A Follow-up Study of Psychoeducational Recommendations
Identifieur interne : 000965 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000964; suivant : 000966A Follow-up Study of Psychoeducational Recommendations
Auteurs : Fern Williams ; Margaret ColemanSource :
- Journal of Learning Disabilities [ 0022-2194 ] ; 1982-12.
Abstract
Psychoeducational evaluation of children with learning problems is a service provided by a variety of educational agencies. However, previous research raises the question of efficacy by demonstrating that an appreciable percentage of recommendations made in the evaluations are never implemented. The Learning Abilities Center at the University of Texas undertook a follow-up study to determine the percentage of recommendations from former evaluations that were reportedly implemented. In two consecutive spring semesters, telephone interviews were held with the parents and teachers of students evaluated the previous spring and fall. The cases, 42 boys and 25 girls, represented an age range of kindergarten through 12th grade. Results were categorized according to type of recommendation. Among categories, percentages of recommendations implemented ranged from 38% to 100%. Overall averages showed that 68% of the parental recommendations and 56% of teacher recommendations were implemented. A number of specific barriers to implementation are discussed in conjunction with practical strategies for alleviating the barriers.
Url:
DOI: 10.1177/002221948201501007
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:BCFD6B8D5CA7833440A402774BA18B47AE41FFA1Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A Follow-up Study of Psychoeducational Recommendations</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Williams, Fern" sort="Williams, Fern" uniqKey="Williams F" first="Fern" last="Williams">Fern Williams</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Fern C. Williams recently retired but formerly was diagnostic supervisor of the Learning Abilities Center at the University of Texas. She received her PhD degree in clinical reading at the University of Texas.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Coleman, Margaret" sort="Coleman, Margaret" uniqKey="Coleman M" first="Margaret" last="Coleman">Margaret Coleman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Margaret Coleman currently is diagnostic supervisor of the Learning Abilities Center and formerly was employed as a school psychologist. She received her PhD in special education at the University of Texas. Address: Dr. Margaret Coleman, Learning Abilities Center, 252 Education Building, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:BCFD6B8D5CA7833440A402774BA18B47AE41FFA1</idno><date when="1982" year="1982">1982</date><idno type="doi">10.1177/002221948201501007</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/BCFD6B8D5CA7833440A402774BA18B47AE41FFA1/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000965</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000965</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">A Follow-up Study of Psychoeducational Recommendations</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Williams, Fern" sort="Williams, Fern" uniqKey="Williams F" first="Fern" last="Williams">Fern Williams</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Fern C. Williams recently retired but formerly was diagnostic supervisor of the Learning Abilities Center at the University of Texas. She received her PhD degree in clinical reading at the University of Texas.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Coleman, Margaret" sort="Coleman, Margaret" uniqKey="Coleman M" first="Margaret" last="Coleman">Margaret Coleman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Margaret Coleman currently is diagnostic supervisor of the Learning Abilities Center and formerly was employed as a school psychologist. She received her PhD in special education at the University of Texas. Address: Dr. Margaret Coleman, Learning Abilities Center, 252 Education Building, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of Learning Disabilities</title><idno type="ISSN">0022-2194</idno><idno type="eISSN">1538-4780</idno><imprint><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage UK: London, England</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1982-12">1982-12</date><biblScope unit="volume">15</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">10</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="596">596</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="598">598</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0022-2194</idno></series><idno type="istex">BCFD6B8D5CA7833440A402774BA18B47AE41FFA1</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/002221948201501007</idno><idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_002221948201501007</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0022-2194</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Psychoeducational evaluation of children with learning problems is a service provided by a variety of educational agencies. However, previous research raises the question of efficacy by demonstrating that an appreciable percentage of recommendations made in the evaluations are never implemented. The Learning Abilities Center at the University of Texas undertook a follow-up study to determine the percentage of recommendations from former evaluations that were reportedly implemented. In two consecutive spring semesters, telephone interviews were held with the parents and teachers of students evaluated the previous spring and fall. The cases, 42 boys and 25 girls, represented an age range of kindergarten through 12th grade. Results were categorized according to type of recommendation. Among categories, percentages of recommendations implemented ranged from 38% to 100%. Overall averages showed that 68% of the parental recommendations and 56% of teacher recommendations were implemented. A number of specific barriers to implementation are discussed in conjunction with practical strategies for alleviating the barriers.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>sage</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Fern Williams PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Fern C. Williams recently retired but formerly was diagnostic supervisor of the Learning Abilities Center at the University of Texas. She received her PhD degree in clinical reading at the University of Texas.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Margaret Coleman PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Margaret Coleman currently is diagnostic supervisor of the Learning Abilities Center and formerly was employed as a school psychologist. She received her PhD in special education at the University of Texas. Address: Dr. Margaret Coleman, Learning Abilities Center, 252 Education Building, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>10.1177_002221948201501007</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Psychoeducational evaluation of children with learning problems is a service provided by a variety of educational agencies. However, previous research raises the question of efficacy by demonstrating that an appreciable percentage of recommendations made in the evaluations are never implemented. The Learning Abilities Center at the University of Texas undertook a follow-up study to determine the percentage of recommendations from former evaluations that were reportedly implemented. In two consecutive spring semesters, telephone interviews were held with the parents and teachers of students evaluated the previous spring and fall. The cases, 42 boys and 25 girls, represented an age range of kindergarten through 12th grade. Results were categorized according to type of recommendation. Among categories, percentages of recommendations implemented ranged from 38% to 100%. Overall averages showed that 68% of the parental recommendations and 56% of teacher recommendations were implemented. A number of specific barriers to implementation are discussed in conjunction with practical strategies for alleviating the barriers.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>4.434</score><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>648 x 828 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>1129</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>2050</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>13391</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>3</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>157</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>A Follow-up Study of Psychoeducational Recommendations</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>15</volume><publisherId><json:string>LDX</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>598</last><first>596</first></pages><issn><json:string>0022-2194</json:string></issn><issue>10</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1538-4780</json:string></eissn><title>Journal of Learning Disabilities</title></host><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>rehabilitation</json:string><json:string>education, special</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>1982</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1982</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1177/002221948201501007</json:string></doi><id>BCFD6B8D5CA7833440A402774BA18B47AE41FFA1</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/BCFD6B8D5CA7833440A402774BA18B47AE41FFA1/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/BCFD6B8D5CA7833440A402774BA18B47AE41FFA1/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/BCFD6B8D5CA7833440A402774BA18B47AE41FFA1/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">A Follow-up Study of Psychoeducational Recommendations</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage UK: London, England</pubPlace><availability><p>SAGE</p></availability><date>1982</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">A Follow-up Study of Psychoeducational Recommendations</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Fern</forename><surname>Williams</surname></persName><roleName type="degree">PhD</roleName><affiliation>Fern C. Williams recently retired but formerly was diagnostic supervisor of the Learning Abilities Center at the University of Texas. She received her PhD degree in clinical reading at the University of Texas.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Margaret</forename><surname>Coleman</surname></persName><roleName type="degree">PhD</roleName><affiliation>Margaret Coleman currently is diagnostic supervisor of the Learning Abilities Center and formerly was employed as a school psychologist. She received her PhD in special education at the University of Texas. Address: Dr. Margaret Coleman, Learning Abilities Center, 252 Education Building, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Journal of Learning Disabilities</title><idno type="pISSN">0022-2194</idno><idno type="eISSN">1538-4780</idno><imprint><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage UK: London, England</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1982-12"></date><biblScope unit="volume">15</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">10</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="596">596</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="598">598</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">BCFD6B8D5CA7833440A402774BA18B47AE41FFA1</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/002221948201501007</idno><idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_002221948201501007</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1982</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Psychoeducational evaluation of children with learning problems is a service provided by a variety of educational agencies. However, previous research raises the question of efficacy by demonstrating that an appreciable percentage of recommendations made in the evaluations are never implemented. The Learning Abilities Center at the University of Texas undertook a follow-up study to determine the percentage of recommendations from former evaluations that were reportedly implemented. In two consecutive spring semesters, telephone interviews were held with the parents and teachers of students evaluated the previous spring and fall. The cases, 42 boys and 25 girls, represented an age range of kindergarten through 12th grade. Results were categorized according to type of recommendation. Among categories, percentages of recommendations implemented ranged from 38% to 100%. Overall averages showed that 68% of the parental recommendations and 56% of teacher recommendations were implemented. A number of specific barriers to implementation are discussed in conjunction with practical strategies for alleviating the barriers.</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1982-12">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/BCFD6B8D5CA7833440A402774BA18B47AE41FFA1/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus sage not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">spldx</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">LDX</journal-id><journal-title>Journal of Learning Disabilities</journal-title><issn pub-type="ppub">0022-2194</issn><publisher><publisher-name>SAGE Publications</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Sage UK: London, England</publisher-loc></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/002221948201501007</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">10.1177_002221948201501007</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>A Follow-up Study of Psychoeducational Recommendations</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Williams</surname><given-names>Fern</given-names></name><degrees>PhD</degrees><aff>Fern C. Williams recently retired but formerly was diagnostic supervisor of the Learning Abilities Center at the University of Texas. She received her PhD degree in clinical reading at the University of Texas.</aff></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Coleman</surname><given-names>Margaret</given-names></name><degrees>PhD</degrees><aff>Margaret Coleman currently is diagnostic supervisor of the Learning Abilities Center and formerly was employed as a school psychologist. She received her PhD in special education at the University of Texas. Address: Dr. Margaret Coleman, Learning Abilities Center, 252 Education Building, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>12</month><year>1982</year></pub-date><volume>15</volume><issue>10</issue><fpage>596</fpage><lpage>598</lpage><abstract><p>Psychoeducational evaluation of children with learning problems is a service provided by a variety of educational agencies. However, previous research raises the question of efficacy by demonstrating that an appreciable percentage of recommendations made in the evaluations are never implemented. The Learning Abilities Center at the University of Texas undertook a follow-up study to determine the percentage of recommendations from former evaluations that were reportedly implemented. In two consecutive spring semesters, telephone interviews were held with the parents and teachers of students evaluated the previous spring and fall. The cases, 42 boys and 25 girls, represented an age range of kindergarten through 12th grade. Results were categorized according to type of recommendation. Among categories, percentages of recommendations implemented ranged from 38% to 100%. Overall averages showed that 68% of the parental recommendations and 56% of teacher recommendations were implemented. A number of specific barriers to implementation are discussed in conjunction with practical strategies for alleviating the barriers.</p></abstract><custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>sagemeta-type</meta-name><meta-value>Journal Article</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>search-text</meta-name><meta-value> A Follow-up Study of Psychoeducational the University of Texas, provides train- ing for university students through dem- onstration and practica experience and generates research involving problems in Recommendations Fern Williams, PhD, and Margaret Coleman, PhD Psy hoeducutional evaluation of children with learning problems is a service provided by a vuriety of educariotd agencies. However, previous research raises the yuestioti of eflicacv by demonstrating that an appreciable percentage of recornmendations mude in the evaluations are never implemented. The Learning Abilities Center at the Universitv of Texas undertook a follow-up study to determine the percentage of recommendations from former evaluations that were reportedly implemented. In two consecutive spring semesters, telephone interviews were held with the parents and teachers of students evaluated the previous spring and jall. The cases, 42 boys and 25 girls, represented an age range of kindergarten through 12th grade. Results were categorized according to type of recommendation. Among categories, percentages of recommendations implemented ranged from 38% to 100%. Overall averages showed thut 68% of the parental recommendations and 56% of teacher recommendations were implemented. A number of specific barriers to implementation are discussed in conjunction with practical strategies for alleviating the barriers. n impressive sum of time and money A is invested in psychoeducational evaluation of nonachieving school chil- dren to identify learning strengths and deficits and to generate appropriate inter- ventions. However, published studies indicate that in a substantial percentage of cases, evaluation-based recommenda- tions are not implemented. Waugh (1970) suggests that private enterprise could not afford to operate if faced with failure of similar magnitude. Her comment was prompted by results of a follow-up study conducted at De Busk Memorial Center at the University of Oregon in which she sent questionnaires to teachers of 37 stu- dents examined at that center. Nine respondents considered the report not use- ful and 14 teachers did not respond to the questionnaire. Baker (1965) reported that psychoedu- cational evaluation by school psycholo- gists resulted in definite changes in teach- ing or counseling strategies less than 43% of the time. Pope and Haklay (1974) reported a study undertaken by the Learn- ing Clinic at Coney Island Hospital in which only 26% of the teacher respon- dents volunteered the information that the recommendations were implemented. In their follow-up study at the Univer- sity of Maryland Central Evaluation Clinic for Children, Schour and Clem- mens (1974) held telephone interviews with parents and teachers of 94 children. They determined that 69% of the clinic's total recommendations to parents and 73% of the clinic's total recommenda- tions to teachers were carried out. Results of these published studies should persuade other psychoeducational diagnostic agencies to determine if their recommendations are being implement- ed. If results are disappointing, focus could then be placed on causes of failure to implement and methods that might enhance the likelihood of implementa- tion. The Learning Abilities Center pres- ently is engaged in this procedure. learning. As a by-product of these activi- ties, the LAC is able to offer psychoed- ucational diagnostic services to children. Referrals are initiated by parents, teach- ers, and professionals in medical or psy- chological services. Referrals are accep- ted for elementary and secondary students of average intelligence whose presenting problems include academic deficits. Graduate clinicians work under the close supervision of the diagnostic supervisor and the practica professors. Clinicians confer with parents and school personnel before and after the test battery is admin- istered, except during the summer term when school personnel are not available. A summary report is mailed to the par- ents and to the child's school principal. The classroom teacher or counselor is advised by letter that the report has been sent to the principal. METHOD Parents of children evaluated at the LAC were strongly urged to confer with teach- ers regarding test results and intervention strategies. They also were urged to per- sist in gaining the cooperation of the school in finding ways to implement rec- ommendations. Where family therapy or parent effectiveness training was recom- mended, LAC personnel supplied infor- mation to parents and, whenever appro- priate, helped to facilitate initial inter- views. In the spring of 1979 and 1980, the diagnostic supervisor interviewed by telephone school personnel and parents of students tested the previous summer and fall. Questionnaires were mailed to parents and school personnel living out- side of the city. Parents and teachers were asked which recommendations bad been implemented. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Tables 1 and 2 summarize the data based on 67 cases comprised of 42 boys and 25 girls, kindergarten through 12th grade. Data presented in Tables 1 and 2 support published studies and suggest a need to examine causes of failure to implement 596 Journal of Learning Disabilities SETTING OF STUDY The Learning Abilities Center (LAC), a facility of the College of Education at Table 1. Recommendations to Parents Type of recommendation Percent of recommendations implemented 1978-1 979 1979-1 980 Materials (specific teaching materials) 50 Instructional method 65 Content (what to teach) 57 Behavior management 59 Referral to vision specialist 100 Referral for other types of physical exams - or screening 67 47 40 78 100 50 Referral for family therapy, counseling, 38 69 P.E.T. Referral for private tutoring in reading or 100 math Average total 67 100 - 69 Table 2. Recommendations to Teachers Type of recommendation Materials (specific teaching materials) Content (what to teach) Instructional method Behavior management Referrals to services within the school system Average total Percent of recommendations Implemented 1978-1979 1979-1 980 38 58 40 85 64 44 48 55 56 73 - 55 - 57 recommendations. In telephone inter- views with parents and teachers, the fol- lowing problems repeatedly surfaced. School personnel had not read the recommendations. Thirty-nine students in the follow-up study were assigned to more than one teacher, but typically only one or two of the teachers had read the report. Six reports had been placed in files but not read. Generally at the sec- ondary level only the counselor had seen the report. One report was sent by the principal to the wrong counselor and was not recovered until late in the school year. It was difficult to schedule a meeting that included all of the child's teach- ers. Recess, noon, and after-school du- ties and interests of teachers varied with the individual; it proved difficult to find a time when all could be present to discuss recommendations. Not all teachers wished to attend a group meeting. Some teachers appeared defensive or rigid in their own diagnosis of their pupils. This was most apparent in the case where one teacher Volume 15. Number 10, December 1982 characterized a student as able but lazy, while a second teacher saw the same student as a slow learner being pressured by his parents to achieve beyond his po- tential. Neither teacher could see the value of a group conference. There was no effective on-going ad- vocate for the student. The LAC staff encouraged parents to discuss recommen- dations with the school and confer with the teacher regularly to see if the rec- ommendations were proving practical and were being carried out. Many parents felt they would be unwelcome in that role and would be perceived as trying to tell the teacher what to do. School principals seldom became involved. Rather, they were apt to leave recommendations in the hands of teachers and support whatever stand the teachers took. In most cases counselors were interested but not very effective in bringing about suggested changes. By the end of the school year, some teachers who had initially concur- red with recommendations and agreed to implement them had forgotten what the recommendations were. There often was a lack of communication and cooperation between resource and classroom teach- ers. Their instructional methods and ma- terials were sometimes conflictive, can- fusing to the pupil, and therefore nonpro- ductive. Some teachers were unwilling or un- able to adjust instruction to meet the individual needs of pupils. Frequently teachers cited lack of time as the reason they had been unable to implement rec- ommendations. The majority of the chil- dren seen at the LAC had reading and spelling problems. Although teachers would adjust the reading program to sonie extent, they resisted the recommendation to adjust the spelling program. This meant, for instance. that children who were reading at a second grade level were assigned spelling textbooks used by their fourth-grade or fifth-grade classmates. Some parents resisted recommenda- tions that required a sacrifice of their time. They were willing to hire a tutor or take their child to any eye specialist but were too busy to read to the child repu- larly or attend family counseling sessions. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A perusal of these barriers to implemeo- tation reveals that lack of communication and cooperation is a common factor: it exists within the school, between the clinician and school, and between the home and school. The time and money invested in psychoeducational evaluation hardly can be justified unless this prob- lem is addressed. One strategy that might prove success- ful would include a pretest and posttest conference initiated by the school princi- pal. The pretest conference would include the clinician, the principal, and all school personnel who work with the child. At this time the clinician would gather any pertinent information that did not already appear on the school referral form. Such information would necessarily include past history of remediation and methods and materials that had proved effective as well as those that had been ineffective. The teachers would specify the kinds of information they hoped to obtain from the evaluation. Clinician and parents would hold a separate conference to explore together SY7 I'acets of the home cnvironnient and his- tory that might be impinging on the stu- dent's academic problems and to deter- mine what the parents hoped to accom- plish through the testing. At the conclusion of testing, a second school conference would be held, and this time the parents would be included. The clinician would present and interpret results of the evaluation and suggest spe- cific but tentative recommendations. Each participant would be provided with his or her own copy of the recommendations and a worksheet. After the recommenda- tions had been discussed individually and modificd or dropped, the accepted rec- ommcndations would be listed on the worksheet along with the name of per- sons rcsponsible for their implementat- ion. The principal would appoint one member of the school staff as an advo- cate for the student. This person would be responsible for keeping the principal and parents informed monthly of the stu- dent's progress in areas where changes were recommended. The clinician or a staff member from the testing agency would act as consultant to suggest alter- nate recommendations at the request of the advocate. An additional conference between clinician and parents might be advisable in some cases where a recom- mendation such as family counseling seemed appropriate. The authors recognize that the recom- mended strategies require a considerable commitment of time dedicated to follow- through on the part of the clinician or clinic staff. However, research results consistently indicate that unless such commitment is forthcoming, as many as half of the recommendations will never reach the students for whom they are formulated. As stated by Pope and Hak- lay (1974), “The consultant cannot send out the report and move on, feeling his job is done” (p. 244). Utilization of pre- test and posttest staffings and the estab- lishment of an on-going advocate may partially alleviate the communication problem and facilitate the process of im- plementation. REFERENCES Baker, H. L. Psychological services: From the school staffs point of view. Jorrrrwl of Schml Psychology, 1965. 4, 36-42. Pope, L. & Haklav. A. A jdlow-iip study qf psy- choeducational evaluations sent to schools. Jour- nal of Learning Disabilities. 1974. 7. 240-244. Schour, M. & Clemmens. R. L. Fute of rei~ommen- dations for children with school-reluted problem.\ following interdisciplinu? evaluation. Behaviorul Pediatrics. 1974. 84. 903-907. Waugh, R. On reporting the findings of a diugnos- tic center. Journal of Leurning Disabilities. 1910. 3, 630-634. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Fern C. Williams recently retired hut, fi)rmerlJ wqs diagnostic supervisor qf the Learning Abilities Cen- ter at the UniversiQ of Texas. She received her PhD degree in clinicai reading at the University iq Te.tus. Margaret Coleman currently is diugnostic super- visor of the Learning Abilities Center and jirmerly ws employed as a school psvchologist. She re- ceived her PhD in special education at the Univer- sity of Texas. Address: Dr. Margaret Coleman, Learning Abilities Center, 252 Education Buildinx, University of Texas. Austin, TX 78112. </meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-wrap></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Baker, H. L.</surname></name><article-title>Psychological services: From the school staff's point of view</article-title>. <source>Journal of School Psychology</source>, <year>1965</year>, <volume>4</volume>, <fpage>36</fpage>–<lpage>42</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pope, L.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Haklay, A.</surname></name><article-title>A follow-up study of psychoeducational evaluations sent to schools</article-title>. <source>Journal of Learning Disabilities</source>, <year>1974</year>, <volume>7</volume>, <fpage>240</fpage>–<lpage>244</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schour, M.</surname></name> & <name name-style="western"><surname>Clemmens, R. L.</surname></name><article-title>Fate of recommendations for children with school-related problems following interdisciplinary evaluation</article-title>. <source>Behavioral Pediatrics</source>, <year>1974</year>, <volume>84</volume>, <fpage>903</fpage>–<lpage>907</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Waugh, R.</surname></name><article-title>On reporting the findings of a diagnostic center</article-title>. <source>Journal of Learning Disabilities</source>, <year>1970</year>, <volume>3</volume>, <fpage>630</fpage>–<lpage>634</lpage>.</citation></ref></ref-list></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>A Follow-up Study of Psychoeducational Recommendations</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>A Follow-up Study of Psychoeducational Recommendations</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Fern</namePart><namePart type="family">Williams</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">PhD</namePart><affiliation>Fern C. Williams recently retired but formerly was diagnostic supervisor of the Learning Abilities Center at the University of Texas. She received her PhD degree in clinical reading at the University of Texas.</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Margaret</namePart><namePart type="family">Coleman</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">PhD</namePart><affiliation>Margaret Coleman currently is diagnostic supervisor of the Learning Abilities Center and formerly was employed as a school psychologist. She received her PhD in special education at the University of Texas. Address: Dr. Margaret Coleman, Learning Abilities Center, 252 Education Building, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Sage UK: London, England</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1982-12</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1982</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Psychoeducational evaluation of children with learning problems is a service provided by a variety of educational agencies. However, previous research raises the question of efficacy by demonstrating that an appreciable percentage of recommendations made in the evaluations are never implemented. The Learning Abilities Center at the University of Texas undertook a follow-up study to determine the percentage of recommendations from former evaluations that were reportedly implemented. In two consecutive spring semesters, telephone interviews were held with the parents and teachers of students evaluated the previous spring and fall. The cases, 42 boys and 25 girls, represented an age range of kindergarten through 12th grade. Results were categorized according to type of recommendation. Among categories, percentages of recommendations implemented ranged from 38% to 100%. Overall averages showed that 68% of the parental recommendations and 56% of teacher recommendations were implemented. A number of specific barriers to implementation are discussed in conjunction with practical strategies for alleviating the barriers.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Learning Disabilities</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0022-2194</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1538-4780</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">LDX</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">spldx</identifier><part><date>1982</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>15</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>10</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>596</start><end>598</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">BCFD6B8D5CA7833440A402774BA18B47AE41FFA1</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1177/002221948201501007</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">10.1177_002221948201501007</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource>SAGE</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Psychologie/explor/TherFamFrancoV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000965 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000965 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Psychologie
|area= TherFamFrancoV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:BCFD6B8D5CA7833440A402774BA18B47AE41FFA1
|texte= A Follow-up Study of Psychoeducational Recommendations
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.29. |  |