Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:40:29.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Makes an Effective Psychoeducational Report? Perceptions of Teachers and Psychologists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2015

Janet Fletcher ,
Tara Hawkins  and
Jenna Thornton
Janet Fletcher*
Affiliation:
University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Tara Hawkins
Affiliation:
University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Jenna Thornton
Affiliation:
University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
*
address for correspondence: Janet Fletcher, Child Study Centre (School of Psychology), University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The psychoeducational report has many purposes and many readers. Given this, it is imperative that psychoeducational reports are well written, as well as acceptable to and understood by the readers. This study aimed to determine from the perspective of both teacher (report reader) and psychologist (report writer) the factors that make an effective psychoeducational report. The current study examined the effects of report style and language on satisfaction with and understanding and perceived utility of psychoeducational reports as rated by teachers and psychologists with varying degrees of experience. We expected that reports which contained a theme-based organisation and a lower grade reading level would receive significantly higher ratings of satisfaction and utility, and be understood by teachers and psychologists at significantly higher levels than reports with neither or only one of these two characteristics. Results indicated that while teachers in the present study were not more satisfied with the theme-based non-technical report and did not rate it as more useful, they did consider non-technical language easier to understand. Psychologists, in contrast, were not impacted by either variation in report style. The impact of differences between writer and reader on perceived understandability of reports is discussed.

Keywords

psychoeducational reportsteachers perceptionsunderstandingsatisfactionutility
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools , Volume 25 , Special Issue 1: Psycho-Educational Assessment , June 2015 , pp. 38 - 54
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, H. (1964). Psychological services: From the school staff's point of view. Journal of School Psychology, 3, 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, H.M., & Giebnik, J.W. (1968). Concreteness and congruence in psychologists’ reports to teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 5, 87–89.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, E. (2003). Consumer-focused psychological assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34 (3), 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucknavage, L.B. (2007). Psychoeducational reports: Impact of jargon and report length on teacher and parent recall and acceptance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, PA.Google Scholar
Cates, J.A. (1999). The art of assessment in psychology: Ethics, expertise and validity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55 (5), 631–641.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheramie, G.M., Goodman, B.J., Santos, V.T., & Webb, E.T. (2007). Teacher perceptions of psychological reports submitted for emotional disturbance eligibility. Journal of Education and Human Development, 1, 1–8.Google Scholar
Dattilio, F.M., Tresco, K.E., & Siegel, A. (2007). An empirical survey on psychological testing and the use of the term psychological: Turf battles or clinical necessity? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 682–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Flesch, R. (1946). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32 (3), 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groth-Marnat, G., & Horvath, L.S. (2006). The psychological reports: A review of current controversies. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62 (1), 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagborg, W.J., & Aiello-Coultier, M. (1994). Teachers’ perceptions of psychologists’ reports of assessments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, V.S. (1997). Improving readability of psychological reports. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28 (3), 271–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, V.S. (2006). Variables affecting the clarity of psychological reports. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lichtenberger, E.O., Mather, N., Kaufman, N.L., & Kaufman, A.S. (2004). Essentials of assessment report writing. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Meyer, G.J., Finn, S.E., Eyde, L.D., Kay, G.G., Moreland, K.L., Dies, R.R., . . . Reed, G.M. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment. American Psychologist, 56 (2), 128–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, J.A., & Watkins, M.W. (2010). The use of graphs to communicate psychoeducational test results to parents. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mussman, M.C. (1964). Teachers’ evaluations of psychological reports. Journal of School Psychology, 3, 35–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ownby, R.L. (1990). A study of the expository process model in school psychological reports. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 353–358.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ownby, R.L. (1997). Psychological reports: A guide to report writing in professional psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ownby, R.L., & Wallbrown, F.H. (1983). Evaluating school psychological reports, Part I: A procedure for systematic feedback. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 41–45.3.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelco, L.E., & Ward, S.B. (2007). Theme-based reports: A systematic model for collecting, integrating, and reporting psychological assessment data. Unpublished manuscript, The College of William and Mary, VA.Google Scholar
Pelco, L.E., Ward, S.B., Coleman, L. & Young, J. (2009). Teacher ratings of three psychological report styles. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3 (1), 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryzwansky, W.B., & Hanania, J.S. (1986). Applying problem-solving approaches to school psychological reports. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rafoth, M.A., & Richmond, B.O. (1983). Useful terms in psychoeducational reports: A survey of students, teachers, and psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 346–350.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richens, B.E. (1999). Communicating intelligence: Teacher preferences for psychoeducational reports (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Northern Arizona University, AZ.Google Scholar
Rucker, C. (1967). Technical language in the school psychologist's report. Psychology in the Schools, 4, 146–150.3.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvagno, M., & Teglasi, H. (1987). Teacher perceptions of different types of information in psychological reports. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 415–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Tallent, N. (1956). An approach to the improvement of clinical psychological reports. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12, 103–109.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallent, N. & Reiss, R. J. (1959). Multidisciplinary views on the preparation of written reports: III. The trouble with psychological reports. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15, 444–446.3.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teglasi, H. (1983). Report of a psychological assessment in a school setting. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 466–479.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weddig, R.R. (1984). Parental interpretation of psychoeducational reports. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 447–481.3.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, J. (1985). Teachers’ comprehension of psychological reports. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 60–64.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, J. (1987). Factors affecting educators’ comprehension of psychological reports. Psychology in the Schools, 24, 116–126.3.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar