What Makes an Effective Psychoeducational Report? Perceptions of Teachers and Psychologists

Abstract

The psychoeducational report has many purposes and many readers. Given this, it is imperative that psychoeducational reports are well written, as well as acceptable to and understood by the readers. This study aimed to determine from the perspective of both teacher (report reader) and psychologist (report writer) the factors that make an effective psychoeducational report. The current study examined the effects of report style and language on satisfaction with and understanding and perceived utility of psychoeducational reports as rated by teachers and psychologists with varying degrees of experience. We expected that reports which contained a theme-based organisation and a lower grade reading level would receive significantly higher ratings of satisfaction and utility, and be understood by teachers and psychologists at significantly higher levels than reports with neither or only one of these two characteristics. Results indicated that while teachers in the present study were not more satisfied with the theme-based non-technical report and did not rate it as more useful, they did consider non-technical language easier to understand. Psychologists, in contrast, were not impacted by either variation in report style. The impact of differences between writer and reader on perceived understandability of reports is discussed.

Teachers’ preferences and perceptions of the psychological report: A systematic review

“…Pelco et al () investigated teacher preferences for test‐by‐test results versus theme‐based psychological reports. Contrary to findings forwarded by Fletcher et al (), the results indicated that teachers rated theme‐based reports more favorably than test‐by‐test. Teachers also rated the report with the lowest reading level as the most teacher‐friendly.…”

“…Hagborg and Aiello‐Coultier () studied teachers’ perceptions and understanding of psychological reports and found that teachers who reviewed or viewed four or more reports annually rated reports as less helpful, accurate, and less favorable. However as found by Fletcher et al (), teachers’ responses were favorable of psychological reports as they rated reports as easily understood, to include just the right amount of jargon, and to be relevant to their classroom work. Approximately 91% of teacher participants were satisfied with the psychological reports they had seen over the previous school year.…”

“…Fletcher et al (), examined the factors that make an effective and useful report. Contrary to hypotheses, they found that although some teachers were satisfied with theme‐based reports written at a lower readability level, most were not.…”

“…One preferred report feature that appeared across the studies was psychological report organization by functional domain or theme. Teachers and educators preferred reports organized by intellectual/cognitive functioning, behavioral, social‐emotional, and so forth (Fletcher et al, ; Pelco et al, ; Pryzwansky & Hanania, ; Weiner, ). This finding suggests teachers and educators prefer reports with headings and subheadings based on the functional domains that are descriptive of the content that follows rather than organizational formats that follow a test‐by‐test sequence.…”

“…Though the traditional role of the school psychologist has evolved over the years, evaluating and identifying students for special education qualification continues to be a primary function (Cole & Siegal, ; Fagan & Wise, ; Fletcher, Hawkins, & Thorton, ; Mallin, Beimcik, & Hopfner, ; Reschly, ). In this role, school psychologists spend approximately 50% of their time conducting assessments and complete about 75 evaluations and psychological reports each school year (Bramlett, Murphy, Johnson, Wallingsford, & Hall, ; Hutton, Dubes, & Muir, ; Jordan, Hindes & Saklofske, ; Thomas, ).…”