Teacher comprehension and ratings of school based psychological reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A psychological report can influence or determine the supports, instructional techniques and interventions used with a student as well as promoting continuity of service. Given the importance of effectively communicating this information and school psychology’s focus on evidence-based practices, it is surprising the literature presents few empirically validated guidelines. In this study we controlled report reading-level to investigate the effects of years of teaching experience, teacher experience with reports, summary placement and report formatting on teachers’ perception of report quality and responses to a proxy measure of comprehension. One hundred and forty teachers were recruited from post baccalaureate classes and online forums. Participants were presented with one of four versions of a psychological report and asked to respond on their (1) perception of the quality and (2) comprehension of the content of the report. Each report was constructed to have either a test-by-test or theme-based format and include a summary presented at either the beginning or end. Teacher self-reported experience with reports was measured to determine the interaction between experience and report format. Results showed that (a) report style did not significantly impact ratings of perception of quality, (b) summary first placement was viewed less favorably than summary last placement and (c) teachers’ years of experience and experience with psychological reports played significant roles in ratings of perception of quality and comprehension. This study provides valuable information to support best practices for report writing that will inform current and future school psychologists about writing meaningful, relevant and useful reports.
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 | 0.013 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".