Making Sense of Inconsistencies in Psycho-Educational Assessment: A Case Report

Abstract

The case is presented of an 8-year-old boy who was referred for psychoeducational assessment because of difficulties with writing. The article provides an example of the way in which a case unfolds as further assessment data become available, and describes a number of challenging aspects of the assessment process. In this case, dilemmas arose when test results were inconsistent at different time points, and when the results were inconsistent with clinical observations. The case report illustrates the ways in which practitioners can collaborate to make sense of such discrepancies, with each contributing a slightly different perspective or set of skills that, in combination, assist to better understand a child's difficulties.Psycho-educational assessment is often complex and challenging. The process generally involves gathering information from multiple sources such as parent interviews and previous records; conducting observations within relevant settings; administering appropriate standardised tests; gathering data with the use of informal measures; and integrating the data in psychometrically robust and clinically meaningful ways. As Sattler (2008, p. 5) has eloquently stated, data from complementary sources must be 'woven together so that the final tapestry is integrated, understandable, meaningful and consistent'.

Teachers’ Use of Psycho-Educational Reports in Mainstream Classrooms

“…This was important to the participants because it enabled them to build a more robust and comprehensive understanding of a student's difficulties and how best they could be supported. Similarly, other research suggests a student's learning difficulties are best supported through a collaborative, problem-solving approach with multidisciplinary teams (Gilmore, Miller, & Ward, 2015;Knoetze & Vermoter, 2007;Mainwaring, 2015).…”

“…Borghese and Cole (1994) found that while information from teachers was often incorporated in reports, teacher involvement in formulating the associated recommendations was minimal. More recent studies conducted within an Australian setting have also noted that collaboration during an assessment does not always occur between key stakeholders (Gilmore, Miller, & Ward, 2015; Mainwaring, 2015). The findings in this study provide some evidence to suggest that consultative practice does not extend to the writing of the report and the formulation of the recommendations.…”