Evaluating school psychological reports: I. A procedure for systematic feedback

This paper provides a rationale for obtaining systematic evaluative feedback concerning the perceived usefulness of school psychological reports and their impact on the development of individual educational plans for referred students. Research data and authoritative opinion are used to support the need for school psychologists to obtain feedback about their reports on a case-by-case basis, rather than to obtain global perceptions of the meaningfulness and usefulness of reports in general. A working copy of a brief evaluation form that can be attached to the report and forwarded to the referral agent is included for the benefit of interested readers

Special education teachers\u27 perceptions of reports written by school psychologists.

This study reports results of a survey of 63 special education teachers in a 13-county area of Northwestern Ohio. Teachers were asked to describe reports they typically receive as to types of information provided in several sections of the report. Teachers were also asked to rate sections of the report according to how useful these were for several purposes. Teachers receive a standard form of report including background data, test results, and general recommendations. Several areas to be targeted for self-assessment and development by psychologists interested in improving their report-writing are suggested

A combined factor analysis of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory and the MMPI in an offender population.

The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) is a recently introduced instrument designed to measure both symptomatology and long-standing patterns of personality disorder in clinical populations. Because it is designed to assess clients who are similar to those with whom the MMPI is often used (e.g., adjudicated offenders), a question may arise as to whether the two instruments measure the same aspects of clients\u27 function. This study investigated this question by conducting a combined factor analysis of the two instruments in a criminal offender population (N = 2,245). Results indicated that although there are important areas of overlap between the two instruments, each also contains unique sources of variance. The results are interpreted as supporting the use of both instruments as part of an objective assessment battery, as has been suggested by several authors