A COMPARISON OF SATISFACTION RATINGS OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS IN RTI VERSUS NON-RTI SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Priscilla A. Bade-White

Transcription

1 1 A COMPARISON OF SATISFACTION RATINGS OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS IN RTI VERSUS NON-RTI SCHOOL DISTRICTS by Priscilla A. Bade-White A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF DISABILITY AND PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL STUDIES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WITH A MAJOR IN SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2012

2 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read dissertation prepared by Priscilla A. Bade-White entitled Comparison of Satisfaction Ratings of School Psychologists in RTI versus Non- RTI School Districts and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Date: 4/27/12 Richard J. Morris, Ph.D., Chairperson Date: 4/27/12 Michelle Perfect, Ph.D. Date: 4/27/12 Deborah Levine-Donnerstein, Ph.D. Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. Date: 4/27/12 Dissertation Director: Richard J. Morris, Ph.D

3 3 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: Priscilla A. Bade-White

4 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank family. I would like to thank my husband who continues to love, support, laugh, and dream with me through every shenanigan we encounter. I would also like to thank my parents for teaching me to be happy as well as believe in and follow my passions; my sister for keeping me sane and on track always; Isabel and John Bade for instilling the values of dreaming, hard work, and selfconfidence in the Bade crew; my dad for bringing everyone together in the Valley of the Sun because it resulted in me being raised surrounded by love. I would like to thank Dr. Richard Morris for his excellent mentorship, commitment to supporting students, and for fostering my interest in research; Dr. John Obrzut for supporting me as a scholar and researcher; Dr. Michelle Perfect for her fresh insight into research design and analysis; Dr. Adam Schnaps for his input on the conceptualization of response to intervention, and Dr. Deborah Levine-Donnerstein for her invaluable support and guidance in the completion of this project. Also, thank you to Sehome Village Starbucks and both Starbucks on York for providing me with an office.

5 5 DEDICATION For my children, Jonah and Mattea Isabella, for making my heart smile every day. I hope the completion of this dissertation and, ultimately, my doctoral degree makes your futures even brighter. For JT, if I never met you, I d never be living the life I so love. For those school psychologists who have maintained their passion for their profession and remained committed to serving children and schools.

6 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES.8 ABSTRACT CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...16 CHAPTER 3: METHOD...75 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS..87 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION.99 APPENDIX A: DISCLOSURES APPENDIX B: SURVEYS APPENDIX C: RECRUITMENT REFERENCES 122

7 7 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Teachers Descriptive Characteristics Teachers Professional Demographics School Psychologists Descriptive Statistics Internal Consistency and Reliability of SPPS Satisfaction Items..83

8 8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Frequency of School Psychologists Service Requested by Teacher Type: LD/ED Assessments Frequency of School Psychologists Service Requested by Teacher Type: Academic Consultation Frequency of School Psychologists Service Requested by Teacher Type: Individual Counseling Frequency of Services Performed by School Psychologist Type: Individual Counseling Frequency of Services Performed by School Psychologist Type: In-Services..97

9 9 ABSTRACT Teachers satisfaction with school psychological services has been studied for more than 30 years. Few to no studies, however, are available that provide data about the perceptions of school psychologists regarding their perceived value within different service delivery models, particularly those involving Response to Intervention (RTI) models. The present study was designed to determine if any differences existed between the satisfaction ratings of school psychologists in RTI versus non-rti school districts as self-reported by teachers and school psychologists. General education teachers, special education teachers, and school psychologists from RTI and non-rti school districts across the United States were surveyed about their satisfaction with school psychological services using the School Psychology Perceptions Survey (SPPS, 2004). Responses were evaluated for significance using Kruskal-Wallis and in the event significance was found, Tukey s HSD was used to determine where the difference occurred. Both special and general education teachers reported statistically significant differences in their satisfaction ratings of school psychological services. Teachers from RTI school districts reported greater satisfaction levels with school psychological services when compared to teachers from non-rti districts. School psychologists who worked in RTI school districts reported higher job satisfaction ratings than those who worked in non-rti school districts. In terms of teachers and school psychologists satisfaction ratings of school psychological services, the results suggest that RTI school districts provide a more satisfying model of school psychological service delivery compared to non-rti school district models.

10 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In 1975, the passage of a landmark federal law, Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L ) mandated a free, appropriate education for all children and youth aged 3 to 21 years of age (Merrell, 2006). As a result, school psychological services became more broadly available nationwide (Fagan & Wise, 2000). It was also during this time that the field of school psychology emerged and stabilized its identity and professionalization (Swerdlik & Joseph, 2000). However, service delivery systems and qualifications varied (Fagan & Wise, 2000). More recently, other legislative changes have acted as catalysts for change in school psychology, namely, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [(NCLB); P.L ] and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [(IDEIA), P.L ]. It is at the intersection of these two laws where the impact on the delivery of school psychological services has occurred (Skalski, 2007). Historically, school psychological services were loosely mobilized around a dominant role of psychoeducational assessment to determine placement in special education (Fagan & Wise, 2000). Since the 1980s, most school psychological services have involved routine assessment of at-risk students cognitive abilities, academic achievement, and perceptualmotor skills (Goh, Teslow, & Fuller, 1981). In the literature, this approach to service delivery has been referred to as the traditional model (see Canter, 2006; Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009; Gutkin & Curtis, 1990; Short, 2003).

11 11 Numerous researchers have surveyed school psychologists regarding their perceived role and function in the traditional service delivery model (e.g. Bramlett, Murphy, Johnson, Wallingsford, & Hall, 2002; Hosp & Reschly, 2002; Roberts & Rust, 1994; Watkins, Crosby, Pearson, 2001). This research found that school psychologists spent at least 50% of their time conducting special education eligibility assessments, while engagement in consultation was a distant second followed by other less frequent activities (Bramlett et al., 2002; Hosp & Reschly, 2002; Roberts & Rust, 1994; Watkins et al., 2001). The latter assessment practices have also been reported to contribute to minority overrepresentation in special education and poor outcomes in closing the achievement gap (Gresham & Gasale, 1992; Epps & Tindal, 1987; Ikeda & Gustafson, 2002b). These outcomes, coupled with an increased need for school-based student mental health services (Barnes & Harlacher, 2008; Perfect & Morris, 2011), may broaden the services more commonly provided by school psychologists. An alternative to the popular traditional service delivery model provided by school psychologists may become more common, specifically, the response to intervention (RTI) model. RTI is a set of service delivery principles (Barnes & Harlacher, 2008) wherein students are taught using evidence-based instruction by their classroom teacher, and their progress is monitored regularly to determine which students are and are not responding to this evidence-based instruction (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). Students who do not respond are instructed using different, evidence-based practices and their progress is monitored again (Fuchs et al., 2003). Students who still do not respond are then determined to qualify for special education or for a special education evaluation (Fuchs et al., 2003).

12 12 The IDEIA permitted the use of RTI procedures to identify students in need of special education services. Specifically, it stated that the use of a process that determines if the child responds to scientific research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures [Public Law (P.L.) S 614 [b][6][a]; 614[b][2 & 3])] was acceptable. The aforementioned language reflects a change from IDEIA s predecessor, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (P.L ), in how students may be evaluated for special education services. Specifically, IDEIA no longer required states to use a discrepancy between a student s ability and his or her achievement to qualify for special education services under the Specific Learning Disability (SLD) category. It has been these types of federal and state policy changes that have affected the delivery of school psychological services over the past few decades (Thurlow, Lazarus, Thompson, & Morse, 2005; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2000). The practice of school psychology is influenced by many factors and, as a result, researchers monitor patterns in educational policy to better understand how these policies may affect the day-to-day practices of school psychologists. The early role and function of school psychologists was defined by the development of individual ability and achievement tests (Fagan & Wise, 2000). These tests were used to differentiate a student s ability and achievement level in order to provide appropriate educational services (Fagan & Wise, 2000). Such tests became the main set of tools used by psychologists in educational settings (Farrell, 2010). This practice was not expanded until the 1980s when, after the Spring Hill Symposium (Weinberg & Ysseledyke, 1984; Ysseledyke & Weinberg, 1981) and the Olympia Conference (Brown et al,. 1982), the

13 13 provision of services changed to include all students, teachers, parents, and the community as a whole (Fagan & Wise, 2000). Since these events, school psychologists have called for change, but the change has been slow over the years (Erhardt-Padgett et al., 2004; Fagan, 2002; Gilman & Gabriel, 2004; Gilman & Medway, 2007). While school psychologists report the desire to modify their professional role and function, the desires of consumers of school psychological services also need to be considered. In this regard, research indicates that stakeholders appear satisfied with the status quo regarding the provision of assessment services by school psychologists, but they also want additional services (Cheramie & Sutter, 1993; Abel & Burke, 1985; Hartshorne & Johnson, 1985; Senft & Snider 1980; Thomas, Levinson, Orf, & Pinciotti, 1992). Gilman and Gabriel (2004) surveyed education professionals, including teachers, administrators, and school psychologists, representing eight separate school districts across four states. They found that teachers rated school psychologists as significantly less helpful to students and teachers than to administrators, a finding consistent with earlier studies (Abel & Burke, 1985). These findings suggested fundamental differences between teachers' and administrators' perceptions of actual versus desired roles and functions of school psychologists. In a later study, Gilman and Medway (2007) investigated the roles and functions of school psychologists compared to those of school counselors. General and special education teachers from eight school districts responded to a survey wherein they rated the helpfulness of psychological services. They also had respondents rate their perceptions of school psychologists versus school counselors.

14 14 They found that general education teachers were less satisfied with school psychological services and that school psychologists were perceived as less helpful to children and teachers than were school counselors. General education teachers indicated that services from the school psychologists were significantly less effective than school counseling services. General and special education teachers rated school counselors significantly higher on all other functions. While this study provided data on the satisfaction and knowledge of school psychological services, it did not address of school psychological service delivery models. Given that calls for reform within special education has suggested the use of an RTI model and that subsequent federal legislation was passed regarding the use of RTI, research on the stakeholders opinions of reform seems past due. Purpose of the Present Study and Research Questions The purpose of the present study was to determine if any significant differences existed in the satisfaction ratings of school psychological services by type of service delivery model (i.e. RTI versus non-rti school districts) on the part of teachers and school psychologists. Specifically, the research question guiding this study was: does a significant difference exist between the satisfaction ratings of general education teachers, special education teachers, and school psychologists themselves in satisfaction with school psychological services in RTI versus non-rti school districts. The following hypotheses were tested: I) No significant difference (p <.05) exists in overall satisfaction ratings of school psychologists by general education teachers in RTI versus non-rti

15 15 school districts. II) No significant difference (p <.05) exists in overall satisfaction ratings of school psychologists by special education teachers in RTI versus non-rti school districts. III) No significant difference (p <.05) exists in perceived helpfulness of school psychological services for children as rated by general education teachers in RTI versus non-rti school districts. IV) No significant difference (p <.05) exists in perceived helpfulness of school psychological services for children as rated by special education teachers in RTI versus non-rti school districts. V) No significant difference (p <.05) exists in perceived helpfulness of school psychological services for teachers as rated by general education teachers in RTI versus non-rti school districts. VI) No significant difference (p <.05) exists in perceived helpfulness of school psychological services for teachers as rated by special education teachers in RTI versus non-rti school districts. VII) No significant difference (p <.05) exists in school psychologists selfreported overall job satisfaction in RTI versus non-rti school districts.

16 16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This section presents a review of relevant literature, beginning with a broad overview of school psychology including its history and development into a distinct specialty of psychology. This general introduction is followed by an in-depth presentation of the literature reviewing the roles and functions of school psychologists followed by an examination of the delivery of psychological services in the schools and the identification of students with learning disabilities within each delivery model. History and Development of School Psychology In 1892, the American Psychological Association (APA) was founded and recognized as members those psychologists who had earned doctoral degrees. Around 1982 the first psychological clinic for the assessment of learning and behavioral problems was established at the University of Pennsylvania and the first-school based clinic was founded in 1899 in Chicago (Tharinger, 2008; Fagan & Wise, 2007). As a result, there was a corresponding need to understand learning differences among students (Tharinger et al., 2008) and these students were referred to psychologists and the subsequent case studies provided the fundamental basis on which special education classes were formed (Fagan, 2000). During the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries, school psychology emerged as a field due to social reforms such as mandatory schooling, vocational guidance, the development of the juvenile justice system as well as children s mental health services, and child labor laws influencing practice (Fagan & Wise, 2000; Fagan & Wise, 2007). For example,

17 17 mandatory schooling resulted in large numbers of students from diverse backgrounds attending schools (Fagan & Wise, 2000). Some students arrived at school in poor physical health while others were found to learn at a slower pace than their peers; both groups of students needed examinations to determine the cause of these issues (Fagan & Wise, 2000; Tharinger, Pryzwansky, & Miller, 2008). The introduction of Binet-type scales and other individual ability and achievement tests in the early 20 th century facilitated the assessment role of school-based psychologists and the subsequent formation of special classes (Fagan, 2000; Tharbinger et al., 2008). This new technology provided a more reliable means of establishing levels of intelligence and achievement (Tharbinger et al., 2008); therefore, the evolution of special classes based on normative severity of one's disabilities became popular (Fagan, 2000). During this time, psychologist Lightner Witmer (1907) opened a laboratory at University of Pennsylvania to study and help children who had problems learning. Witmer firmly believed that children should not be labeled and that the focus should be on improving their skills (Thomas, 2009). Through his direct observation and successful intervention with a boy who showed characteristics similar to dyslexia that Witmer realized children s deficits could be overcome through special education and applied psychological knowledge (Thomas, 2009). By 1910, remedial services typically were provided by schools in most urban and some rural communities (Fagan, 2005). In order to determine who would receive these services, professionals with specialized training were needed and school-based psychologists became, in many instances, special education gatekeepers (Fagan, 2000).

18 18 During the 1920s and 1930s, a limited number school psychology training programs were developed and some states began certifying psychologists as school psychologists (Fagan & Wise, 2000). By the mid-1940s, school psychology became a growing specialty of psychology (Fagan, 2005) and the APA established Division 16, a specialty division for doctoral-level school psychologists (Fagan & Wise, 2000). States increased their regulation of school psychologists with 11 requiring certification in 1949 and 14 plus the District of Columbia by 1950 (Pryzwantsky, 1993). An important event occurred during this time was the Thayer Conference, held in At this conference, it was determined that school psychologists should provide services to all children. Also during this time, the role of schools saw more change with increased responsibility to teach more than reading, writing, and math; schools also were to socialize, convey knowledge, and baby sit school-aged children and youth (Braden, DiMarino-Linnen, & Good, 2001). These changes staged the field for growth, with about 1,000 practicing in 20 states plus the District of Columbia, who mainly served students in urban and suburban school districts (Fagan, 2005). Then, in 1969, the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) was formed, which created membership for both doctoral and non-doctoral level school psychologists (Fagan & Wise, 2000). The NASP facilitated professional cohesion and strengthened the professional identity of school psychologists (Fagan & Wise, 2000). Around this time, Samuel Kirk, who founded the Institute for Research and Exceptional Children at the University of Illinois, worked toward the requiring special

19 19 education services for children with learning disabilities (Thomas, 1996). In 1964, after serving as the director of the Federal Office of Education s Division of Handicapped Children where he coined the term learning disabilities, he persuaded the U.S. Congress and Administration to finance special education teacher training (Thomas, 1996). This special education public policy also furthered the solidification of psychology s practice in the schools. Since the 1970s, the field of school psychology stabilized its identity (Swerdlik & Joseph, 2000), with NASP and APA facilitating the professional development (Merrell, 2006). In 1975, the passage of a federal law, Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L ), that mandated free, appropriate education for all students age 3- to 21- years triggered a substantial growth in the number of practicing school psychologists, from about 5,000 in 1970 to 10,000+ by 1980, and 20,000 by 1988 (Fagan & Wise, 2000) and well over 30,000 in the United States by 2005 (Fagan, 2005). School psychological services became available nationwide but varied in service delivery systems and practitioner qualification requirements (Fagan & Wise, 2000). As the number of school psychologists increased, there was a corresponding increase in the number of state school psychology associations, from 17 in 1970 to 48 by 1989 (Fagan & Wise, 2000), with recent data indicating that there are school psychologists in every state and the District of Columbia who serve students in urban, suburban, and rural school districts (Curtis, Grier, & Hunley, 2004; Fagan & Wise, 2000; Hosp & Reschly, 2002). The NASP also assumed increased responsibility in recommending the educational curriculum and qualifications of non-doctoral level school psychologists (Fagan, 2005), while maintaining standards for

20 20 doctoral level school psychologists based on the previously established standards by the APA (APA, 2006). NASP also guided the field in moving from a reactive service delivery model to a more proactive delivery system (Fagan, 2005). Since the 1980s, changes in the role and function of school psychologists have guided the evolution of the field (Fagan & Wise, 2000). For example, the Spring Hill Symposium in 1980 (Weinberg & Ysseledyke, 1984; Ysseledyke & Weinberg, 1981) and the Olympia Conference in 1981 (Brown, Cardon, Coulter, Meyers, 1982) solidified assessment and testing as central to the role and function of school psychologists. Moreover, over the past years, there have been position papers published calling for reform in school psychology (Gerhardt-Padgett, Hatzichristou, Kitson, & Meyers, 2004; Rosenfeld & Nelson, 1995). The impetus for such suggested changes occurred in 2001 when the presidents of NASP and APA called a meeting to discuss the future of school psychology. The meeting took place in 2002 via a multi-site, web-based and inperson conference called The Invitational Conference on the Future of School Psychology ( Futures Conference ) and was held in Indianapolis, Indiana. Practitioners, students, and school psychologist trainers met to discuss short and long-term issues in the field. In addition to representatives from APA and NASP, there were attendees from the International School Psychology Association, the Council of Directors of School Psychology Programs, the Trainers of School Psychologists, and the Society for the Study of School Psychology, the American Board of School Psychology, and the American Academy of School Psychology.

21 21 A paper was written based on the Futures Conference suggested that school psychological service delivery models should be changed to better address the needs of students (Gerhardt-Padgett et al., 2004). Specifically, it was suggested that because school psychologists are skillful evaluators, they should use assessment not only for diagnosing but also as a functional tool for progress monitoring and linking assessment to intervention (Erhardt-Padgett et al., 2004). Erhardt-Padgett et al (2004) also acknowledged that in some cases there is greater need for school psychological services than there are school psychologists to provide those services. They, therefore, recommended use of a consultative model as a means for meeting the needs of a large number of its focus on prevention. Finally, it was recommended that school psychologists act in collaboration with other school staff, parents, students, and the community, as well as attending to the diverse needs within the school system (Erhardt- Padgett et al., 2004). For example, youths who have mental health disorders have increased substantially since World War II (Rutter & Smith, 1995). Increasing documentation reveals that these mental health needs are going unmet (Hatzichristou, 2003). Some writers have also suggested that even when mental health services are provided to youth, they are often inadequate, inappropriate, and/or lack coordination across providers and systems, including school, community, juvenile justice, and the private sector (Adelman & Taylor, 2006; Loyanaggi, 1995; Morris & Morris, 2006; Morris, Schoenfield, Bade-White, Joshi, & Morris, 2006; Sondheimer & Evans; Stroul & Friedman, 1986; Tuma, 1989; Wardle, 1991). This, in turn, created a gap between

22 22 students social, emotional, and educational needs and the delivery of school psychological services (Adelman & Taylor, 2006; Erhardt-Padgett et al., 2004). Two recent legislative changes have acted as catalysts for change in school psychology, namely, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [(NCLB); P.L ] and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [(IDEIA), P.L ]. It is where these two laws intersect that changes have begun to occur in the delivery of school psychological services. Specifically, NCLB is the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (P.L ). It is rooted in the assumption that all students, including those with significant disabilities and those who are English Language Learners, can meet academic standards when the achievement of such standards are assessed and this assessment leads to instructional intervention. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2002), NCLB was intended to overhaul education in the United States, with schools being accountable for student learning and ensuring that at-risk youth were not academically left behind. Legislative changes in IDEIA have allowed school psychologists, for example, to assess students at risk for learning disabilities using an alternative to the current standardized testing approach. Taken together, these mandates have provided opportunities for school psychologists to deliver school psychological services in novel ways. Service Delivery Models Since the beginning of the field, school psychological services have been loosely mobilized around a dominant role of psycho-educational assessment to determine placement in special education (Fagan & Wise, 2000). This early model of practice

23 23 evolved mainly from the work of Lightner Witmer and G. Stanley Hall (Fagan & Wise, 2000). Witmer utilized a clinical model where services were delivered directly to the student, whereas Hall utilized a research-based orientation and examined normative characteristics for student groups (Fagan & Wise, 2000). Over time, these two approaches were blended and formed the basis for the testing movement in schools (Fagan & Wise, 2000). Historically, in terms of the referral process to school psychological services, students were referred for a psycho-educational evaluation, teachers, parents, or both made the referral. Such referrals typically occurred during a student s first several years of school to determine giftedness, mental retardation, or reasons for academic failure (Fagan, 2000). Referrals for older students typically concerned delinquency, truancy, and school dropout (Fagan, 2000). In both younger and older children, boys were referred more frequently than girls (Fagan, 2000). In addition to psycho-educational evaluations, school psychologists methods focused on the child, his or her home, and included (1) questionnaires and interviews with teachers, parents, and the child of focus, (2) direct observations, (3) school records review, and (4) conducting a developmental history of the child (Fagan, 2000). This model of service delivery was based on conceptualizations of child development, including the comparative importance of genetics and a medical model of child disability (Fagan, 2000). Developing an intervention plan for the student s identified school-related difficulty was, in most cases, a minor role in some school psychologists practice (Merrell, 2006).

24 24 The 1980s brought about the service delivery model in school psychology that represents the most frequently used model to date, sometimes referred to as the traditional model, where the typical school psychological practice routine includes assessment of a student s cognitive abilities, academic achievement, and perceptualmotor skills for each referral (Goh, Teslow, & Fuller, 1981). The traditional model is related to the medical model where school psychologists assess, diagnose, and treat individual student s pathologies with special education the probable treatment (Farrell, 2010; Sheridan & Gutkin, 2000). Numerous researchers have surveyed school psychologists about their role and function in the traditional model of service delivery (e.g. Bramlett, Murphy, Johnson, Wallingsford, & Hall, 2002; Hosp & Reschly, 2002; Roberts & Rust, 1994; Watkins, Crosby, Pearson, 2001). This research has found that school psychologists conduct eligibility assessments at least 50% of their time, while engagement in consultation was at a distant second followed by other less frequent activities (Bramlett et al., 2002; Hosp & Reschly, 2002; Roberts & Rust, 1994; Watkins et al., 2001). In the late 1980s, policymakers, school-based professionals, and academicians called for a change in the special education process due to an increase in the number of students receiving special education services (Fuchs et al., 2003). The solution was the prereferral intervention process. This term refers to modifications made by teachers to a student s instructional program before formally referring the student for a special education evaluation (Fuchs et al., 2003). The development of a prereferral intervention was often completed within a consultative team, much like a behavioral problem solving

25 25 approach. One of the best-known examples of a prereferral intervention is likely the Teacher Assistance Teams (TAT) model, developed by Chalfant, Pysh, and Moultrie (1979). This collaborative approach was designed for teachers to problem solve instructional barriers with other teachers; specialists were not part of the model. Current prereferral intervention practices, however, not only include teachers but also specialists and school psychologists with the TAT now better known in schools as the multidisciplinary team (Fuchs et al., 2003). In addition to participating in multidisciplinary teams, NASP (2003) indicates that school psychologists consult with teachers, administrators, and parents to solve academic and behavioral problems; conduct psycho-educational evaluations; evaluate learning environments; and provide direct and indirect interventions, which may include counseling and classroom-based treatments. They also may design, implement, and evaluate prevention and educational activities and programs, as well as evaluate the efficacy of school-based interventions. Additionally, they assess the intellectual and emotional functioning of students. The APA (2005) described school psychologists as trained to deliver psychological services at the individual and system levels, to promote positive learning environments, to know effective instructional processes, and to use empirical evidence to address problems encountered in schooling in cognitive, behavioral, social, and emotional domains. While the latter professional organizations define the core services related to school psychological practice, contemporary school psychology in the United States is also influenced by macro-level legislative and policy mandates (Sheridan & Gutkin,

26 ). Most school psychologists may be limited to the roles inherent in testing and placement due to local interpretation of mandates and/or policies (Sheridan & Gutkin, 2000). Although, despite macro-level influences, many school psychologists consider their jobs to be child-centered rather than policy centered (Sheridan & Gutkin, 2000). Additionally, Bradley-Johnson and Dean (2000) reported that school psychologists have long-held the belief that prevention should be a key job function, but they remain involved in special education services and are at least partly responsible for the service delivery model used today. Another factor that contributes to service delivery in school psychology is training. Although there is some overlap in how the NASP and APA describe the role and function of school psychologists, the only standardization in training is that doctorallevel graduate programs approved by the APA are automatically approved by NASP. Additional efforts to standardize the education, training, and entry-level requirements in school psychology have been promoted by NASP through their accreditation of nondoctoral level school psychology training programs and through the Nationally Certified School Psychologist credential. While states still retain credentialing authority, academicians predict an increase in standardization of school psychology practice through credential requirements (Swerdlik & French, 2000). Role and Function of School Psychologists The practice of school psychology is influenced by many factors. For example, federal and state policy changes have affected the practice of school psychology over the past 20 years through increases in access to special education and in the use of formal

27 27 assessments for students referred for special education (Thurlow, Lazarus, Thompson, & Morse, 2005; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2000). Initiatives and recommendations with less clearly defined contingencies have a history of less substantive or durable impact (Carnine, 1997; Latham, 1988). As the nation continues the ongoing debate about how to educate children, it is appropriate both to monitor patterns of educational policy and to better understand how these policies may affect the day-to-day practices of school psychologists. The research literature also has an impact on services provided by social service professionals, such as school psychologists, and facilitates consumer understanding of services available (Williams & Williams, 1992; Henning-Stout & Bonner, 1996). Therefore, analyses of roles and functions data can both elucidate the profession, shape its identity (Henning-Stout & Bonner, 1996), guide service delivery, and meet the training of and demand for practitioners (Crespi & Poltikos, 2004), especially in a field with as broad of a scope as school psychology. Historically, the early role and function of school psychologists was defined by the development of individual ability and achievement tests (Fagan & Wise, 2000). These tests were used to differentiate students ability and achievement levels in order to provide appropriate educational services (Fagan & Wise, 2000). Therefore, such tests became the main tool used by psychologists in educational settings (Fagan, 2005). This practice was not expanded until the 1980s when, after Spring Hill Symposium in 1980 (Weinberg & Ysseledyke, 1984; Ysseledyke & Weinberg, 1981) and the Olympia Conference in 1981 (Brown et al., 1982), change focused on the provision of services available to all students, teachers, parents, and the community as a whole, which

28 28 provided the opportunity for increased consultation services (Fagan & Wise, 2000). Since these events, calls for change have been made, but change has been slow to happen (Erhardt-Padgett et al., 2004; Fagan, 2002; Gilman & Gabriel, 2007). Fagan (2002) indicated that the field of school psychology differs greatly from what it was only a decade ago due to a number of legislative (e.g., NCLB, IDEIA), economic (e.g., managed health care), and credentialing changes (e.g., NCSP). For example, Davis, McIntosh, Phelps, and Kehle (2004) suggested that the role of the school psychologist has evolved from the traditional position of psychometrician to a scientistpractitioner who acts as a change agent through a leadership role in the schools. Change has been guided by a paradigm shift that moved from focusing on a student s pathology to a focus on achieving positive student outcomes through the implementation of interventions generated through collaborative, problem-solving (Ysseldyke & Elliot, 1999). This philosophical change requires school psychologists to act as advocates for students, be focused on positive student outcomes for special and general education students, use a prevention-based approach to service delivery, utilize evidence-based interventions, and act as change agents in the schools and communities (Davis, 2001). Literature describing roles and functions of school psychologists has relied on various conceptualizations. For example, an ethnographic study of school psychologists affiliation and isolation at work yielded findings that suggested researchers should conceptualize school psychologists roles and functions within a social context (Henning- Stout & Bonner, 1996). In another study, Flores (1999) compared children living in war zones who were exposed to direct conflict to children without exposure to direct conflict

29 29 and the effects on a number of measures. Results revealed that both communities had similar SES and demographics and that the exposed to direct conflict exposure group experienced a significantly higher incidence of war related events, disruption of schooling and disruption of families than the no direct conflict exposure group. This caused researchers to conclude that the role and function of school psychologists in relation to crises, such as war or neighborhood violence, requires collecting evidencebased interventions to help children cope with the effects of war, promoting conflict resolution curricula, and using their systems skills to work across home, school, and community settings to promote peace as well as conflict resolution (Lasser & Adams, 2007). While in another study researchers surveyed pre-service doctoral and non-doctoral school psychologists about their perspectives on the role of school psychologists and found that they perceived school psychologists to be an active member of the school team who participated in the joint effort of achieving educational goals, and as a distant team member who observes school proceedings while being ready to offer services as needed (Poulo, 2003). Pertaining to services provided, research has consistently found that assessment activities are the primary function of school psychologists (Agresta, 2004; Bramlett et al., 2002; Gilman & Gabriel, 2004, 2007; Levinson, 1990; Reschly & Wilson, 1995; Roberts & Rust, 1994). In one such study, Bramlett et al (2002) analyzed 387 surveys completed by school psychologists determining that nearly half of their time was spent in role of assessor with consultant a distant second. The other roles and functions reported were interventions, counseling, conferencing, supervision, providing in-services, other

30 30 activities, research, and parent training. Regarding referrals for academics, the most common was reading concerns. Regarding behavior, the most common referral was externalizing problems. The majority of school psychologists had some involvement with their schools crisis team. They also found that the consultative model most commonly used was behavioral. In school-based health centers, school psychologists may have a variety of roles and provide a number functions including mental health services such as counseling, classroom behavior management, crisis intervention, mental health evaluation and treatment, and drug abuse treatment (Brown & Bolen, 2003). School psychologists may also conduct psychosocial screenings for early identification and treatment of emotional problems that cause poor academic performance (Gall, Pagano, Desmond, Perrin, & Murphy, 2000). As the implementation of school-based health centers increases, the role and function of school psychologists will likely widen and require more therapeuticallyoriented services than are currently offered. Hosp and Reschly (2002) examined regional differences in the role and function of school psychologists. They found significant differences between regions in hours spent in psycho-educational assessment. In the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States, school psychologists spent about 19 hours per week in assessment to the more than 26 hours per week in the Eastern, South, and Central regions of the United States. In general, school psychologists in every region spent at least half of their time in assessment and related activities. Related to the time spent in psycho-educational assessment is the percentage of time spent on eligibility determination. School

31 31 psychologists in all regions spent between about 50-65% of their time involved in determining special education eligibility. Time spent in the provision of direct interventions was included on the survey with significant differences found between regions. No region had school psychologists reporting more than 25% of their time conducting direct interventions. The highest average amount of time spent in direct interventions was in the Mid-Atlantic region and this was statistically different than the other regions with the exception of the Northeastern region. There was an inverse relationship between hours spent in assessment versus hours spent providing direct intervention, with those regions reporting the highest number of hours spent in assessment, generally reported the fewest in direct interventions. There were no regional differences in consultation or research. Regarding system reform efforts, school psychologists disagreed with some themes. They generally disagreed that students with a SLD and mild mental retardation required similar educational planning and that students with SLD and ED, required similar educational planning. While assessment is the dominant role, there have been continued calls to move away from working solely in the special education domain through expansion of school psychologists roles and functions (Fagan, 2002; Ysseldyke et al., 1997) and it has been suggested that practice has not made significant enough strides toward reform (Gilman & Gabriel, 2007). Regarding the roles and functions of school psychologists working in nontraditional service delivery models, there is a paucity of research. Of the available studies, school psychologists were reported to have increased job satisfaction as a result of the reallocation of duties from traditional assessment to other activities (Reschly, Tilly, &

32 32 Grimes, 1999). In one such study, Lau et al (2006) discussed the nature of the other activities of school psychologists working in the Minneapolis Problem Solving Model (PSM)/RTI model. They reported that PSM expanded the role of the psychologist from psychometrist to data-based problem solver (p. 118). They found that the consultative role of district school psychologists became formalized in the PSM allowing psychologists to use their training in child development, theories of learning, behavioral modification, collaborative practices, abnormal child psychology, and consultation to problem solve. School psychologists were also reported to act as change agents due to the district- or school-wide nature of service delivery. They also reported that the number of school psychologists employed in the district increased from 24 to about 43 full-time positions to in While this information is appealing, it was not quantitative but rather a qualitative discussion about PSM. Moreover, there may be variability in the role and function of school psychologists using an RTI service delivery model, although there are common underlying themes. Based on the NRC criteria previously discussed, school psychologists may be responsible for screening students, creating and/or assisting with the creation of interventions, monitoring treatment validity and thus treatment integrity, and dynamic, as opposed to traditional, assessment. Thus, it can be surmised that school psychologists would likely be involved with interventions, less time in traditional assessment, and more time spent in consultation services. School psychologists who worked in an expanded service delivery model, defined as working at a single school and providing more direct interventions and consultation services, were surveyed about their roles and functions. Researchers found that the

33 33 majority of school psychologists who worked in the expanded service delivery were satisfied or very satisfied with their jobs and particularly enjoyed the array of activities involved in their work and engaging in activities of service to others (Brown, Holcombe, Bolen, & Thomson, 2006). Like school psychologists in the traditional model, those who worked in the expanded service delivery model wanted to spend less time in assessment and multidisciplinary team meetings. The discrepancy between the desired and actual amount of time spent in multidisciplinary meetings was negatively related to job satisfaction Psychologists in the expanded service delivery model wanted to increase time spent in providing interventions and in professional development and networking activities. In a similar study funded by NASP, Nastasi et al (1998) surveyed school psychologists who had an expanded role in service delivery. These professionals worked in school systems that provided mental health services. They found these school psychologists to be involved in mental health service provision about 50% of the time whereas they spent about 20% of their time conducting assessments. School psychologists reported using various strategies for allocating time to mental health programming, including presenting a mental health program plan and reorganizing role responsibilities by reassigning some responsibilities to other school personnel, and modifying current assessment and referral procedures. In a few cases, school psychologists had been hired through grants to provide mental health services. In other cases, school psychologists dedicated personal time to the services. More commonly, there have been numerous studies of the actual versus desired

34 34 roles and functions of school psychologists (Agresta, 2004; Carey, 1995; Levinson, 1990; Reschly & Wilson, 1995; Roberts & Rust, 1994). These survey studies found that school psychologists wished to diversify their role and function thereby reducing the amount of time spent in assessment and increasing the amount of time in other roles. In the most recent study available, Agresta (2004) surveyed school psychologists, social workers, and counselors on 21 professional roles and responsibilities. She found that school psychologists spent about 40% of their time doing psychometric testing and related report writing and that they wanted to devote less time to these activities. She also found that psychologists spent about 10% of their time in consultation, which was commensurate with the amount of time they wanted to devote to this activity. Conversely, she found that school psychologists only spent 7% of their time in counseling activities and that they wanted to devote more time to this activity. While school psychologists report the desire to modify their professional role and function, the desires of consumers of school psychological services also need to be considered. Research indicates that these stakeholders appear satisfied with the status quo. For example, researchers surveyed special education directors and found that they were satisfied with school psychologists assessment activities, desired more counseling and consultation services, and wanted a reduction in their involvement in administrative and general education activities (Cheramie & Sutter, 1993). General education administrators were found to want school psychologists to provide additional counseling, staff development and prevention services but, like their special education counterparts, did not want psychologists performing administrative duties (Abel & Burke, 1985;