No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The present blind study compared the quality of psychoeducational reports generated under two conditions. On the average, reports written with computer assistance were rated to be of higher quality than those prepared by hand. Also presented are data validating the large expenditure of staff time on report preparation, along with estimates of the time saving that may be realizedwith computer assistance. The relevance of computer support to relatively isolated, rural-based clinical staff is discussed.A major undertaking for clinical staff is the production of written psychoeducational reports to convey testing outcomes, interpretations, and recommendations resulting from observation and assessment. Writing reports is a time-consuming task. Eitel and her associates (Eitel et al., 1984) report that, in their study, urban school psychologists spent between 6.2 and 10.6% of their time writing and dictating reports. Our estimate for rural settings, based on feedback from cooperating school districts, substantiates this rather significant time expenditure and is discussed below.In addition to time, considerable skill is required to produce an intelligible and useful report, as is attested by the numerous criticisms and prescriptions offered by both readers and writers (Caudra