Methods for Evaluating the Performance of School Psychologists

Abstract

This paper reviews recently proposed instruments and systems for evaluating the performance of school psychologists. Direct approaches to evaluation, approaches utilizing the perceptions of others not generally involved in supervision, and those relying upon the psychologist's ability to effect change in others are discussed. The absence of any well‐researched, validated approach for assessing performance of these professionals is noted, with the lack of empirical data accompanying published proposals being particularly striking. Promising possibilities are identified in the area of direct evaluation, and questions are raised regarding the utility of indirect techniques. Directions for future research and development are suggested, and recommendations for those currently engaged in performance evaluation are provided.

An investigation of the accountability practices of school psychologists.

“…Although it was encouraging to find that 60% of the respondents reported that they were collecting accountability information, additional school psychologists need to become involved in such efforts. Because there are few well-researched instruments or procedures that focus on process or outcome data (Bennett, 1980), and enumerative information generally is easier to collect, it was expected that enumerative data would be collected more often. Even though these data are useful in providing information regarding the range and extent of services provided, however, they do not contain information regarding effectiveness.…”

“…Based on a review of the literature (e.g., APA, 1981;Bennett, 1980;Fairchild, 1977aFairchild, , 1980Fairchildetal., 1983;NASP, 1984b;Zins, 1984;Zinsetal., 1982) and the authors' experiences, a questionnaire was developed to gather relevant information concerning current accountability practices. Information was solicited regarding the following:…”

A Systems Framework for Special Education Program Evaluation

“…Bennett (1980), for example, has discussed design and implementation in the evaluation of assessment services, and Dunst (1979), as well as Maher and Barbrack (1980), has focused on designing, implementing, and disseminating the results of instructional service evaluation. Likewise, Bennett and Shepherd (1982) and Bennett and Lewis (1980) have provided discussion and examples of the evaluation of staff development programs, and Maher (1983), of the evaluation of related services.…”

“…In special education, various aspects of program evaluation have been considered: program evaluation requirements of P.L. 94-142 (Kennedy, 1978), methodological issues in evaluation (Bennett, 1980;Dunst, 1979;Jones, Gottlieb, Guskin, & Yoshida, 1978), professional disciplinary contributions to evaluation (Hoover, 1978), and suggestions for carrying out evaluation activities (Maher & Barbrack, 1978). This discourse, while helpful in highlighting various aspects of special education program evaluation (SEPE), has not served to organize SEPE in a way that can be carried out by practitioners in local education agencies (LEAs).…”

Obtaining consumer feedback as a means of evaluating school psychology intern performance

“…Performance accountability has received increased attention since the early 1970s when Clair and Kiraly (1971) challenged school psychologists to provide proof of their performance. The professional literature reflects an increase in accountability efforts at the practitioner level (Bennett, 1980;Fairchild, 1975Fairchild, , 1977 Maher, 1979; Zins, 1984;Zins et al, 1982) as well as the training program level (Boehm, Duker, Haesloop, & White, 1974; Catterall, 1973; Fairchild, 1977; Hunter & Lambert, 1974; Kratochwill, Bergan, & Mace, 1981; Leviton, 1974; Martin, Duffey, & Fischman, 1973; Murphy, 1981; Stewart & Medway, 1978). Much of the literature at the training program level has focused upon program development (Boehm et al, 1974; Catterall, 1973; Hunter & Lambert, 1974; Kratochwill et al, 1981; Leviton, 1974) and supervision issues (Alessi, Leys, & Lascurettes-Alessi, 1981; Kratochwill et al, 1981; Murphy, 1981).…”