The efficiency of the educational psychology report: An explorative study, considering views of recipients, including young people, caregivers, education and health.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of the Educational Psychologist (EP) is multifaceted and offers a distinctive contribution to those in receipt of their services (Fallon et al.2010). A comprehensive written psychological report is acknowledged to a major role for the EP (Castillo, Curtis, & Gelley, 2012) but there is very little research available to support an EP in producing an effective and interpretive account of the work they have carried out. Very generally, the psychological report aims to (a) increase others’ understanding of children and young people (C/YP), (b) communicate intervention, hypotheses, and advice in such a way that they are understood, appreciated, and implemented, and (c) ultimately support service users in facilitating change. \nUnfortunately, research indicates that reports are often difficult to read, particularly for non-psychologists. They are likely to include jargon and poorly defined terms, to make vague or inappropriate recommendations, to emphasize numbers rather than explanations, and to be of an inappropriate length (Kamphaus, 1993; Ownby, 1997; Sattler, 2001; Tallent, 1993). They are also likely to be written at a high level of reading difficulty, which is problematic in that they are read by multiple audiences with varied levels of educational background (Harvey, 1997; Weddig, 1984; Whitaker, 1994). \nThis thesis aimed to offer a current and UK based perspective of how EPs and common recipients of the EP report perceive its usefulness. Results showed a much more positive outlook on the report as a whole, in comparison to similar studies carried out in America, Canada and Malta. However, findings demonstrated common frustrations felt by recipients with regard to complex language and content within the reports. Implications for educational psychologists are considered within the thesis alongside future direction for further study.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".