A NATIONAL INVESTIGATION OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY TRAINERS’ ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS ABOUT EVIDENCE‐BASED PRACTICES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present investigation examined 460 school psychology trainers’ attitudes and beliefs about the conditions for the education and training of evidence‐based practices (i.e., assessments and interventions) in training programs in the United States and Canada using an online survey. Trainer attitudes and beliefs about education and training in evidence‐based practices were measured using a 24‐item five‐point Likert scale. Overall, trainers had positive views of evidence‐based practices, as well as program and organizational support for such training. However, trainers rated the education and training of evidence‐based assessments more favorably than evidence‐based interventions. In general, trainer characteristics nor program accreditation status, model, or type of degree offered were found to influence trainers’ perceptions about evidence‐based practices. However, trainers with prior experience teaching evidence‐based intervention courses were found to have more supportive views of evidence‐based assessments and interventions than those without such experience. Implications for future training and school practice are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".