No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This study examined facilitators of and barriers to comprehensive and integrated services. A national sample of 267 full‐time practicing school psychologists who were Regular Members or Early Career Members of the National Association of School Psychologists participated. We administered a survey to participants that measured the extent to which they engaged in comprehensive and integrated services and the top facilitators of and barriers to those services using web‐based survey procedures. Results indicated that the majority of facilitators identified (Personal Attributes, Stakeholder Involvement, Resources and Support, School‐Specific Variables, Contextual Variables) predicted greater levels of comprehensive and integrated service delivery. Identified barriers—which often reflected the opposite condition of the facilitators—predicted lower levels of service delivery in some instances; however, they predicted services less often than did facilitators. Implications for research focused on better understanding factors that impact service delivery and on processes for facilitating increased comprehensive and integrated service delivery are discussed. Additionally, implications for practice include the assessment of facilitators and barriers, the use of data to plan for the delivery of comprehensive and integrated services, and advocacy for systems change.

Recent studies indicate that the majority of school psychologists’ time continues to be dedicated to SPED related activities. Despite ongoing calls for school psychologists to expand their roles, why many practitioners do not deliver more comprehensive services is not well understood. This qualitative study investigated facilitators of and barriers to comprehensive and integrated services using the National Association of School Psychologists Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School Psychological Services as the guiding framework. Thirteen full‐time, school‐based practitioners from across the US participated in semi‐structured interviews. Constant‐comparative analysis was used to generate themes. Results indicated that practitioners experienced a number of systemic barriers to (e.g., heavy caseload; inconsistent district policies, priorities, and role definitions; lack of stakeholder involvement) and facilitators of (e.g., resources, graduate training and professional development) comprehensive and integrated service delivery. Participants’ perspectives regarding changes needed to expand their services focused on systemic issues as well. Implications for research and practitioners’ efforts to advocate for systems change are discussed.