No abstract

Past studies have examined the contents of journal articles in school psychology, and more recently there has been increased interest in examining the frequency and characteristics of experimental studies appearing in school psychology journals. However, no prior studies have examined the international representation of experimental and intervention studies. This study evaluated every article published from 2002 to 2016 across eight school psychology journals that publish international scholarship. Several research questions were addressed (e.g., what is the frequency of experimental research internationally, what are the characteristics of those studies, and is the scholarship consistent with the global geography of school psychology?). Overall, findings revealed that although the field of school psychology is arguably international, the experimental research reflected in the eight journals selected for review does not adequately represent the global geography of the field, thereby also suggesting that the degree of internationalization in school psychology is relatively poor. The importance of these and related findings is discussed, and recommendations are provided that may help to improve the geographical representation of experimental research in school psychology as well as its overall internationalization.

Although a few prior studies have explored the publication outlets of school and educational psychology scholars employed within the United States, past research has not yet examined the publication outlets of such scholars working outside of the United States. With the aim of addressing this gap in the literature and increasing empirical data related to internationalization in school and educational psychology, the present study gathered data about the publication outlets among international scholars in the field since 2000. Several findings are reported, such as the number of books, chapters, and journal articles published by participants, as well as the names of the journals that participants most frequently published in—within and across global regions. One key finding from the study was that school and educational psychology scholars around the globe frequently publish in discipline‐specific journals, but generally publish in a wide range of journals that focus on specific topics (e.g., behavior, child development). Additionally, it was found that the large majority of authors from our study published their studies in English.

One proposed way to support internationalization is to enhance internationally representative and culturally informed scholarship within a respective discipline, and academic journals are a primary source of scholarship for most disciplines. Therefore, to build upon efforts to assess and promote internationally representative scholarship, it is necessary to identify and know more about the discipline-specific journals within a field—including those published in different parts of the world and in different languages. The goals of this study were to (a) identify all peer-reviewed scholarly journals around the globe that are specifically devoted to publishing scholarship about school or educational psychology, and (b) obtain relevant information about those journals (e.g., information about the mission of each journal, article accessibility, language characteristics, etc.). One key finding indicated clear evidence of internationality in the discipline, but there are important limitations with respect to representation aspects of internationalization. Other findings showed that many journals offer free access to scholarly articles and that the vast majority of journals aim to publish scholarship that influences practice. All findings, implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed in the context of internationalization within school and educational psychology, and are connected to discipline-relevant research, practice, training, collaboration, or advocacy.

To assess and promote internationally representative scholarship, several past studies have examined the geographic affiliation of journals’ editorial board members and authors. The present study is the first known to examine this with journals devoted to school and educational psychology. After systematically identifying all peer-reviewed scholarly journals around the globe that are specifically devoted to school or educational psychology ( N = 45), the goals of this study were to (a) report key characteristics about each journal’s editorial board, and (b) examine the extent to which geographic affiliation (country where one is employed) is consistent among a journal’s editorial board members and recent authors. One key finding revealed that editorial boards of the discipline’s journals represent individuals from all global regions, but many global regions (e.g. Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America) are underrepresented. Another finding showed that the vast majority of journals evidence strong similarities in geographic affiliation between editorial board members and authors. Findings, implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed in the context of internationalization.

No abstract

No abstract

More than half of students in the USA perform below a proficient level in math. Although evidence suggests that intervention in elementary school is critical to supporting struggling learners, and there are several research‐supported instructional practices to support students with math difficulties, the existing research is limited with regard to the impact of motivational strategies designed to improve students’ math skills. This study examined the effectiveness of specific motivational strategies used in the small‐group Accelerating Mathematics Performance through Practice Strategies (AMPPS‐SG) intervention program. A multiple baseline design was used with three instructional groups of second grade students to compare the relative effectiveness of three different conditions on students’ math computation skills. Condition 1 included all of the AMPPS‐SG instructional components. Condition 2 included all instructional procedures as well as goal‐setting, performance feedback, and reinforcement for performance. Condition 3 included all components used in Condition 2, as well as a group‐based reward contingency. Results showed that students’ performance during Condition 3 was significantly better than performance during Conditions 1 and 2.