School Psychology Review,

2006, Volume 35, No. 1, pp. 3-10

School Psychology Review: 2006-2010

Thomas J. Power
University of PennsylvaniaJThe Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Abstract. The vision for School Psychology Review for the 2006-2010 editorial
term is described, and five major goals are outlined. These goals include (a)
addressing issues of critical importance to school psychology and the broader
domains of child-oriented psychology and education; (b) promoting intervention
and prevention research and publishing this work in its various stages of devel-
opment; (c) strengthening the link between science and practice; (d) promoting a
cross-fertilization of ideas through interdisciplinary collaboration; and (e) build-
ing the infrastructure through the use of electronic technologies. Strategies that
will he used hy the leadership team of SPR to address each goal during the next 5
years are descrihed.

This issue marks a transition in the distin- Vision

guished history of School Psychology Review
(SP/?); it is the first issue of a new editorial term.
Being editor of SPR is truly an honor for me; I
am humbled to succeed a series of luminaries in
the field of school psychology, most recently
Daniel Reschly, George Hynd, Stephen EUiott,
Edward Shapiro, Patti Harrison, and Susan
Sheridan. In this brief article, I would like to
outline our plans for SPR over the next 5 years.
In doing so, I acknowledge that these plans rep-
resent a flexible agenda that no doubt will un-
dergo many revisions in response to the input of
our many stakeholders: the leadership team of
SPR, the editorial board, our authors and pro-
spective authors, the leadership team and mem-
bership of the National Association of School
Psychologists (NASP), and the community of
researchers in child-oriented psychology and ed-
ucation. The following is a description of our
vision, goals for the future, and strategies to
achieve our goals.
The primary purpose of SPR is to de-
velop the science base for the practice of
school psychology and other disciplines dedi-
cated to the promotion of children's develop-
ment in schools, such as community and child
clinical psychology, education, pediatrics, and
public health. School psychology and the
broader domain of child-oriented psychology
reflect a diverse agenda with many interest
groups, but the principal focus of SPR during
the next 5 years will be on strengthening the
science base related to intervention and pre-
vention, a theme highlighted by the major
leadership groups of school psychology at the
Conference on the Future of School Psychol-
ogy (i.e.. Futures Conference). SPR places a
priority on research that is directly linked with
practice. The research questions addressed in
articles published in this joumal will focus on
topics of central importance to practitioners
and policy makers, and the results described in

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Thomas Power, The Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia, 3535 Market St. (Room 1471), 34th St. & Civic Center Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19104;
e-mail: power@email.chop.edu
Copyright 2006 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015
School Psyciiology Review, 2006, Volume 35, No. 1

SPR should have implications that can inform
practice and policy development for children.
Major Goals
To accomplish this vision for SPR, we
have outlined five major goals. The following
is a description of each.
Goal 1: Address Critical Issues
SPR is committed to publishing research
that addresses the primary goals of the profes-
sion of school psychology and the broader
domains of child-oriented psychology and ed-
ucation. These priorities were outlined clearly
by the major stakeholder groups in school
psychology at the Futures Conference (see the
special series in SPR on "Proceedings of the
Multisite Conference on the Future of School
Psychology" in the first issue of 2004). The
Futures Conference outlined five primary out-
come goals for the profession: (1) academic
competence for all students, (2) improved so-
cial and emotional functioning for all students,
(3) systems that promote family-school part-
nerships and family involvement in education,
(4) systems committed to improved instruction
for all children, and (5) systems with increased
child and family services to promote chil-
dren's health and mental health. Outcomes 1
and 2 emphasize changes at the level of the
individual child, whereas Outcomes 3, 4,
and 5 highlight changes at a systems level
(P. Harrison, personal communication).
To evaluate the extent to which the ex-
isting science base is helping the profession to
address these outcome goals, we examined all
of the full-length articles published in SPR
between 2001 and 2005 (with the exception of
the final issue of 2005) and categorized them
into one of the five outcome areas identified by
the Futures Conference. A PhD-level school
psychologist based her evaluation on a review

Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Outcome 4 Outcome 5 Other

Figure 1. Percentage of articles published from 2001 through 2005 (Issues 1,

2, and 3) for each of the five Futures Conference outcome goal areas (Out-
come 1: academic competence for all students; Outcome 2: improved social
and emotional functioning for all students; Outcome 3: systems change to
promote family involvement; Outcome 4: systems change to improve instruc-
tion; Outcome 5: systems change to promote health and mental health).
 School Psychology Review: 2006-2010

Table 1
References for a Limited Sample of Articles Addressing Futures Conference
Outcomes 3, 4, and 5 (2001-2005)
Outcome Reference

3: Systems change focused on Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Zhang, Y. (2005). Father-school

family involvement in
education
4: Systems change focused on
improved instruction for all
learners
5: Systems change focused on
improved health and
mental health for children
communication in preschool and kindergarten. School Psychology
Review, 34(3), 287-308.
Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C , Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. (2004).
Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations to
behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income
children. School Psychology Review, 33(4), 467-480.
Ardoin, S. P., Witt, J. C , Suldo, S. M., Connell, J. E., Koenig, J. L.,
Resetar, J. L., et al. (2004). Examining the incremental benefits of
administering a maze and three versus one curriculum-based
measurement reading probes when conducting universal screening.
School Psychology Review, 33(2), 218-233.
McGlinchey, M. T., & Hixon, M. D. (2004). Using curriculum-based
measurement to predict performance on state assessments in
reading. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 193-203.
Haile Madam, A., Bradley-Johnson, S., & Johnson, C. M. (2002).
Pediatricians' preferences of ADHD information from schools.
School Psychology Review, 31(1), 94-105.
Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K.
(2004). The effectiveness of whole-school antibuUying programs:
A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review,
33(41 547-560.

of each article's abstract. To examine ititerra-
ter reliability, 30% of the articles were coded
itidependently by atiother school psychologist,
who was also at the doctoral level. The per-
centages of articles for which there was agree-
ment were as follows: 87% for Outcome 1,
85% for Outcome 2, 100% for Outcome 3,
91% for Outcome 4, 96% for Outcome 5, and
100% for Other (e.g., articles that focused
more generally on school psychologists' role
issues).' The results of this analysis are sum-
marized in Figure 1.
The findings of this study clearly dem-
onstrated that a high percentage of the articles
in SPR over the past 5 years (72%) have
focused on change at the level of the individ-
ual child (Outcomes 1 and 2). A low percent-
age of the articles (18%) have focused on
change at a systems level (Outcomes 3, 4, and
5). To develop a science base that can ad-
vance each of the major goals of the profes-
sion, it is essential that the research com-
munity place greater emphasis on science
related to systems change. There is a strong
need for research related to family involve-
ment in education, system change to promote
more effective instruction, and system change
to develop programs promoting children's
health and mental health. Table 1 provides a
sampling of articles published in SPR during
the past 5 years that have addressed outcomes
related to systems.
Goal 2: Promote Intervention and
Prevention Research
SPR places a priority on science focused
on intervention and prevention. It is expected
that intervention and prevention research will
be conducted in a manner that reflects the
rigorous standards of the National Institute of
Health and the Institute for Educational Sci-
School Psychology Review, 2006, Volunne 35, No. 1
ences. Intervention and prevention programs
ought to inctude components supported by the
best avaitabte empirical research. Further, it is
critical that these programs be firmly rooted in
well-established psychological theory. In eval-
uating outcomes, it is not sufficient to demon-
strate that a program is effective; it is also
important to identify mechanisms of action
that may account for the effect.
Intervention and prevention research is
highly challenging to conduct. The process of
conducting this type of research begins during
the early phases of development, when pro-
grams are being designed based upon a thor-
ough review of the- empirical and theoretical
hterature and qualitative data provided by crit-
icat stakeholders, including practitioners as
well as students and their families. This pro-
cess includes a series of prehminary investi-
gations to field test and adapt the program to
make it more effective and responsive to the
needs and preferences of practitioners, chil-
dren, and families. In its later stages, interven-
tion and prevention research consists of clini-
cal trials and replication studies using a range
of methodologies, including randomized group
designs, quasi-experimental designs, and single-
subject approaches, to evaluate effectiveness.
SPR strives to be an outlet for the dis-
semination of intervention and prevention re-
search at its various stages of devetopment,
including the early, intermediate, and ad-
vanced stages. The unsolicited, general section
provides an outlet for research in the advanced
stages as well as higher end of the intermedi-
ate stages. The Research Brief section pro-
vides a format for the dissemination of re-
search in its earlier stages, as welt as studies
that represent a reptication in a different set-
ting or with a different population.
Our team firmly acknowledges the long
and meritorious tradition of the field of school
psychology retated to assessment. We affirm
this tegacy and emphasize the primary roles of
assessment in (a) identifying children in need
of intervention and prevention programs, (b)
planning intervention and prevention strate-
gies by building student and system assets and
solving problems, and (c) evaluating program
outcomes at the level of the child, system, and
intersystem connections (e.g., family and
school, schoot and heatth system).
Goal 3: Strengthen the Link Between
Science and Practice
In helping to build the science base for
schoot psychology, our team is committed to
the subset of science that is inextricably linked
with practice—that is, effectiveness and dis-
semination research, in contrast to basic and
efficacy research (for more information about
these four levels of research, see Dodge, 2001;
National Advisory Mental Health Council
Workgroup on Child and Adolescent Mental
Health Intervention Development and Deploy-
ment, 2001). Effectiveness research refers to
the scientific investigation of the efficacy, fea-
sibility, and social vahdity of intervention and
prevention programs in actual community set-
tings, including schools, under conditions that
are highly similar to practice. Effectiveness
research is often contrasted with efficacy re-
search, which is designed to evaluate whether
an intervention works under circumstances
that are highly controlled by the investigative
team. Dissemination research refers to the sci-
entific investigation of methods for promoting
large-scale implementation of programs dem-
onstrated effective with a given population.
Science published in SPR must be con-
ducted and disseminated so that it can shape
and guide practice (i.e., it must serve as a
foundation for evidence-based practice). To
do so, the science that will be a priority for
SPR will do the following: (a) be responsive to
issues of real concem among school psychol-
ogy practitioners and other critical change
agents, including teachers and other school
professionals, parents, pediatric health and
mental heatth providers, other community-
based professionals, and chitdren themselves;
(b) include practitioners, famity members, and
community partners in the devetopment, im-
ptementation, and evatuation of research
projects; and (c) describe research methods,
findings, and conclusions in a manner that can
be understood and used by practitioners.
The ongoing challenge of SPR will be to
promote increasingly higher levels of method-

otogical rigor and promote research that has
clear and direct implications for practice. Typ-
ically, an editorial approach that emphasizes
scientific rigor is associated with research that
is limited with regard to its applicability for
practice, and a perspective that focuses on
informing practice is associated with research
that is lacking in methodological sophistica-
tion. Our motto will be to promote best sci-
ence and best practice, or, perhaps more accu-
rately, best practice through hest science.
We hope to achieve this by (a) maintaining a
focus on effectiveness and dissemination re-
search, (b) promoting high standards of meth-
odological rigor within these realms of inves-
tigation, and (c) encouraging (and, at times,
compelling) investigators to think through and
specify the implications of their research and
the retated work of other investigators for
practice in psychotogy and education.
To assist our editorial team in promoting
best practice through best science, I have ap-
pointed a Scientific Advisory Panel of experts
(see the inside front cover of this issue). These
distinguished scholars have served as models to
our scientific community about how to conduct
dgorous research in a manner that is responsive
to the priorities of practitioners. These individu-
als will serve as consultants to the editorial team
(a) to advise us about how to build the science
base and creatively link science and practice, (b)
to recommend important themes that should be
addressed by SPR, (c) to identify outstanding
research teams conducting work of critical im-
portance to psychotogy and education, (d) to
collaborate with scientists in psychology and
education to encourage them to submit their best
work to SPR, and (e) to review speciat series
proposals and consult with the Editor regarding
their potential for publication.
To further address the goal of promoting
links between science and practice, our team
plans to use the following strategies:
1. Expand the Research Into Practice section,
and encourage submissions for this outlet
that inctude presentations of model demon-
stration projects and program evaluations,
in addition to case iltustrations.
2. Encourage authors to include a brief appen-
School Psychology Review: 2006-2010
dix outlining implications for practice
based upon the findings of their study and
related research.
3. Include supplementary materials (e.g., integ-
rity checklists, expanded description of out-
come measures, sections of a treatment man-
uat) on the SPR website that witt have rele-
vance for practitioners.
4. Include commentaries written by a team of
researchers and practitioners for targeted
articles that have significant relevance for
practice.
Goal 4: Promote a Cross'Fertilization of
Ideas
Exciting intervention and prevention re-
search related to schools is being conducted by
researchers from a wide range of specialties,
including community and clinicat psychology,
education, public health, pediatrics, and psychi-
atry. It is important that the science and practice
of school psychology be shaped by this work. As
such, our editorial team seeks to engage applied
scientistsfi"oma wide range of retated fields to
submit their school-related intervention and pre-
vention work to SPR. Many school psychology
researchers are collaborating with investigators
from other disciplines in their work related to
schools. We encourage you to submit your work
to SPR and to invite your colleagues from other
disciplines to do the same.
The research being conducted by school
psychologists has important implications for re-
searchers and practitioners from other disci-
plines, as wetl as for policy makers. Researchers
are encouraged to address critical public health
issues and to specify the implications of their
work for a multidisciptinary readership. It is our
hope that over time SPR win become a joumal
that has relevance to professionals from a wide
range of disciplines who share a commitment to
advocate for the devetopment of children
through schools. One test of our success in ttiis
area witl be to track the impact rating of SPR by
using databases available through Thomson Sci-
entific. For example, the Impact Factor will be
usefut in evaluating SPR's infiuenee and impor-
tance, as it is an index of the average frequency
School Psychology Review, 2006, Volume 35, No. 1
with which arficles in the joumal have been cited
within a 2-year period.
SPR has established a long track record
of pubtishing special series on topics of rele-
vance to practitioners and researchers in the
fietd. This tradition will continue. Our team is
especiatty interested in speciat series that pro-
mote links among disciplines by including au-
thors from different professions and consider-
ing imptications for researchers and practitio-
ners from multiple disciplines. The upcoming
speciat series, titled "Building the Capacity to
Better Serve Chitdren: The Need for Systemic
Support to Implement and Sustain Effective
Practices" (Issue 2 of 2006, edited by Eliza-
beth Schaughency and Ruth Ervin), represents
a partnership between schoot psychology and
clinical psychology. Further, a special series
being published tater in the year, titled "Early
Identification and Intervention: Integrating
Early Intervention and School Psychology to
Accelerate Growth for Alt Children" (Issue 4
of 2006, edited by Amanda VanDerHeyden,
Patricia Snyder, and Robin Phaneuf), refiects a
partnership between school psychology and
early childhood education (early intervention).
Goal 5: Build the Infrastructure
SPR is strongty committed to improving
the efficiency of systems that support the sub-
mission, review, copyediting, and production
processes of the joumal. Over the past several
years, many journals have transitioned to the use
of electronic systems to improve efficiency, ac-
curacy, and quatity. During this past year, NASP
entered into a contract with Cadmus Professional
Communications, wliich has enabted SPR to
make successfut the transition to etectronic sys-
tems that encompass aU phases of manuscript
processing. Cadmus has tliree products that will
be especially useful to SPR: Rapid Review,
Rapid Inspector, and Rapid Proof.
Rapid Review is a system that facilitates
manuscript submission and review. This product
will substantially reduce the tag time between
date of manuscript submission and date of deci-
sion tetter, because it wiU eliminate the need to
send manuscripts via postal mail. Over the past
several years, the tag time for manuscripts has
generatty been in the tO-t2-week range. With
Rapid Review, this shoutd decrease to about 8
weeks. Reviewers, inctuding Editoriat Board
members and ad hoc experts, will benefit from
Rapid Review because this system wilt enable
action editors to track in reat time the number of
manuscripts being processed by each reviewer,
which wilt enabte our team to reduce the burden
ptaced on many of our reviewers.
Rapid Inspector is a system that will facil-
itate the production of manuscripts with higher
print quality. This system will be particutarly
useful in the production offigures.Rapid Inspec-
tor checks the formatting of manuscript text and
figures to ensure that they meet the standards for
an acceptable quatity of printing. For an initial
submission of a manuscript, authors win have
the lafitude to submit text and graphics using a
wide range of formats. However, in subsequent
submissions, as authors work through the revi-
sion process, manuscripts must meet Cadmus
digital art guidelines, as determined by Rapid
Inspector, a program availabte to authors as they
proceed through the submission process. Finally,
Rapid Proof is a system that wilt facilitate the
multistep process of copyediting that teads to
production. This product witl streamline the pro-
cess of copyedifing and assist us in maintaining
a high level of accuracy and greater print quality.
Authors who wish to submit manu-
scripts to SPR are referred to the NASP web-
site {www.rtasponline.org). By foltowing the
tab tabeled "Pubhcations," authors will be
linked to the SPR website. Authors are encour-
aged to review Author Guidelines, which witl
provide a link to the Rapid Review system.
Our editorial team is also committed to
expediting the process of getting manuscripts
accepted for pubtication through the copyedit-
ing and production cycles and into print. One
of the keys to doing this is to allocate suffi-
cient space for the pubtication of unsolicited
manuscripts. Our plan at this point is to pub-
lish two and occasionally three special series
per year, which should allow us enough jour-
nal space to keep the lag time from final ac-
ceptance to publication to a reasonably short
time frame (about 6 months).
As a way of holding ourselves account-
able to our many stakeholders, we will publish
 School Psychology Review: 2006-2010

the date that each published article was submit-
ted for review and the date that it was accepted
for publication. Our team will strive to keep the
interval between these dates as brief as possible
to expedite the process of getting good science
into the hands of our research and practice
communities.
Meeting the Challenge
Our agenda is ambitious and can only be
accomplished with strong support from NASP
and the scientific communities in psychology
and education, particularly within the field of
school psychology. Fortunately, NASP has been
a terrific sponsor. Their willingness to fund the
contract with Cadmus to build a solid and effi-
cient infrastructure for SPR is perhaps the most
visible sign of their support. There are so many
other ways that NASP supports the joumal; one
that is especially appreciated is their willingness
to afford our leadership team the autonomy
needed to develop the science base of our pro-
fession and related areas of psychology and ed-
ucation. Another benefit NASP has afforded is to
offer access to most of the leadership groups
within the organization, which is useful in iden-
tifying issues of critical importance to profes-
sionals who are strong advocates for the devel-
opment of children through schools. These per-
spectives are highly beneficial in delineating
priorities for the joumal so that it can be respon-
sive to practitioners as well as to the children and
families we serve.
The scientific community is well repre-
sented on the leadership team by an outstanding
group of Associate Editors, who include Sandra
Chafouleas, University of Connecticut; James
DiPema, Pennsylvania State University; Ruth
Ervin, University of British Columbia; John
Hintze, University of Massachusetts at Amherst;
Shane Jimerson, University of California, Santa
Barbara; and Susan Swearer, University of Ne-
braska—Lincoln. These scholars are highly
committed to the profession and conduct their
responsibilities with professionalism, respect,
and care. I am fortunate, and the field is for-
tunate, to have individuals who are so talented,
industrious, and respectful serve in this critical
leadership role for the profession.
Our leadership team is strongly sup-
ported by a distinguished Scientific Advisory
Panel and Editorial Advisory Board. These
teams include scholars whose research repre-
sents the full range of interests refiected in the
profession and all five outcome goals delin-
eated by the Futures Conference. Each of
these experts was carefully selected because of
their scholarship, commitment to the vision
and goals outlined in this article, and dedica-
tion to the field of school psychology and the
broader domains of psychology and education.
Our team is excited about the challenge
that lies ahead. We invite you, our major
stakeholders, to join us in this process. Please
submit your best work to the joumal, and
encourage your colleagues to do the same.
Accept the challenge to consider the work
published in SPR and reflect on its implica-
tions for your practice. And, let us know what
we need to do to make the joumal better (and
what, if anything, we are doing right!).
Editorial note. All of the articles in this
issue, with the exception of the Research Brief
by Silberglitt, Jimerson, Bums, and Appleton,
were reviewed and processed during Susan
Sheridan's editorial term.

Acknowledgments

I am especially grateful to Jennifer Mautone for her assistance in collecting and analyzing
data as well as preparing and editing this article. Also, I thank Stacy Martin for her assistance
with data collection. Further, I greatly appreciate Patti Harrison's guidance in understanding the
meaning and intent of the five outcome goals delineated at the Futures Conference.
School Psychology Review, 2006, Volume 35, No. 1

Footnotes
'Kappa coefficients reflecting the level of few articles related to this outcome had a focus on
interrater agreement for each goal were as follows: both the individual and systems levels. Nonethe-
0.74 for Outcome Goal 1, 0.66 for Outcome 2, 1.0 less, the raters agreed about the frequency of arti-
for Outcome 3, -0.05 for Outcome 4, and 0.73 for cles pertaining to Outcome Goal 4; the primary
Outcome 5. The raters disagreed about articles ex- rater coded 2 articles in this category and the sec-
emplifying Outcome 4, and they reported that the ondary rater coded 3 articles.

References
Dodge, K. A. (2001). The science of youth violence
prevention: Progressing from developmental epidemi-
ology to efficacy to effectiveness to public policy.
American Joumal of Preventive Medicine, 2O(1S), 6 3 -
70.
National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Intervention De-
velopment and Deployment. (2001). Blueprint for
change: Research on child and adolescent mental
health. Washington, DC: Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, National In-
stitutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.

10