factors affecting educators' comprehension of psychological reports

Psychology in lhe Schools Volume 24, April 1987

FACTORS AFFECTING EDUCATORS’ COMPREHENSION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS

JUDITH WIENER

The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

Three studies of educators’ comprehension of psychological reports are described. Subjects were 42 school administrators in Study I , 49 elementary school teachers in Study 11, and 77 secondary school teachers in Study Ill. Five formats of reports were compared using methodology similar to that of Wiener (1985) and Wiener and Kohler (1986). It was found that all three groups of educators preferred reports in which both the child description and the recommendations were elaborated with explanations and examples and the structure of the report was highly salient. Elementary teachers and principals comprehended the reports they preferred better than a shorter form containing equivalent information. The results were interpreted in terms of a schema theory of reading comprehension.

Teachers and principals who require assistance in developing appropriate educational programs for pupils or in making decisions regarding appropriate alternate placement frequently refer children to psychologists (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1981). In order for teachers and principals to receive the necessary information, they need to under- stand psychological reports. The purpose of the three studies reported in this paper is to investigate the factors that contribute to teachers’ and principals’ comprehension of written psychological reports.

A review of the literature on teachers’ comprehension of psychological reports suggests that teachers prefer reports that reduce or explain technical terms (jargon) (Rucker, 1967; Shiveley & Smith, 1969), and use concrete language (Brandt & Giebink, 1968). Brandt and Giebink also found that teachers prefer reports in which the recommendations are congruent with their philosophical orientation.

Bagnato (1980) investigated preschool teachers’ use of psychological reports in developing individual educational plans (IEPs). He claimed that teachers found the reports to be more useful when they are organized by developmental or functional areas (e.g., language, motor skills), rather than by test given; describe strengths and skill deficits in clear behavioral terms; discuss the child’s learning strategies qualitatively in terms of processing variables such as selective attention or features such as learning and reward preferences; emphasize developmental ceilings, functional levels, skill sequences, and instructional needs; and include practical recommendations regarding behavior manage- ment and instruction.

Wiener (1985) set out to determine the extent to which Bagnato’s findings applied to elementary school teachers. A psychological report on a 7-year-old learning disabled child was written in three different formats (see Formats A, B, and C in Table 1). Equivalency of the forms in terms of content was established through a pilot study with three psychologists and twelve advanced graduate students in special education (Wiener & Kohler, 1986). Wiener (1985) measured comprehension of reports in terms of a 14-item multiple choice test given immediately after the report was written. Teachers were not permitted to refer back to the report while answering the questions. The degree to which the teachers found the report to be informative, helpful, readable, etc. was assessed

Reprint requests should be sent to Judith Wiener, Dept. of Special Education, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 252 Bloor St. West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6.

116

Educators' Comprehension of Psychological Reports 117

through a 10-item semantic differential. Subjects were 8 1 teachers taking an introductory in-service course in special education. None were experienced special education teachers.

It was found that teachers comprehended the Question-and-Answer reports and Psychoeducational reports (Formats B and C ) better than the Short Answer report (For- mat A). Thus, their comprehension was enhanced when information was grouped by developmental or functional domain, when the child's learning was described in terms of specific strengths and skill deficits and processing variables/qualitative features, and when recommendations were elaborated and explained, Teachers preferred to read reports they understood better.

A second study comparing the same three formats of psychological reports was done with 45 parents of handicapped children (Wiener & Kohler, 1986). Parents and teachers had similar comprehension and preference patterns.

Table 1 Features of the Psychological Report Formats ~~ ~~

Format A -Short Form 1. Reason for referral expressed briefly. 2. Assessment results stated in the form of conclusions. 3. Behavioural observations and examples are not reported. 4. Technical terms used to make report more succinct. 5. Recommendations unelaborated. 6 . One and a half typewritten singe-spaced pages.

Format B - Psychoeducational Report 1. information grouped under subject headings (reason for referral, overall ability, learning style, reading,

written language, mathematics, emotional and social development, conclusions, recommendations). 2. Observations stated in behavioural terms and examples used frequently. 3. Source of observations indicated. 4. Child's learning style described in detail. 5. Technical terms avoided or defined. 6 . Recommendations elaborated and handouts used. 7. Three single-spaced typed pages and a half-page handout (elementary). Four single-spaced typed pages

(secondary).

Format C - Question-and-A ns wer 1. Format B, features 2 to 6 . 2. Information is grouped by referral question instead of by subject heading (e.g., What is -'s overall

level of ability?, What is 's learning style-his learning strengths and weaknesses?, How is ___ achieving academically in reading, written language, and mathematics?, Is -'s emotional and social development being affected by his learning problems?, What is an appropriate educational placement and program for -?).

3. Four type-written single-spaced pages and a half-page handout (elementary). Five type-written single- spaced pages (secondary).

Format D - Elaborated Child Description 1. 2 .

Format E - Elaborated Recommendations 1. Child description section from Format A-Short Form. 2. Recommendations section from Format B - Psychoeducational Assessment.

Child description section from Format B - Psychoeducational Assessment. Recommendations section from Form A-Short Form.

118 Judith Wiener

The studies completed by Wiener (1985) and Wiener and Kohler (1986) raised several questions. Two of these questions are addressed in the studies reported in this article: (a) Do principals and secondary school teachers demonstrate the same patterns of comprehension and preference as elementary school teachers and parents? and (b) What specific aspects of the Psychoeducational and Question-and-Answer report formats facilitate comprehension?

STUDY I The purpose of Study I was to establish whether the comprehension and preference

patterns found by Wiener (1985) and Wiener and Kohler (1986) to apply to teachers and parents also apply to principals. Do principals comprehend better and prefer the Question-and-Answer and Psychoeducational reports? Method

Forty-two school administrators (34 males and 8 females) taking an introductory in-service course in special education participated in the study. None of the administrators were experienced special education teachers. Characteristics of the subjects are described in Table 2.

Subjects.

Table 2 Characteristics of the Sample of Administrators

Format N A(n=) B(n=) C ( n = )

Gender Male 34 10 11 13 Female 8 2 4 2

Principal 16 4 7 5 Vice-Principal 19 9 5 5 Other 7 2 3 2

Role

Level Elementary 24 6 10 8 Secondary 13 4 4 5 Other 5 2 1 2

Age 30-39 13 3 5 5 40-49 26 7 10 9 50 or more 3 2 0 1

2 or less 13 2 6 5 3-5 8 2 3 3 6 or more 21 8 6 7

Years of Experience

Measures. The three formats of psychological reports investigated by Wiener (1985) and Wiener and Kohler (1986) were used in this study (see Formats A, B, and C in Table 1). The report that was adapted to create the three formats pertained to a 7-year-old learning disabled boy in a regular grade 2 class. The reports were identical to those used in the previous studies. Equivalency of information content between the forms was established in a pilot study (Wiener & Kohler, 1986).

Educators’ Comprehension of Psychological Reports 119

Administrators were asked to respond to the same questionnaire that was used in the study with elementary school teachers (Wiener, 1985) and with parents (Wiener & Kohler, 1986). The questionnaire consisted of 14 multiple choice questions designed to assess administrators’ comprehension of the psychological report they had read, and a 10-item semantic differential to assess their feelings about the report. Nine of the multiple choice questions pertained to the description of the child, and five to the recommendations section of the report.

School administrators were assessed as a group in the classroom used for their course. Copies of the three report formats were randomly distributed among them. Prior to doing the main task of the study, the subjects were asked to provide demographic information. Administrators spent 15 minutes reading the report. They were then asked to answer the questionnaire items without referring back to the report. Results

Random assignment of report formats produced three groups of administrators that were reasonably equivalent with regard to gender, role (principal, vice principal, other), level (elementary, secondary), age, and years of experience in administration (see Table 2).

One-way analysis of variance was used to compare the three formats of psychological report. Specific areas of significance were assessed through t-tests. There was a significant difference among the three formats with regard to comprehension, F(2,39) = 3.24, p< .05. The means of the three groups and t-tests for specific contrasts revealed that principals comprehended the Psychoeducational and Question-and-Answer reports (For- mats B and C ) significantly better than the Short Form (Format A) @< .05).

The three groups did not reach conventional levels of significance with regard to the principals’ evaluation of the reports, F(2, 39) = 2.47, p< .lo. This is probably a result of the relatively large amount of variability within each of the groups. As indicated by the means of the three groups and a t-test for specific contrasts (see Table 3), the principals tended to prefer the Question-and-Answer report (Format C ) over the Short Form (Format A) (p< .05).

Procedures.

Table 3 Mean Comprehension and Preference Scores by Format for Administrators

Comprehension Preference n x SD n x SD

~ ~~~

A-Short Form

B - Psychoeducational C - Question and Answer

12 1.42 1.62 12 33.38 8.48 15 9.40 2.12 15 38.60 1.51 15 9.20 1.93 15 39.30 6.18

No significant main effects or interactions with comprehension and preference were found for sex or age of administrator, role (principal, vice principal, or other), level of position (elementary or secondary), or years of experience. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was calculated between comprehension and preference scores for the entire sample. The correlation coefficient of .24 did not reach conventional levels of significance (pc .06).

120 Judith Wiener

STUDY I1 The purpose of Study I1 was to determine more specifically the factors involved

in psychological report format that predict elementary school teachers’ comprehension and preference. Possible predictors investigated include elaboration of the description of the child’s functioning, extensive discussion of program recommendations, sex and age of subjects, degree to which they are employed as a teacher (full-time, part-time, unemployed), type of teaching job (teacher, supply teacher, administrator, other), grade of instruction, and years of experience. Method

Forty-nine elementary school teachers taking an introductory in-service course in special education participated in the study. None of the teachers were experienced special education teachers. Characteristics of the subjects are described in Table 4.

Measures and Procedures. Four formats of psychological reports were used in this study. They included Format A (Short Form), Format B (Psychoeducational Report), Format D (Elaborated Child Description), and Format E (Elaborated Recommenda- tions) (see Table 1). Formats A and B were identical to those used in Study I. Format D consisted of the recommendations section from Format A and the child description section from Format B. Format E consisted of the child description section of Format

Subjects.

Table 4 Characteristics of the Sample of Elementary Teachers

Format N A@=) B(n=) C ( n = ) D(n=)

Gender Male 5 1 1 1 2 Female 44 1 1 12 1 1 10

20-29 8 1 2 2 3 30-39 28 5 7 10 6 40 or more 13 6 2 12 3

Full-time 34 7 8 1 1 8 Part-time 13 4 3 2 4 Unemployed 2 I 1 0 0

Teacher 36 8 7 12 9 Supply teacher 11 3 4 1 3 Other 2 1 0 1 0

K-6 32 7 10 I 8 K-8 12 3 2 4 3 Senior public 2 1 0 0 1 Other 3 0 1 2 0

0-2 8 0 3 2 3 3-5 5 1 2 0 2 6-10 17 5 2 6 4 11 or more 19 6 5 5 3

Age

Employment

Occupation

School

Experience


A and the recommendations section of Format B. The questionnaire and procedures employed in Study I were employed in Study 11.

Results Random assignment of report formats produced four groups of teachers that were

reasonably equivalent with regard to gender, age, amount of employment, type of employment, grade level, and years of experience (see Table 4).

One-way analysis of variance was used to compare the four formats of psychological report. Specific areas of significance were assessed through t-tests. There was a highly significant difference among the four formats with regard to comprehension scores, F(3, 45) = 7.41, p< .001. The means of the four groups (see Table 5 ) and the t-tests indicated that teachers responding to the Psychoeducational report (Format B) performed significantly better than teachers responding to any of the three other formats (p< .05). Teachers found the Short Form (Format A) to be more difficult to comprehend than the Elaborated Recommendations report (Format E). None of the other contrasts were significant.

Comprehension scores for the nine questions evaluating comprehension of the child description part of the reports were then analyzed separately using one-way analysis of variance and t-tests to isolate specific significant differences. There was a significant difference among the four groups with regard to comprehension of child description scores, F(3,45) = 3.38, p < .05. The means of the four groups (see Table 5 ) and the t-tests indicated that teachers’ comprehension of child description questions on the Psychoeduca- tional and Elaborated Child Description reports (Formats B and D) was significantly better than on the Short Form (p< .05). None of the other contrasts were significant. Thus, teachers’ understanding of child description information was significantly better when it was expressed in elaborated form.

Similar analyses were done for the five questions that evaluated comprehension of recommendations. There was a significant difference among the four groups with regard to comprehension of recommendation scores, F(3, 45) = 7.23, p< .001. The means of the four groups (see Table 5 ) and t-tests indicated that teachers’ comprehension of recommendations questions on the Psychoeducational and Elaborated Recommendations reports (Formats B and E) was significantly better than on the Short Form and Elaborated Child Description reports (Formats A and D) @< .05). Comprehension of recommendation scores for Format B did not differ significantly from Format E; similarly, Format A did not differ significantly from Format D.

The four formats differed significantly with regard to the teachers’ evaluation of the reports, F(3, 43) = 3.62, p< .03. As indicated by the means of the four groups (see Table 5 ) and the t-tests, the teachers preferred the Psychoeducational report (Format B) over the Short Form (Format A) and Elaborated Recommendations (Format E) reports (p< .05). None of the other contrasts were significant.

No significant main effects or interactions were found for sex, age and years of experience of teacher, and nature of employment using two-way analyses of variance comparing the four formats on overall comprehension, comprehension of child description, comprehension of recommendations, and preference.

Finally, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated between comprehension and preference scores for the entire sample. Overall comprehension was significantly correlated with preference, r(45) = .41, p < .01. Thus, elementary teachers tended to prefer to read formats they comprehended better.

122 Judith Wiener

Table 5 Mean Comprehension and Preference Scores by Format for Elementary Teachers

Overall Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension Child Recommendations Preference n x S D n x S D n x S D n x S D

~~~~ ~

A-Short Form 12 8.41 1.83 12 5.50 1.17 12 2.93 1.16 12 35.21 5.70

B-Psychoeducational 12 11.50 1.09 12 7.08 1.16 12 4.42 0.67 11 42.14 4.79

D-Child Description 13 9.69 1.32 13 6.69 1.18 13 3.00 1.08 12 38.54 4.47

E-Recommendations 12 10.08 2.07 12 6.08 1.68 12 4.00 0.85 12 35.92 6.90

STUDY 111 Method

The purpose of Study I11 was to replicate Study I1 with a new set of test stimuli and a sample of secondary school teachers. All five formats are compared in Study 111.

Subjects. Seventy-seven intermediate and secondary teachers (grades 7 to 12) taking an introductory in-service course in special education participated in the study. None of the teachers were experienced special education teachers. Characteristics of the subjects are described in Table 6 .

Five formats of psychological reports were used in this study. They included Format A (Short Form), Format B (Psychoeducational Report), Format C (Question-and-Answer Report), Format D (Elaborated Child Description), and Format E (Elaborated Recommendations). The psychological report that was adapted to create the five formats pertained to a 15-year-old learning disabled boy in grade 9.

Secondary teachers were asked to respond to a 15-item multiple choice comprehension test that was similar in format to that employed in Studies I and 11. Eight of the questions were devoted to description of the child and seven to the recommendations. The semantic differential to assess teachers’ preference was identical to that used in Studies I and 11.

The procedures that were employed to establish that the five formats of the report were equivalent in information content and that the multiple choice questions could be answered by readers of each of the five formats were similar to that described in Wiener and Kohler (1986). First, three psychologists read all five formats, indicated that they were adequate reports, and answered the 15 multiple choice questions on the basis of the information in the reports. The report and the questions were modified in accordance with their suggestions. Then, 14 special education teachers taking advanced graduate study in special education were asked to participate in a pilot study. Their scores ranged between 13/15 and 15/15 on the comprehension task.

The procedures for administration of the experimental task to the sample of secondary school teachers were the same as those used in Study I. Results

Random assignment of report formats produced five groups of teachers that were reasonably equivalent with regard to gender, age, amount of employment, type of employment, grade level, and years of experience (see Table 6).

Measures.

Procedures.


Table 6 Characteristics of the Sample of Secondary Teachers

Format N A @ = ) B(n=) C ( n = ) D(n=) E ( n = )

Gender Male 31 8 11 6 5 7 Female 40 8 5 9 10 8

20-29 14 4 2 0 4 4 30-39 30 6 4 7 5 8 40-49 29 6 9 I 4 3 50 or more 4 0 1 1 2 0

Full-time 70 14 16 14 14 12 Part-time 5 2 0 1 0 2 Unemployed 2 0 0 0 1 1

Age

Employment

Occupation Teacher 68 15 13 13 13 14 Supply teacher 3 1 0 1 0 1 Other 6 0 3 1 2 0

Senior public 41 7 10 9 8 I Secondary 31 9 6 5 6 5 Other 5 1 0 1 1 2

0-2 10 1 2 1 2 4 3-5 7 3 0 0 2 2 6-10 13 5 4 1 2 1 11 or more 47 7 10 13 9 8

School

Experience

One-way analysis of variance was used to compare the five formats of psychological report. Specific areas of significance were assessed through t-tests. With regard to overall comprehension, examination of the means (see Table 7) suggests a pattern of response similar to that found with the principals in Study I and with the elementary teachers in Study XI. The overall F for groups was not significant, however, F(4, 72) = 1.36, p < .26. Similarly, there was no significant difference between groups for responses to questions assessing comprehension of child description, F(4, 72) = 1.75, p < .15.

The five groups differed significantly with regard to comprehension of recommendations, F(4, 72) = 2.57, p< .05. Examination of specific contrasts through t-tests revealed that teachers comprehended recommendations significantly better on the Short Form, Question-and-Answer, and Elaborated Recommendations reports (Formats A, C and E) than on the Child Description report (Format D) (p< .05).

The five formats differed significantly with regard to the teachers’ evaluation of the reports, F(4, 67) = 3.14, p< .02. As indicated by the means of the four groups and t- tests (see Table 7), the teachers preferred the Psychoeducational and Question-and- Answer reports (Formats B and C) to the Short Form and Elaborated Recommenda- tions reports (Formats A and E) @< .05). None of the other contrasts were significant.

No significant main effects or interactions were found for sex of teacher and nature of employment using two-way analyses of variance comparing the five formats on overall

124 Judith Wiener

Table 7 Mean Comprehension and Preference Scores by Format for Secondary Teachers

Overall Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension Child Recommendations Preference

n x S D n x S D n x S D n x S D

A-Short Form 16 9.19 1.94 16 4.06 1.65 16 5.13 1.09 14 36.39 6.29

B-Psychoeducational 16 10.06 3.26 16 5.38 2.16 16 4.88 1.63 15 42.67 5.06

C-Question &Answer 15 10.80 2.70 15 5.40 1.45 15 5.33 1.84 13 43.12 4.85

D-Child Description 15 8.93 2.02 15 4.96 1.33 15 4.00 1.07 15 38.97 7.53

E-Recommendations 15 10.13 2.50 15 4.60 1.68 15 5.47 1.25 15 37.60 7.45

comprehension, comprehension of child description, comprehension of recommendations, and preference. Significant main effects were found for age of teacher and years of experience on overall comprehension (p< .Ol). Examination of the means revealed that teachers who were 29 years of age or less did not comprehend as well as teachers 30 years or more, and that teachers with 5 years of experience or less did not comprehend as well as teachers with 6 or more years of experience.

Finally, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated between comprehension and preference scores for the entire sample. The correlations between the comprehension and preference scores were not significant.

DISCUSSION The three studies reported above and previous studies by Wiener (1985) and Wiener

and Kohler (1986) suggest that teachers, principals, and parents comprehend the Psychoeducational and Question-and-Answer reports better than the Short Form, and generally prefer to read the reports they comprehend better in spite of their extra length. Elementary teachers’ comprehension is enhanced when the two major sections of the report (description of child’s functioning, and recommendations) are written in elaborated form. Equivocal results for secondary teachers were found on this dimension because teachers responding to the Short Form obtained relatively high scores on the questions evaluating comprehension of recommendations. Both elementary and secondary teachers, however, prefer to read reports in which the child description and recommendations sections are elaborated. Gender, age, and experience of subject and type of employment were not related to comprehension or preference for elementary teachers and principals. In the case of secondary teachers, teachers who were 30 years of age or more and teachers who had more than 5 years of experience obtained higher comprehension scores than did younger or less experienced teachers.

Why do parents, teachers, and school administrators comprehend better and prefer to read longer, more elaborated reports? The results of the studies reported above con- tradict the opinions of many school psychologists who claim that teachers and principals “do not read reports that are longer than two pages.” The literature on accom- plished readers’ comprehension of expository text provides some possible answers to this question.

Armbruster and Anderson (1984, 1985) provide a framework for the production of “considerate” expository text in the social sciences. Their work is based on schema


theory that holds that “a reader’s schema, or organized knowledge of the world, provides much of the basis for comprehending, learning, and remembering text.” Thus, there are three major factors that writers should take into account when producing “considerate text:” the reader’s existing knowledge, the structure, and the coherence of the text itself.

The existing knowledge of readers of psychological reports (parents, teachers, principals, psychologists, and other professionals) needs to be considered when the report is being written. In our pilot studies, psychologists and advanced graduate students in special education could comprehend the three major report formats used (Short Form, Psychoeducational, and Question-and-Answer) equally well. Readers with less background in special education, on the other hand, found it easier to comprehend reports that minimized or explained technical terms and provided examples for the concepts discussed. Previous studies (Brandt & Giebink, 1968; Rucker, 1967; Schiveley & Smith, 1969) support this conclusion. Armbruster and Anderson (1985), however, in- sisted that reduction of technical terms is not the major factor involved in relating the reader’s existing knowledge to the new material. (They suggested that providing explanations for technical terms, referred to as jargon, may be more productive in the long term.) Their studies have indicated that structure of the text should also be a concern of writers of “considerate” expository text.

Armbruster and Anderson (1984) proposed that text structure should be consistent with the existing framework (schema) of the reader. In the case of the study of history, they claimed that a Goal/Action/Outcome frame is appropriate: The events should be studied in terms of the goal(s) of the protagonist(s), action(s) taken, and outcome(s) of the action(s). With regard to psychological reports, a Goal (reason for referral)/Prob- lem (child functioning)/Action (recommendations) frame may correspond to the schema of most readers. Within the frame, the slots (or content) vary from child to child. Ac- cording to Armbruster and Anderson (1985), learning and retention are increased when the salience of the frame and slots is enhanced through introductory paragraphs, and headings and subheadings. With regard to the three major report formats, the salience of the frame and slots is highest in the Question-and-Answer report. The referral questions section is similar to the introductory paragraph described by Armbruster and Ander- son (1985) in that it provides an overview of the frame/organization of the report and the slots (specific content) that will be addressed. Headings and subheadings follow the organization articulated in this referral question section. The introductory paragraph equivalent is not present in the Psychoeducational report, but the frame and slots are articulated in the headings and subheadings. Since these two formats did not differ significantly from each other with regard to comprehension or preference in any of the studies, it is likely that the introductory paragraphheferral questions component is not essential to provide salience. In the Short Form, the frame of reason for referral, child functioning, and recommendations was salient through headings, but salience of the slots (content) was low. Consequently, retention of the information in this format was lower than in the other two.

Using Armbruster and Anderson’s (1985) criteria, the Question-and-Answer and Psychoeducational reports were more coherent than the Short Form. In the Question- and-Answer and Psychoeducational reports, technical terms are more likely to be explained and examples given. To enhance the information flow, ancillary information that is helpful to the reader with less background knowledge is given in handouts, and quantitative information (e.g., test scores) is presented in tables.

126 Judith Wiener

Since teachers, principals, and parents are part of the multidisciplinary teams that make decisions about placement and program for handicapped children and most often are the implementers of recommendations made by psychologists, psychologists have an obligation to communicate the findings clearly to them. Parents’, teachers’, and principals’ better comprehension and preference for the Question-and-Answer and Psychoeducational reports may be a function of the highly articulated structure and coherence of these formats facilitating linkages between the information in the report and the readers’ existing knowledge or schemata. Consequently, psychologists should make an effort to write reports that have a salient structure, clear explanations of technical terms, specific examples of concepts discussed, and elaborated descriptions of the child’s functioning and recommendations.

REFERENCES

ARMBRUSTER, B. B., &ANDERSON, T. H. (1984). Structures of explanations in history textbooks or so what if Governor Stanford missed the spike and hit the rail? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16, 181-194.

ARMBRUSTER, B. B . , & ANDERSON, T. H. (1985). Producing ‘considerate’ expository text: Or easy reading is damned hard writing. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 241-214.

BAGNATO. S. J . (1980). The efficacy of diagnostic reports as individualized guides to prescriptive goal plan- ning. Exceptional Children, 46, 554-551.

BRANDT, H . M., & GIEBINK, J . W. (1968). Concreteness and congruence in psychologists’reports to teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 5, 87-89.

RUCKER, C. N. (1967). Technical language in the school psychologist’s report. Psychology in the Schools, 4, 146-150.

SHIVELEY, J . J . , & SMITH, A. E. (1969). Understanding the psychological report. Psychology in theSchools, 6, 272-273.

WIENER, J . (1985). Teachers’ comprehension of psychological reports. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 60-64. WIENER, J., & KOHLER, S. (1986). Parents’ comprehension of psychological reports. Psychology in the Schools,

YSSELDYKE, J . E., & ALGOZZINE, B. (1981). Diagnostic classification decisions as a function of referral in- 23, 265-210.

formation. Journal of Special Education, 15, 429-435.

factors affecting educators' comprehension of psychological reports

Documents