Abstract
reader and relevant to the child and his or her literature related to report comprehension and The purpose of this study was to investigate problems.” (p. 729). Further, Fagan and Wise satisfaction revealed that most studies involved the influence of using tables and bullets in psy- (2000) implored psychologists to “. . . find the clinical psychology reports and their recipients, choeducational reports on teacher comprehen- most effective ways to synthesize all of the such as social workers and psychiatrists. sion and satisfaction (N = 87). Four different data. . .” in order to write helpful reports (p. Moreover, these studies were largely outdated report formats were employed and ANOVA 127). Similarly, Ownby (1987) noted that and produced inconsistent and variable results was used to test for significant differences reports should be written to address the needs depending upon the profession of the con- between comprehension and satisfaction of the referral source in a method that can be sumer (Cuadra & Albaugh, 1956; Isett & among the four formats. Results indicated a understood. From an ethical standpoint, Roszowski, 1979; Moore, Boblitt, & main effect for bullets on comprehension but NASP ethical principles (IV.D.1.a and IV.D.3; Wildman, 1968; Tallent & Reiss, 1959a, no effect for bullets on satisfaction. There was NASP, 2001) implore school psychologists to 1959b, 1959c). no effect for tables on either comprehension or adequately interpret information and to pre- Research involving teachers (Wiese, Bush, satisfaction. pare reports that will be helpful for the recipi- Newman, Benes, & Witt, 1986) found that ent. These principles further suggest that the use of jargon in reports decreased teacher Streamlining Psychoeducational Reports checklist reports that only indicate scores with understanding of the report but not satisfac- Most school psychologists, by the nature of no recommendations are seldom useful. tion or perception of the educational relevance their job demands, generate numerous psy- Despite the best efforts of school psychologists of the report. These contradictory findings choeducational reports every year document- to write relevant and meaningful reports, con- were hypothesized to be due to teacher reluc- ing their findings, impressions, and recom- sumers have been critical of written reports tance to read the reports, the teacher’s ability to mendations. Sattler (2001) explained that the because of problems with omitting supporting read the reports despite the level of jargon (due goal of report writing “. . . is to use clear and data, using poor expressions (e.g., jargon), and precise language to write a well-integrated and differentiating test data from other data, logical report that will be meaningful to the among others (Sattler, 2001). A review of the “Streamlining...” continued on page 10
