A Modified Content Analysis of Existing School Psychology Reports

Abstract

Discrepancies between our university's training program's report-writing guidelines and common practice in Manitoba could not be resolved by reference to the literature. To inform the discussion, we collected a sample of local real world school psychology reports and undertook a modified content analysis to operationally define and measure relevant variables. In this article we present our qualitative and quantitative findings on organization, readability, length, and the nature of recommendations in detail with implications to improve the extent to which school psychology reports incorporate an evidence basis and contribute to real, beneficial, and demonstrable change in circumstances for children and families. RésuméLa littérature ne permet pas de répondre aux divergences entre les lignes directrices de notre programme de formation de rédaction de rapport et la pratique courante. Par conséquent, dans le but d'éclairer cette discussion, nous avons recueilli un échantillon de rapports locaux de psychologie scolaire et avons entrepris une analyse de contenu modifiée afin de définir et mesurer les variables pertinentes. Dans cet article, nous présentons nos observations qualitatives et quantitatives quant à l'organisation, la clarté, la longueur et la nature des recommandations. Enfin, nous discutons des implications de ces résultats afin de proposer des outils visant l'amélioration des rapports employés en psychologie scolaire. Ceux-ci constituent un apport significatif pour un changement réel au bénéfice des enfants et de leurs familles.

Teacher Ratings of Three School Psychology Report Recommendation Styles

“…Because the body of the report was only needed to set the context for the recommendations, we presented the report with abbreviated technical findings (1742 words and an overall Grade 12.3 reading level). We chose the reading level of the report to be consistent with that measured in real reports in a companion study (Mallin, Schellenberg, & Smith, 2012). Three teachers naive to the study reviewed the report and the recommendations with the highest level of specificity (see below) and judged the report information as sufficient to present a realistic context for the recommendations.…”

“…The low specificity version of the recommendations was modelled on low specificity reports identified in research on real world school psychology reports (Mallin et al, 2012). This version provided generic strategies not specifically tailored to the student described in the report.…”

“…To check our construction for the low, medium, and high specificity recommendations, three teachers, given definitions of the SMART elements, identified them in each recommendation version and in two taken from the real world report study (Mallin et al, 2012) rating on a 5-point Likert-type scale from low to high the degree of detail provided for each element. The low specificity version we constructed matched the two real world samples.…”

Utility of psychological and psychoeducational evaluation reports: A survey of teachers and school administrators

“…In addition, Hagborg and Aiello-Coultier's (1994) sample indicated that recommendations were lacking in number and in concreteness. In the report coding study conducted by Mallin et al (2012), less than half of the recommendations met the criteria for relevancy. At the same time, it is important to consider that if the participants had never read any reports that used effective tables, figures, or other graphics, they might not have been able to provide reliable information about what a model report should include.…”

Preservice teachers' impressions of psychoeducational reports

“…Although adopting the preferred formats are potentially beneficial, they likely do not reflect the experiences and satisfaction that educators have with psychological reports in the field. Indeed, Mallin, Schellenberg, et al (2012) performed a content analysis of 90 psychological reports generated in Manitoba, Canada, and determined that 78% of reports employed the test-by-test organizational structure, despite being a less preferred format (e.g., Pelco et al, 2009). Recent work by Rahill (2018) reported 88% of teacher respondents, in their US sample, disagreed with the statement that psychological reports contain relevant information that assists with children in the classroom.…”