
2. Knowledge .09** -      
3. Comfort .11** .23** -     
4. Religiosity .02 .05 .06 -    
5. Gender -.06 .04 -.09** - -   
6. Sexual Orientation -.02 .06 .08 - - -  
7. Relationship 
w/GLBTQ 

.02 .01 .12** - - - - 

 
Note.* p < .05, **p <.01. Religiosity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, 
and Personal Relationship with GLBTQ individual all reflect 
dichotomous variables. 



RUTLEDGE, FEDEWA, FLYNN, & JACKSON  
 

98 
 

Training 
Survey questions provided information on respondents’ 

level of training in GLBTQ issues across a number of forums 
(e.g., entire course content dedicated to GLBTQ issues versus 
readings or lectures addressing the topic).  Students and 
practitioners were asked to rate the prevalence of GLBTQ 
training, while faculty were asked to indicate how much and 
through what means their program delivered this training.  
One-way ANOVA was used to assess group differences.  
Results showed some incongruence between student and 
practitioner reports versus faculty reports of training 
experiences.  Overall, students and practitioners rated their 
training lower than the level of training indicated by faculty, 
although the results were not statistically significant, F(2, 
831) = 1.30, p = .27.  In other words, faculty reported 
providing higher levels of GLBTQ training than students and 
practitioners reported they received.   

On a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being the least competent and 
4 being very competent, students (Mdn= 1.45, IR = 1.60) and 
practitioners (Mdn = 1.68, IR = 1.85) also rated themselves in 
the range of “incompetent” with respect to their perceived 
ability to work effectively with GLBTQ youth).  Table 4 
displays the separate areas in which each respondent rated 
both their training and perceived effectiveness of training 
with GLBTQ youth.  Students and practitioners indicated that 
very little graduate training was devoted to GLBTQ issues.  
However, those that did receive training in the various 
domains rated this training as very helpful in preparing them 
to work with the GLBTQ population (Mdn = 3.65, IR = 
3.69).  

 
Knowledge 

 Across all three groups, respondents answered an 
average of 64% of questions correctly.  On the 14-question 
test of knowledge about GLBTQ issues, faculty appeared to 
be the most knowledgeable (M = 9.76, SD = 2.98), followed 
by students (M = 9.40, SD = 2.65) and practitioners (M = 
9.12, SD = 2.30).  ANOVA results reflected significant 
differences for knowledge between groups, F(2,826) = 4.26, 
p =.01. However, the differences in mean score were quite 
small, as reflected in the effect size which was calculated 
using eta squared (η2 = .01). 

Out of the 14 true/false questions, respondents were 
most likely to incorrectly rate as “true” the statement that 
“homosexuality describes a person’s sexual preference.”  
Consistent with the literature, females were significantly 

Table 3 
 
ANOVA Omnibus Results for GLBTQ Training, Knowledge, and Comfort: Group Differences According to Demographic Status 

 
 Outcome 

Training  Knowledge  Comfort 
Demographic Measure n F p  N F p  N F p 
 Political Affiliation 823 2.3 .057  818 2.26 .061  826 1.54 .061 
 Geographic Location 826 .855 .464  821 .360 .782  826 .360 .782 
 Race/Ethnicity 830 .421 .656  825 .477 .752  830 1.23 .296 
Sexual Orientation 830 2.45 .38  830 1.06 .03**  825 3.04 .01** 

 
Note.* p < .05, **p <.01. 
 
 

 

 
 
Table 4  
 
Student and Practitioner Training Experiences with 
GLBTQ Youth 
 

 Students Practitioners 

Counseling   
  Received Training 2.04 (.90) 1.93 (.76) 
  Training Effective? 2.09 (.77) 2.38 (.75) 
Interventions   
  Received Training 1.67 (.86) 1.70 (.71) 
  Training Effective? 1.83 (.87) 2.15 (.79) 
Risk Factors   
  Received Training 1.90 (.85) 1.90 (.71) 
  Training Effective? 2.02 (.78) 2.31 (.73) 
Ethics   
  Received Training 1.78 (.82) 1.66 (.73) 
  Training Effective? 2.00 (.85) 2.13 (.88) 
Advocacy   
  Received Training 1.67 (.83) 1.58 (.70) 
  Training Effective? 1.89 (.83) 1.99 (.82) 
Identity Development   
  Received Training 1.59 (.80) 1.51 (.69) 
  Training Effective? 1.73 (.78) 1.88 (.85) 
Mental Health   
  Received Training 1.83 (.84) 1.88 (.69) 
  Training Effective? 1.96 (.74) 2.23 (.78) 
Physical Health   
  Received Training 1.26 (.60) 1.34 (.62) 
  Training Effective? 1.43 (.71) 1.69 (.86) 
Overall Training 1.84 (.76) 1.98 (1.13) 

 
Note. All figures are average scores based on a scale of 1 (Not at 
all helpful or No training) to 4 (Very helpful and Three or more 
modes of training). Faculty members were asked if their overall 
training was effective, and were therefore not asked about 
individual training domains. Standard deviations are provided in 
parentheses.  

 



GLBTQ YOUTH AND SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY TRAINING 
 

99 
 

more likely to answer the 14 questions correctly than males, 
t(830) = 2.11, p = 0.001; d = 0.80, 95% CI [.56, 3.7].  

 
Comfort 

With the highest possible score being 52, respondents 
rated themselves at a mean of 37.3 (SD = 9.8), suggesting a 
moderate level of comfort in working with GLBTQ youth.  
Faculty rated themselves as most comfortable (M = 39.8, SD 
= 13.6), followed by students (M = 37.0, SD = 7.0) and 
practitioners (M = 36.2, SD = 9.5).  These differences were 
statistically significant at the .05 level, F(2, 831) = 5.47, p = 
.01.  However, using eta squared to calculate an effect size, 
the difference (d = .01) was minimal (Cohen, 1988).   

Across respondents, being alone with a same-gender 
sexual minority student was rated as the most comfortable 
scenario (M = 3.82, SD = 0.93).  Two scenarios were equally 
rated as the most uncomfortable for respondents.  One of the 
scenarios perceived as uncomfortable involved a student 
seeking help because of transgender feelings (M = 2.12, SD 
= 0.97) while the other scenario described a school 
psychologist working in a school that discriminated against 
sexual minorities (M = 2.13, SD = 0.87).   

 
Discussion 

 
The purpose of the current study was to expand the 

literature base examining school psychologists’ training, 
knowledge, and comfort levels in working with GLBTQ 
youth.  In order to understand the various background 
characteristics of the survey respondents and their association 
with these variables, a number of demographic questions 
were also included in the survey related to political 
affiliation, sexual orientation, geographic region, and 
religious orientation. 

With regard to training, the results of the study suggested 
that student and practitioner reports were somewhat 
inconsistent with faculty reports when indicating how much 
training was conducted at the university level.  School 
psychology faculty reported more training in GLBT areas, 
while overall, students and practitioners judged their training 
less favorably and reported feeling incompetent to work with 
sexual minorities.  There are several possible explanations for 
these findings.  First, at best, training offered in graduate 
programs may not be relevant or helpful to the work being 
done in school settings and, at worst, may actually be 
harmful.  For example, studies done by Erwin (2006) and 
Pilkington and Cantor (1996) found elements of heterosexual 
bias and discrimination in graduate training programs.  
Heterosexual bias may have been present in the training 
being assessed by the present study and may have been 
perceived by respondents.  Given that the questionnaires did 
not explicitly tap into heterosexism or discrimination present 
in graduate training, this hypothesis remains speculative.   

Second, it is possible that the amount of training offered 
at the university level may not be adequate in making 
students feel prepared to work with sexual minority youth 
upon completion of their graduate training.  For instance, 

Erwin (2006) found that students in counseling programs did 
not feel prepared to work with lesbian and gay clients upon 
completion of their training, even though some training had 
been provided.  Thus, our results appear consistent with prior 
research in suggesting that many students feel “incompetent” 
to work with GLBTQ populations.  Although faculty in our 
sample reported having provided training in GLBTQ issues, 
it is clear that students require additional training or exposure 
to GLBTQ clients to feel more competent in working with 
this particular population.   

Results related to faculty, students, and practitioners’ 
knowledge levels of GLBTQ issues fit our expectations 
based on previous research studies among school counselors.  
Overall, school psychologists rated their training as 
inadequate and answered just over half of the questions 
concerning GLBTQ issues correctly, suggesting the need for 
factual-based training that addresses common GLBTQ 
concerns.  The fact that there was no significant difference in 
knowledge level between the groups indicates that training in 
this area is consistently low, and seems to remain so over 
time.  That is, current graduate students are no more 
knowledgeable on GLBTQ issues than school psychologists 
who were trained years ago, despite the fact that the extent 
and severity of sexual minority victimization has increased 
over the past two decades (CMHS, 2007; Gay, Lesbian and 
Straight Education Network, 2007).  With increased 
victimization and visibility of GLBTQ youth, the training 
offered by universities should increase as well.  
Unfortunately, the results of this study do not indicate that 
this is the case for current school psychology graduate 
students.   

Despite the lack of training reported by students and 
practitioners, respondents feel surprisingly comfortable 
working with GLBTQ students in the school setting.  These 
results supported our hypothesis that more training would 
result in an increased comfort level with GLBTQ youth.  
Given that having a close relationship with an individual who 
identified as GLBTQ was significantly and positively 
correlated with comfort, it is possible that students merely 
had more exposure to GLBTQ individuals and therefore were 
more comfortable with them.  It could be that respondents 
reported greater levels of comfort due to this exposure of 
having more personal experiences with GLBTQ individuals.  
As has been shown in prior research, increasing comfort with 
issues of diversity can result from personal experiences or 
relationships with others from diverse backgrounds.  Smith 
(2007) found that respondents who had had positive 
interactions with lesbian women or gay men reported lower 
levels of homophobia.  Training programs may therefore help 
to improve knowledge of GLBTQ issues as well as changing 
individuals’ comfort levels with this population.  More 
research is needed to explore the relationships among these 
variables.  In particular, it remains unclear whether having a 
sexual minority family member may reduce homophobia in 
school psychologists.  It is also unclear how best to define a 
“close” relationship with a person who identifies as GLBTQ, 
nor is it known how close one needs to be with a GLBTQ 



RUTLEDGE, FEDEWA, FLYNN, & JACKSON  
 

100 
 

individual in order for this relationship to reduce homophobia 
and increase comfort levels in working with sexual 
minorities.  Given that this survey included only one question 
to assess whether the respondent was “close” to someone 
who identified as a sexual minority, much more information 
is needed to explore these questions as they pertain to school 
psychologists.   

The results from the demographic questions did not 
support the authors’ hypotheses.  Religious orientation, 
geographic region, political affiliation, and ethnicity/race 
were not significantly correlated to knowledge and comfort 
level, as we had predicted.  This may indicate that school 
psychologists are able to separate their personal from their 
professional lives, such that they do not allow their belief 
systems to interfere with their work in schools.   

This study had a number of limitations.  Random 
sampling is a vital part of ensuring the generalizability of 
survey results (Langston, 2005; Ray, 2003); thus, surveys 
were sent out to a random sample of NASP-approved 
programs.  However, programs nonetheless participated 
through self-selection.  Although every attempt was made to 
ensure that most faculty, students, and practitioners 
completed the survey, there were a number of potential 
respondents who did not.  It is unclear if willing participants 
differed in terms of knowledge, training, and comfort level 
from those who did not participate in the survey or who were 
not members of statewide NASP organizations, creating a 
potential selection bias.  Moreover, because faculty and 
students were not from the same training programs, direct 
correlations between the training offered and training 
received could not be assessed.  Future research should 
include students from non-NASP-approved programs and 
should contact practitioners through their respective counties 
or consortiums to ensure all school psychologists are reached 
regardless of their NASP membership status and affiliation.  
In addition, the survey did not address years of work 
experience or personal experiences participants had had with 
GLBTQ individuals.  Research shows that those with more 
exposure to others from diverse backgrounds (including 
GLBTQ populations) have more tolerance and higher 
comfort levels with individuals from diverse backgrounds 
(Green, Murphy, Blumer, & Palmanteer, 2009).  Again, 
additional research is needed to explore in more depth the 
relationship between personal experiences with GLBTQ 
populations and individuals’ levels of knowledge and 
comfort.  Finally, as with any survey, participants can affect 
the outcome by answering in a fashion they deem socially 
appropriate or pleasing to the researcher (Langston, 2005).  
Although the current study attempted to curtail possible 
social desirability effects by piloting the study and using 
questions from other scales already tested and used in the 
field, this phenomenon could affect results, particularly with  
a socially and politically controversial topic (Kimberlin & 
Winterstein, 2008; Nauta & Kluwer, 2004; Sjöström  & 
Holst, 2002).   

As the results of the present study showed, there is a 
critical need to address the lack of training related to GLBTQ 

individuals within graduate school programs and to provide 
professional development opportunities for practitioners.  
Results indicate that more training is necessary for school 
psychologists to provide appropriate services, to meet 
educational needs, and to create a school environment that is 
a safe place for all children to learn.  Further research is 
therefore needed to determine which training options might 
be the most helpful in increasing knowledge and comfort 
levels in working with GLBTQ youth. In addition, studies 
that examine training which will translate effectively into 
school practices that support and encourage GLBTQ mental 
and physical well-being are warranted.  These higher levels 
of knowledge and comfort should be a goal not only for 
school psychologists but for all practitioners who work with 
GLBTQ youth, in order to provide improved care to a 
population that is becoming more visible within our schools 
and society. 

 
References 

 
American Psychological Association (2002). American 

Psychological Association ethical principles of 
psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved February 
20, 2010, from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002. 
html.  

Bahr, M. W., Brish, B., & Croteau, J. M. (2000). Addressing 
sexual orientation and professional ethics in the training 
of school psychologists in school and university settings. 
School Psychology Review, 29, 217-230.  

Black, J., & Underwood, J. (1998). Young, female and gay: 
Lesbian students and the school environment. 
Professional School Counseling, 1, 15-21. 

Bliss, G. K., & Harris, M. B. (1999). Teachers’ views of 
students with gay or lesbian parents. Journal of Gay, 
Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity, 4, 149-171.  

Bouton, R. A., Gallaher, P. E., Garlinghouse, P. A., Leal, T., 
Rosenstein, L. D., & Young, R. K. (1987). Scales for 
measuring fear of AIDS and homophobia. Journal of 
Personality, 51, 606-614. 

Butler, K. L. (1995). Preservice teachers’ knowledge and 
attitudes regarding gay men and lesbians: The impact of 
cognitive vs. affective educational interventions. 
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kent State 
University, Kent, OH.  

Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA (2007). Sexual 
minority students. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Retrieved 
May 27, 2008 from http://smhp.psych.ucla. 
edu/pdfdocs/sexual_minority/lgbt.pdf  

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral 
sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Erwin, T. W. (2006). Infusing lesbigay research into the 
counseling research classroom. Journal of 
Homosexuality, 51(3), 125-164. doi:10.1300/J082 
v51n03_07 

Evans, L. R. (1994). Homophobia and social work education: 
Social work students’ knowledge of and attitudes toward 
working with lesbian and gay clients. (Unpublished 



GLBTQ YOUTH AND SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY TRAINING 
 

101 
 

doctoral dissertation). California State University, Long 
Beach, California.  

Fontaine, J. (1998). Evidencing a need: School counselor’s 
experiences with gay and lesbian students. Professional 
School Counseling, 1(3), 8-14.  

Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (2007). 
Executive summary: The 2007 National School Climate 
Survey. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from 
http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ 
ATTACHMENTS/file/000/001/1306-1.pdf 

Green, M., Murphy, M., Blumer, M., & Palmanteer, D. 
(2009). Marriage and family therapists' comfort level 
working with gay and lesbian individuals, couples, and 
families. American Journal of Family Therapy, 37, 159-
168. doi:10.1080/01926180701441429 

Harris, M. B., Nightengale, J., & Owen, N. (1995). Health c 
are professionals’ experience, knowledge, and attitudes 
concerning homosexuality. Journal of Gay and Lesbian 
Social Services, 2(2), 91-107. 

Herek, G. M. (2008). The impact of hate crime victimization. 
Retrieved July 10, 2012 from http://psychology.ucdavis. 
edu/RAINBOW/html/summary.pdf 

Herek, G. M. (2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward 
bisexual men and women in the United States. Journal of 
Sex Research, 29, 264-274. doi: 10.1080/0022449020955 
2150 

Hirsch, A. J. (2007). Future teachers’ attitudes and 
anticipated behaviors toward sexual minority youth. 
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State 
University, East Lansing, MI. 

Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the 
measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 
3, 107-121. doi:10.1300/J082v05n04_02 

Kahn, M. M. (2006). Conservative Christian teachers: 
Possible consequences for lesbian, gay and bisexual 
youth. Intercultural Education, 17, 359-371. 
doi:10.1080/14675980600971368 

Kimberlin, C., & Winterstein, A. (2008). Validity and 
reliability of measurement instruments used in research. 
American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 65, 2276-
2284. doi:10.2146/ajhp070364 

Koch, C. A. (2000). Attitudes, knowledge, and anticipated 
behaviors of preservice teachers toward individuals with 
different sexual orientations. (Published doctoral 
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & 
Theses Database. (UMI 9973083) 

Langston, W. (2005). Research methods laboratory manual 
for psychology (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson 
Wadsworth.  

Marinoble, R. M. (1998). Homosexuality: a blind spot in the 
school mirror. Professional School Counseling, 1(3), 4-7.  

Mudrey, R., & Medina-Adams, A. (2006). Attitudes, 
perceptions, and knowledge of pre-service teachers 
regarding the educational isolation of sexual minority 
youth. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(4), 63-90. 
doi:10.1300/J082v51n04_04 

National Association of School Psychologists (2010). 
Principles for professional ethics. Bethesda, MD: 
Author.  

National Association of School Psychologists (January, 
2008). NASP-approved graduate programs in school 
psychology. Retrieved May 27, 2008 from 
http://nasponline.org/certification/ApprovedPrograms060
3.pdf 

National Association of School Psychologists (2006). 
Position statement on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender 
and questioning (GLBTQ) youth (formerly sexual 
minority youth). Retrieved May 15, 2008 from 
http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/positionpapers/gl
b.pdf  

Nauta, A., & Kluwer, E. (2004). The use of questionnaires in 
conflict research. International Negotiation, 9, 457-470. 
doi:10.1163/1571806053498760 

Pagtolun-An, I. G., & Clair, J. M. (1986). An experimental 
study of attitudes toward homosexuals. Deviant 
Behavior, 7, 121-135. doi:10.1080/01639625.1986. 
9967701 

Pilkington, N. W., & Cantor, J. M. (1996). Perceptions of 
heterosexual bias in professional psychology programs: 
A survey of graduate students. Professional Psychology: 
Research and Practice, 27, 604-612. 

Ray, W. J. (2003). Methods: Towards a science of behavior 
and experience (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: 
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. 

Ruebensaal, D. M. (2006). Attitudes and practice of school 
counselors and school psychologists with lesbian and 
gay male youth. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). 
Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH.  

Savage, T. A., Prout, H. T., & Chard, K. M. (2004). School 
psychology and issues of sexual orientation: Attitudes, 
beliefs, and knowledge. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 
201-210. doi:10.1002/pits.10122 

Sears, J. T. (1991). Educators, homosexuality, and 
homosexual students: Are personal feelings related to 
professional beliefs? Journal of Homosexuality, 22, 29-
79. doi:10.1300/J082v22n03_03  

Sjöström, O., & Holst, D. (2002). Validity of a questionnaire 
survey: response patterns in different subgroups and the 
effect of social desirability. Acta Odontologica 
Scandinavica, 60, 136-140. doi:10.1080/000163502753 
740133  

Smith, L. (2007). The effects of homophobia, legislation, and 
local policies on heterosexual pupil services 
professionals' likelihood of incorporating gay-affirming 
behaviors in their professional work with sexual minority 
youths in public schools. (Doctoral dissertation). 
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses 
Database. (AAT 3292580) 

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate 
statistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.


