Don't do more do different: A qualitative description of teachers' perceptions of and experiences with the psychoeducational assessment process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although teachers are involved in many aspects of the psychological assessment, very little research has examined their experiences with and perceptions of the entire psychoeducational assessment process. Previous research has relied on surveys and has assumed that teachers have a foundational understanding of the purpose of the assessment. The current study used qualitative description to examine teacher perceptions of and experiences with the psychoeducational assessment process. Ten public school teachers participated in individual interviews about their perceptions of and experiences with psychoeducational assessment. Results indicated a “bidirectional disconnect” such that psychologists do not translate assessment findings into a useful product that teachers can apply to the classrooms; reports were described as too long and jargon‐filled, with vague recommendations and feedback meetings do not allow for collaboration or discussion. However, the data also suggested that teachers do not fully understand the purpose and scope of the psychoeducational assessment, the types of referrals that are appropriate, foundational psychological principles, and/or the scope of practice of the school psychologist. Recommendations for practice are provided along with a call for increased interprofessional education and practice in education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".