Correction to: School-based Problem-Solving Teams: Educator-reported Implementation Trends and Outcomes

Are School-Based Problem-Solving Teams Effective? A Meta-Analysis of Student- and Systems-Level Effects

“…Current SB PSTs can vary substantially across problem-solving processes (Rosenfield et al, 2018;Sims et al, 2022) and implementation procedures utilized (Reinke et al, 2018;Rosenfield et al, 2018;Sims et al, 2022). In fact, previous research on SB PSTs found such variation across Inputs, Mediators, and Outputs (e.g., team membership, team roles, and training) that Burns, Vanderwood, et al (2005) recommended that additional research was needed before SB PSTs could be used as part of high-stakes service delivery decisionmaking (e.g., SLD identification).…”

“…In a recent survey of more than 3,000 educators in a southwestern state, the most common stated goal of SB PSTs was to increase student academic performance (28% of respondents), followed by decreasing inappropriate special education referrals (21%), providing students needed supports (16%), and providing interventions (12%; Sims et al, 2022). Similarly, Burns, Vanderwood, et al (2005) identified individual student improvement as the most frequently cited and easily recognized measure of SB PST effectiveness.…”

“…However, some SB PSTs use Deno's (2005) five-step IDEAL model, the Team-Initiated Problem-Solving (TIPS; Todd et al, 2011) five-step model, Tilly's (2008) four-step approach, or Bahr and Kovaleski's (2006) eight-step problem-solving model. Sims et al (2022) documented educator reports of problem-solving processes used by SB PSTs. Reports overwhelmingly indicated the use of problem-solving processes that did not align with those espoused within SB PST literature.…”

“…One of the longest running debates for SB PSTs is which school-based professionals should make up the team and, more specifically, the inclusion or role of special education personnel (Reinke et al, 2018). Recent research indicated SB PSTs are typically comprised of varying numbers of members, primarily general education personnel (e.g., teachers, administrators, counselors), with less representation of special education and specialized support personnel (Sims et al, 2022). Underlying this debate are concerns related to member knowledge, skills, and experience.…”