An Examination Of The Roles Of State School Psychology Consultants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing visibility of state school psychology consultants (SSPCs) across the nation, there is a pressing need to understand their roles and functions relative to serving their stakeholders. In addition, it is unclear whether current SSPC job responsibilities are aligned with the National Association of School Psychologists’ (NASP) practice model, which can help ensure the quality of school psychological service delivery. A qualitative case study design was conducted with interviews to examine the job responsibilities of SSPCs (e.g., provision of consultation, policy guidance, professional development, coordination of professional resources and services). The qualitative analysis revealed three main themes: (a) service provision, (b) collaborative roles and efforts, and (c) systems improvement across the state, which were aligned with different levels of domains in the NASP practice model. The findings can help inform the roles and responsibilities of SSPCs and the development of new SSPC functions. Implications for conceptualization of the SSPC initiative in relation to the NASP practice model for future 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".