Diagnostic problem solving of school psychologists: Scientific method or guesswork?

Mesquita, Paul B. de

doi:10.1016/0022-4405(92)90011-s

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Experienced teachers recognize the pattern of symptoms or misbehaviours and make inferences about the nature of the underlying reality (Boreham 1986). They must formulate hypotheses, search for relevant information to support those hypotheses, and interpret data to eliminate unsupported hypotheses (de Mesquita 1992). Diagnosis–solution problems are in the middle of the continuum between well‐structured and ill‐structured problems (Jonassen 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving

Jonassen

2007

Computer Assisted Learning

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, constraint-based argumentation scaffolding was proposed to facilitate online argumentation performance and ill-structured problem solving during online discussions. In addition, epistemological beliefs were presumed to play a role in solving ill-structured diagnosis-solution problems. Constraint-based discussion boards were implemented to scaffold pre-service teachers' online discussions about behaviour management (diagnosissolution) problems. The scaffolded discussion group generated more evidence notes and also generated more hypothesis messages and hypothesis testing messages as well as problem space construction messages. There was a relationship between epistemological beliefs and illstructured problem solving. Simple knowledge, omniscient authority, and fixed ability significantly predicted problem-solving performance. A significant negative relationship between simple knowledge and individual problem-solving performance was found. This implies that individuals who believe in simple knowledge may be less inclined to explore more solution alternatives. However, contrary to prediction, omniscient authority and fixed ability beliefs were positively associated with problem-solving processes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving

Jonassen

2007

Computer Assisted Learning

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many states do not operationalize a severe discrepancy, inadequate response to intervention (RtI), or alternative research-based methods (Maki, Floyd, & Roberson, 2015). Vague criteria can reduce confidence in resulting identification decisions, which may affect the consistency of decisions (de Mesquita, 1992). Learning disability (learning disability[ies] [LD]) identification decisions can be particularly difficult due to challenges in reliable measurement of the construct (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007), and state regulations that necessitate professional judgment and subjective decision-making (Mather & Gregg, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

School Psychologists’ Confidence in Learning Disability Identification Decisions

Maki

Burns

Sullivan

2018

Learning Disability Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Special education identification decisions are often difficult because of vague special education regulations and eligibility criteria. Many states do not operationalize a severe discrepancy, inadequate response to intervention (RtI), or alternative research-based methods (Maki, Floyd, & Roberson, 2015). Vague criteria can reduce confidence in resulting identification decisions, which may affect the consistency of decisions (de Mesquita, 1992). Learning disability (learning disability[ies] [LD]) identification decisions can be particularly difficult due to challenges in reliable measurement of the construct (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007), and state regulations that necessitate professional judgment and subjective decision-making (Mather & Gregg, 2006). Below, we discuss LD identification methods, inconclusive student data, and decision-maker confidence in LD identification decisions. LD Identification Methods Three overarching identification methods are typically used to identify students with LD. The original LD identification methodology that was ushered into law through the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA; now the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act [Individuals With Disabilities Education Act; IDEA] of 2004) relied on ability-achievement discrepancies, which was predicated on the belief that underachievement discrepant from cognitive ability was indicative of LD (Gresham & Vellutino, 2010). However, ability-achievement discrepancies do not appear to be valid markers of LD because children with and without discrepancies exhibited similar skill deficits (Stuebing et al., 2002; Vellutino, Scanlon, Zhang, & Schatschneider, 2008), difference scores resulted in unreliable decisions, and discrepancies lacked treatment validity (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Subsequent reauthorizations of IDEA allowed for use of RtI and alternative research-based methods to identify LD. Most RtI models compare student achievement level and growth rate (i.e., dual discrepancy) to either research-based criteria or peer performance (Kovaleski, VanDerHeyden, & Shapiro, 2013). Implementing RtI resulted in improved student outcomes (Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005), and 769251L DQXXX10.

show abstract

“…Examples included grades and results of a vision and hearing screening (deMesquita, 1992). Average range standard scores and corresponding percentile ranks were also reported for the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (Beery, 1997) to help ensure that sensory and perceptual factors would not be postulated as a potential source of the student's problems.…”

Section: Methods Instrumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of a Psychiatric Diagnosis on School Psychologists' Special Education Eligibility Decisions Regarding Emotional Disturbance

Toffalo

Pedersen²

2005

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this analogue investigation, 215 practicing Pennsylvania school psychologists reviewed hypothetical referral forms and related data (vignettes). Vignettes represented children who met eligibility criteria for special education as well as children who did not. Participants were most likely to recommend,as eligible due to emotional disturbance,children who met eligibility criteria and carried a psychiatric diagnosis; they were least likely to recommend children who neither met criteria nor carried a diagnosis. Participants were just as likely to consider children eligible by virtue of emotional disturbance when they carried a diagnosis but did not meet eligibility criteria, as when they met criteria but had no diagnosis.These results suggest that school psychologists may allow the presence of a psychiatric diagnosis in referral information to inappropriately influence their recommendations regarding eligibility under the special education category of emotional disturbance.

show abstract

Diagnostic problem solving of school psychologists: Scientific method or guesswork?

Cited by 17 publications

References 42 publications

Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving

Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving

School Psychologists’ Confidence in Learning Disability Identification Decisions

The Effect of a Psychiatric Diagnosis on School Psychologists' Special Education Eligibility Decisions Regarding Emotional Disturbance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About