See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343784940

Recommendations in School Psychological Evaluation Reports for Academic

Deficits: Frequency, Types, and Consistency with Student Data

Article · August 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s40688-020-00313-w

CITATIONS READS

2 1,216

6 authors, including:

Matthew K Burns Courtenay Barrett

University of Missouri Michigan State University
213 PUBLICATIONS   4,421 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   218 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kathrin Maki Daniel B. Hajovsky

University of Florida Texas A&M University
29 PUBLICATIONS   259 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   278 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effect of Acquisition Rate on Time off Task with Kindergarten Students View project

Math Anxiety in Elementary Students: Examining the Role of Timing, Task Complexity, Task Difficulty, and Strategy Use View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Matthew K Burns on 05 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Recommendations in School Psychological
Evaluation Reports for Academic Deficits:
Frequency, Types, and Consistency with
Student Data

Matthew K. Burns, Courtenay

A. Barrett, Kathrin E. Maki, Daniel
B. Hajovsky, McKinzie D. Duesenberg &
Monica E. Romero
Contemporary School Psychology
The Official Journal of the California
Association of School Psychologists

ISSN 2159-2020
Volume 24
Number 4

Contemp School Psychol (2020)

24:478-487
DOI 10.1007/s40688-020-00313-w

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by California
Association of School Psychologists. This e-
offprint is for personal use only and shall not
be self-archived in electronic repositories. If
you wish to self-archive your article, please
use the accepted manuscript version for
posting on your own website. You may
further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Contemporary School Psychology (2020) 24:478–487
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00313-w

Recommendations in School Psychological Evaluation Reports

for Academic Deficits: Frequency, Types, and Consistency
with Student Data
Matthew K. Burns 1 & Courtenay A. Barrett 2 & Kathrin E. Maki 3 & Daniel B. Hajovsky 4 & McKinzie D. Duesenberg 1 &
Monica E. Romero 1

Published online: 20 August 2020

# California Association of School Psychologists 2020

Abstract
School psychological reports of evaluation results have the potential to provide data that are timely, synthesized, and interpreted
and could include recommendations for evidence-based interventions and accommodations for improving student outcomes. The
current study examined 130 school psychological reports from 13 school districts and found that 61.5% of the reports included
recommendations, most of which were related to interventions or accommodations. There were no differences in the frequency or
types of recommendations between reports that did and did not identify a specific learning disability (SLD), but recommenda-
tions were more frequently based on assessment data for students that were identified with SLD, as compared with those who
were not. Only 48.5% of the recommendations were rated as related to a difficulty or strength identified in the report.

Keywords School psychology . Psychoeducational evaluation reports . Specific learning disabilities

Assessment is a critical component of any intervention model
(Herman et al. 2012; McKenna and Stahl 2015; Shapiro
2011), and research has consistently supported the positive
effects of linking interventions to assessment data (Fuchs
and Fuchs 1986; Graham et al. 2015; Hattie and Timperley
2007), especially for English language arts (Kingston and
Nash 2011). However, teachers may not be effective in using
data to drive their practice because they may lack time to
collect and analyze data, skill to interpret the data and develop
solutions from them, and timely access to data that are relevant
to student problems (Marsh 2012).
Teachers may also not see assessment as a primary part
of their job (Young and Kim 2010). Conducting, synthe-
sizing, and reporting assessment results are a fundamental
aspect of school psychological practice (National
Association of School Psychologists 2020; Ysseldyke
* Matthew K. Burns
burnsmk@missouri.edu
1 strategies were the second most desired piece of informa-
University of Missouri, 14B Hill Hall, Columbia, MO 65203, USA
2
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
3
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
4
University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD 57069, USA
et al. 2008), particularly in the context of special educa-
tion eligibility decision making for students suspected of
having a specific learning disability (SLD). School psy-
chological reports should be a source of timely data that
are linked to student strengths and difficulties, synthe-
sized, and interpreted, and they could offer recommenda-
tions based directly on student strengths and needs.
Recommendations typically include interventions, broadly
defined as practices that attempt to prevent a problem
from developing or worsening (Adelman and Taylor
1994), and accommodations, or changes to assessment
and instruction intended to enable a student with a dis-
ability to better demonstrate knowledge and skills and
benefit from participation in instruction (Thurlow et al.
2005). Few teachers reported high satisfaction with school
psychologists’ assessment reports because they were often
written in a way that did not facilitate readability or trans-
lating the data into practice (Rahill 2018). Moreover,
teachers most frequently reported that they wanted data
about student strengths and difficulties in the school psy-
chological report, and recommendations for classroom
tion in the report (Rahill 2018). Below, we discuss the
purpose of school psychological reports, processes for
selecting recommendations based on student assessment
data, and types of recommendations included in reports.
 Author's personal copy
Contemp School Psychol (2020) 24:478–487
Purpose of School Psychological Reports
Rucker (1967) reported 50 years ago that, “The purpose of the
report is not to display the psychologist’s competence or lit-
erary ability, but rather to give the teacher useful information
about the student. This information should then serve the
teacher as a guide in educational planning for the student”
(p. 101). The section that synthesizes assessment data to pro-
vide an understanding of the student was described as the
“heart of the report” (p. 98), but the recommendations section
of the report was described as the “voice, arms, and legs”
(Lichtenstein and Ecker 2019, p. 100). Thus, school psycho-
logical reports should serve multiple purposes, and one prima-
ry purpose is to make recommendations based on assessment
data.
A well-written school psychological report should directly
translate into goals and objectives for individualized education
programs (IEP; Macy and Hoyt-Gonzales 2007). However,
IEP goals are often not based on student data nor are they
individualized (Sanches-Ferreira et al. 2013). Perhaps IEP
goals are not based on data from school psychological reports
because the reports do not include data teachers perceive as
helpful or specific recommendations (Rahill 2018). Little is
known about the types of recommendations that are included
in reports regarding interventions or accommodations to sup-
port struggling students. Further, few, if any, empirical studies
have examined the differences in recommendations made be-
tween students that do and do not qualify for special education
services after being evaluated.
School psychological reports can also help facilitate com-
munication with parents regarding their child’s skills and
ways in which to support their child at school and at home
along with other stakeholders in that child’s life (Harvey
2006). Parents can also be active partners in intervention ef-
forts because they can effectively implement academic inter-
ventions (Daly and Kupzyk 2012), and parents’ implementing
specific intervention techniques were more effective than
reading with or listening to their children read (Sénéchal and
Young 2008). Effective communication is likely the begin-
ning point for partnering with parents on specific academic
interventions, which can be described within school psycho-
logical reports.
Selecting Recommendations
School psychological reports should include specific recom-
mendations that describe interventions or accommodations
and how each relates to the referral question and assessment
data (Bradley-Johnson and Johnson 2006). Recommendations
are helpful only if they are directly applicable to the student
rather than being generic or applicable to all students irrespec-
tive of their individual abilities, skills, and circumstances
(Mastoras et al. 2011).
479
There are multiple sources of information regarding poten-
tial recommendations for specific academic areas, especially
for students identified as SLD (Dexter and Hughes 2011;
Scammacca et al. 2007, 2015). Many factors may go into
selecting recommendations for interventions or accommoda-
tions, which may include information unrelated to the assess-
ment data regarding student strengths and needs. Some of
these factors include familiarity with the recommended prac-
tice (Fuchs et al. 2005), school resources, and other contextual
issues (Stoiber and DeSmet 2010). However, little is known
about how often school psychological reports include recom-
mendations and the extent to which recommendations are
based on the assessment data presented within the report.
Types of Recommendations
Recommendations in school psychological reports can take
many forms, such as interventions and accommodations.
Recommendations are frequently described as interventions
(Bradley-Johnson and Johnson 2006; Lichtenstein and Ecker
2019) or practices that attempt to improve the condition of a
problem or prevent the problem from worsening (Adelman
and Taylor 1994). A number of interventions have been
shown to increase student learning for students identified as
SLD (Berkeley et al. 2010; Gersten et al. 2009; Scammacca
et al. 2007). Recommendations in reports may take other
forms as well, as long as they are specific, measurable, attain-
able, realistic, and timely (Mastoras et al. 2011).
Recommendations may also include accommodations or
changes to assessment and instruction that are intended to
enable a student with a disability to better demonstrate knowl-
edge and skills and benefit from participation in instruction
(Thurlow et al. 2005). However, accommodations included in
IEPs for students with disabilities are not often selected based
on student need (Byrnes 2008). Research has consistently
demonstrated that accommodations for classroom and ac-
countability assessment have resulted in increased reading
and math scores (Lang et al. 2008) and increased self-
efficacy (Feldman et al. 2011) for students with SLD.
However, there is little research regarding types of recommen-
dations included in school psychological reports.
Purpose of Study and Research Questions
Through school psychological reports, school psychologists
have the opportunity to synthesize timely data about student
problems and make explicit recommendations to teachers,
parents, and other school personnel about how to best inter-
vene with individual students. Although there is little research
regarding school psychological reports, previous research has
outlined best practices. Reports should provide information
about the child being assessed that is relevant to all of the
stakeholders in that child’s life (Harvey 2006) and should
 Author's personal copy
480
directly translate into IEP goals and objectives (Macy and
Hoyt-Gonzales 2007). The report should also include recom-
mendations that outline interventions or accommodations
(Bradley-Johnson and Johnson 2006; Lichtenstein and Ecker
2019) that are measurable, attainable, realistic, timely, and
specific to the student being assessed (Mastoras et al. 2011).
Teachers report a lack of utility of school psychologists’
report recommendations (Rahill 2018), which could be a bar-
rier to teachers’ implementation of evidence-based practices
in response to assessment data. Research examining school
psychologists’ report recommendations is therefore needed
to gain an understanding of the types of recommendations
implemented and their utility for potentially driving interven-
tion. Recommendations may better support teachers’ use of
data, their satisfaction with school psychological reports, and
the overall assessment process. Supporting teachers’ use of
assessment data to drive instructional practices is important
to ensure that students receive appropriate support based on
their individual strengths and needs. Therefore, the current
study was conducted to address these gaps in the literature
by examining recommendations and relevant data within
school psychological reports from students evaluated for
SLD. The following research questions guided the study: (a)
how often are recommendations included in school psycho-
logical reports for students referred for suspected SLD? (b)
What types of recommendations (e.g., interventions or recom-
mendations) are included in school psychological reports? (c)
What effect does identification of SLDs have on frequency
and type of recommendations in school psychological re-
ports? and (d) How often are recommendations in school psy-
chological reports aligned with assessment data presented
within the report?
Method
The present study analyzed 160 extant school psychological
reports collected by 13 public school districts served by one
regional education service agency (RESA) in an upper
Midwestern state. Details regarding the research setting and
analytic approach are described below.
Participants and Research Setting
Across the 13 school districts during the 2018–2019 school
year, 12.95% of students qualified for special education ser-
vices (range 8.43–17.00% within each district), 48.37% qual-
ified for free or reduced meals (range 20.10–71.50%), 45.07%
were students of color (range 4.39–75.52%), and 48.0% and
48.5% of third graders were proficient on the state assessment
in English/Language Arts (ELA) and math (ranges 29.6–
74.10% and 28.6–82.4%) in 2018–2019, respectively. Please
see Table 1 for additional details regarding the school districts.
Contemp School Psychol (2020) 24:478–487
All of the students about whom the reports were written
were between kindergarten and eighth grade. A total of 56 of
the students (43.1%) were female, and 100 (76.9%) were iden-
tified as having an SLD while 30 (23.1%) were identified as
not having any disability. The students identified as SLD were
not identified with any other disability in addition to SLD.
Procedure
In order to support compliance for special education decision
making, the RESA electronically stored school psychological
reports for students evaluated for SLDs. After receiving per-
mission from the RESA and approval from a university
Institutional Review Board, 100 reports were randomly select-
ed using a random number generator. All randomly selected
reports were from the population of available reports written
between August 2015 and May 2019 that were part of a mul-
tidisciplinary evaluation team (MET) process for students
identified with SLD. The reports were limited to students in
kindergarten through eighth grade.
Next, 30 reports for students who were evaluated for an
SLD but were not identified with SLD during the same time
frame were randomly selected using a random number gener-
ator. After the 130 reports were selected, they were de-
identified by removing all names, birthdates, locations,
school/district information, school psychologist information,
and other identifying or personal information.
Coding
Reports were then coded for the presence of at least one rec-
ommendation. If one or more recommendations were present,
then each was recorded, as was the number of times that each
appeared in the 130 reports.
Types of Recommendations
Recommendations were also coded using the following catego-
ries: (a) accommodation, (b) content area on which to focus, (c)
assessment, (d) communication, or (e) intervention. A recom-
mendation was coded as an accommodation if it suggested a
procedure or practice that helped ensure equitable access during
instruction for struggling students (Thompson et al. 2005). For
example, how information was presented, how a student was
allowed to respond, changes to the instructional setting or
timing, or changes to the schedule of instruction were consid-
ered accommodations. Content area on which to focus was cod-
ed if the report identified a specific skill weakness (e.g., reading,
math), but did not suggest ways to improve skills in that area.
Assessment was coded if the report suggested collecting addi-
tional data to make future decisions (e.g., progress monitoring).
Communication was coded if the recommendation suggested
sharing information about the student with specific people or
 Author's personal copy
Contemp School Psychol (2020) 24:478–487 481

Table 1 Characteristics and special education programming of participating districts in 2018–2019

Geographic region % of students receiving % of students eligible for % of students of color % of third graders proficient
special education FRPL on state assessment in ELA

District A City, small 8.43% 33.85% 44.14% 61.40%

District B Suburb, large 9.42% 20.10% 43.23% 70.40%
District C Suburb, large 10.07% 32.15% 14.20% 60.90%
District D Rural, distant 10.68% 31.23% 6.44% 46.50%
District E Town, fringe 10.96% 22.35% 11.60% 72.00%
District F Rural, fringe 11.84% 51.18% 5.27% 40.20%
District G Suburb, large 11.88% 26.03% 25.29% 74.10%
District H Suburb, large 12.29% 43.58% 38.41% 48.10%
District I Town, fringe 13.74% 54.39% 4.39% 34.80%
District J Rural, distant 13.77% 40.75% 6.49% 57.50%
District K Suburb, large 15.89% 62.28% 65.50% 37.7%
District L Suburb, large 16.26% 60.88% 53.77% N/A4
District M City, midsize 17.00% 71.50% 75.52% 29.60%

Note: Geographic region is the National Center for Educational Statistics (2018) locale code in the 2018–2019 school year. FRPL = Free and Reduced
Price Lunch. In 2017–2018, ELA = English Language Arts. This district provides regional programming for surrounding districts and does not have state
assessment data available

professionals. Intervention was coded when the recommenda-
tion outlined a specific approach to strengthen skills in a given
area or to prevent a problem from developing or worsening
(Adelman and Taylor 1994). Coding was limited to the first
10 recommendations presented in the report in order to ensure
some consistency across the reports.
Aligned with Data
Finally, recommendations were coded as aligned with the
evaluation data or not. A recommendation was coded as
aligned with evaluation data if it were directly related to a
specific area of difficulty or strength identified by test scores,
teacher reports, parent reports, or background information in
the school psychological report. It was coded as not aligned if
there was no clear link between the recommendation and a
specific area of difficulty or strength identified by the evalua-
tion data within the report.
number of codings and multiplied by 100, which resulted
in 95% IOA between the two raters. There were a total
of 5 out of 101 disagreements, which were discussed by
the two coders until consensus was reached and the data
were recoded to represent the consensus. Sixteen of the
80 reports (20%) that included recommendations were
randomly selected and independently coded by a second
rater to calculate IOA. The second rater coded each sug-
gestion as aligned with the data or not. The number of
times that each coder rated a recommendation as aligned
with the data or not aligned with the data was divided by
the total number of recommendations included in the 16
reports, and multiplied by 100 to compute percentage
agreement, which equaled 96% IOA between the two
coders. There were a total of 2 disagreements out of 52
recommendations, which were discussed by the two
coders until consensus was reached and the data were
recoded to represent the consensus.

Interobserver Agreement
Interobserver agreement (IOA) was calculated separately
for the categories of recommendations and alignment
with data. First, a second independent coder recoded all
recommendations (n = 101) identified within the reports
to estimate IOA for coding of the recommendation cate-
gories as accommodations, areas on which to focus, as-
sessment, communication, and intervention based on the
definitions provided above. The total number of agree-
ments between the two coders was divided by the total
Results
A total of 80 (61.5%) reports included recommendations, and
50 (38.5%) did not. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, there were
101 unique recommendations in the reports that appeared 377
times. The year that the report was written (2015–2016, 2015–
2017, 2017–2018, 2018–2019) did not significantly affect the
number of reports that included recommendations X2 (df = 3,
n = 130) = 3.88, p = .274) nor did the school building that the
student attended X2 (df = 45) = 49.01, p = .315).
 Author's personal copy
482 Contemp School Psychol (2020) 24:478–487

Table 2 Recommendations in
school psychology reports that Recommendation n % Recommendation n %
appeared multiple times and
percentage of the 130 reports in None 50 38.5 Incremental rehearsal 6 4.6
which they appeared Extra time on tests/assignments 27 20.8 Reading fluency 6 4.6
Break tasks into smaller units 19 14.6 Increase repetition 6 4.6
Preferential seating 15 11.5 General math intervention 5 3.8
Communication with family 14 10.8 Multisensory approaches 5 3.8
Graphic or visual organizers 14 10.8 Nonverbal cues 5 3.8
General reading interventions 13 10.0 Repeat instructions to student 5 3.8
Special education service 12 9.4 Vision examination 5 3.8
Make others aware of problem 11 8.4 Provide visual information 5 3.8
Read tests/directions to student 10 7.7 Read to student 5 3.8
Less problems or spelling words 10 7.7 Keep oral directions brief 4 3.0
Examination by a physician 10 7.7 Chunking 4 3.0
Frequent breaks 9 6.9 Repeated reading 4 3.1
Visual prompts and instructions 8 6.1 Monitor students attention 4 3.1
Quiet place to work 8 6.1 Provide a list of tasks to finish 4 3.1
Checks for understanding 7 5.3 Refer to school counselor 4 3.1
Reading decoding and accuracy 7 5.3 Math procedures 3 2.3
Direct instruction 7 5.3 Student repeat instructions 3 2.3
Behavior intervention plan 6 4.6 Frequent reviews 3 2.3
Teach study skills 3 2.3 Spelling checks and resources 3 2.3
Provide a copy of notes 3 2.3 Progress monitoring 2 1.5
Allow to use a calculator 2 1.5 Provide a study guide 2 1.5
Buddy pairing 2 1.5 Reduce homework 2 1.5
Computer-assisted instruction 2 1.5 Reinforce positive behavior 2 1.5
Cover-copy-compare 2 1.5 REWARDS 2 1.5
Clink or clunk 2 1.5 Self-monitoring 2 1.5
Use concrete examples 2 1.5 Speech to text software 2 1.5
Math manipulatives 2 1.5 Strategy instruction 2 1.5
Positive behavior supports 2 1.5 Writing transcription 2 1.5

Table 3 Recommendations in
school psychology reports that
appeared once each (0.77%)
Recommendation Recommendation Recommendation
Assessment Accommodations Assistive Technology Attendance
Calming Strategies Card Sorts Choral Responding
Community Mental Health Dictating Responses Educate Student About Disability
Elkonin Boxes Encourage to Take Risks Enhance Maturity
Fitzgerald Spelling Flashcards Fluid Reasoning Skills
Highlighter/Cover Overlays I’m Thinking Game General Writing Intervention
Leadership Skills Math Games Math Problem Solving
Mental Imaging Instruction in Money Monitor Understanding of Directions
More Time to Think Before Responding Phrase Progress Reading Practice Counting
Practice Math Facts Practice Tests Preteach Vocabulary
Read at Home Read to Student at Home Reading Comprehension
Reinforce Student Interests Safety Plan SCOPE Reading Intervention
Social-Emotional Learning Enhance Self-Esteem Socialization
Summer School TASK Verbal Prompts to Respond
Visual Timer Practice Vowel Sounds
 Author's personal copy
Contemp School Psychol (2020) 24:478–487
Frequency of Recommendations
Approximately one-third of all of the reports (n = 50, 38.5%)
did not include any recommendations. Extra time to complete
tests and assignments (n = 27, 20.8%) was the most frequently
made recommendation, and breaking tasks into smaller units
(n = 19, 14.6%), preferential seating (n = 15, 11.5%), commu-
nicating with family about concerns (n = 14, 10.8%), and
graphic or visual organizers (n = 14, 10.8%) were also fre-
quently recommended. Twelve of the reports (11.9%) recom-
mended a specific special education service such as teacher
consultant (n = 9), school social worker (n = 2), and occupa-
tional therapy (n = 1).
Types of Recommendations
Most of the 101 unique recommendations were accommoda-
tions (n = 32, 31.7%) and interventions (n = 35, 33.0%),
followed by areas on which to focus (n = 23, 22.8%), commu-
nication (n = 9, 8.9%), and assessments (n = 2, 2.0%), with
significant variability in the frequency of types of recommen-
dations across the categories X2 (df = 4, n = 101) = 37.40,
p < .01). An additional 12 reports (11.9%) recommended spe-
cific special education services. Among the recommendations
for interventions, the plurality was for graphic organizers (n =
13, 10.0%), followed by direct instruction (n = 7, 5.3%), in-
cremental rehearsal (n = 6, 4.6%), behavior intervention plan
(n = 6, 4.6%), direct instruction (n = 5, 4.0%), and repeated
reading (n = 4, 3.1%). Among the recommendations for ac-
commodations, the plurality was for providing extra time for
tests and assignments (n = 27, 20.8%), followed by breaking
down tasks into smaller units (n = 19, 14.6%), preferential
seating (n = 15, 11.5%), and reading tests and directions to
students (n = 10, 7.7%). Among the recommendations to fo-
cus on a specific area, the plurality was for general reading
(n = 13, 10.0%), followed by reading decoding and accuracy
(n = 7, 5.3%), reading fluency (n = 6, 4.6%), general math
(n = 5, 3.8%), math procedures (n = 3, 2.3%), study skills
(n = 3, 2.3%), writing transcription (n = 2, 1.5%), and atten-
dance (n = 1, 0.8%). Among recommendations for communi-
cation, the plurality was for discussing the problem with the
Table 4 Frequency of recommendations for reports that identified a
learning disability and those that did not
Included recommendations
No Yes Total
Learning disability No 10 20 30
Yes 40 60 100
Total 50 80 130
X2 (df = 1, n = 130) = .43, p = .510)
483
family (n = 14, 10.8%), followed by communicating with
school staff who worked with the student (n = 11, 8.4%), re-
ferring the student to a physician (n = 10, 7.7%),
recommending a vision examination (n = 5, 3.8%), and refer-
ring the student to a school counselor (n = 4, 3.1%). Finally,
two recommendations addressed assessments such as progress
monitoring (n = 2, 1.5%).
Effect of SLD Identification on Recommendations
As shown in Table 4, 100 of the reports recommended that the
student qualify for special education services under the cate-
gory of SLD, and 30 of the reports indicated that no disability
was present. Recommendations were included in 60.6% and
66.7% of reports that did and did not identify an SLD, respec-
tively. The Chi-square statistic suggested that there was not a
significant difference between the frequency of recommenda-
tions described in reports that did and did not identify an SLD;
or put another way, there was similar frequency of recommen-
dations across the two types of reports X 2 (df = 1, n =
130) = .359, p = .549).
Being identified as SLD or not also did not significantly
affect the frequency of types of recommendations across the
categories X2 (df = 4, n = 377) = 3.04, p = .551). Of the 377
recommendations described in the 130 reports, most were
accommodations for both groups (44.6% for SLD and
50.9% for not SLD). Interventions were suggested in 20.1%
of the recommendations for students who were identified with
SLD and 21.8% of the recommendations for the students not
identified as SLD. Of the remaining recommendations, 16.7%
(SLD) and 13.6% (not SLD) regarded communication, 14.1%
(SLD) and 11.8% (not SLD) were areas on which to focus,
and 4.5% (SLD) and 1.8% (not SLD) were assessments.
Recommendations Based on Data
Of the 377 recommendations described in the 130 reports, 183
(48.5%) were rated as directly aligned with the student evalu-
ation data and 194 (51.5%) were not. As shown in Table 5,
recommendations were more frequently aligned with data for
Table 5 Frequency with which recommendations were aligned with
data according to whether or not the student was identified a learning
disability
Aligned with data
No Yes Total
Learning Disability No 67 43 110
Yes 127 140 267
Total 194 183 377
X2 (df = 1, n = 377) = 5.55, p < .05)
 Author's personal copy
484
students identified with SLD (52.4%) than for those not iden-
tified as SLD (39.1%) X2 (df = 1, n = 377) = 5.55, p < .05).
Discussion
This study contributed to the literature by examining the rec-
ommendations made within school psychological reports.
School psychological reports offer the unique opportunity
for teachers to use data to drive educational practice as the
reports are timely, data are synthesized and interpreted, and
recommendations may outline evidence-based interventions
and accommodations for improving student outcomes. The
study found that 61.5% of the reports included recommenda-
tions, most of which were related to interventions or accom-
modations. There were no differences in the frequency or
types of recommendations between reports that did and did
not identify an SLD, although recommendations were more
frequently based on data for students that did have an SLD
compared with those who did not.
Use of Recommendations
It is perhaps surprising that only 61.5% of reports in-
cluded recommendations. Assessment data should always
be gathered for a purpose (Salvia et al. 2012), and al-
though special education eligibility reflects one purpose
for the assessment data included in these reports, ulti-
mately, assessment data should be used to support stu-
dents’ educational functioning (Newton 2007). Given
that there was a large number of reports in this study
that did not include recommendations, it seems unlikely
that the assessment data gathered as part of the special
education evaluation were used to drive support services
for students because the data were not transformed into
actionable items with recommendations. Special educa-
tion and general education teachers cannot implement
recommendations that are not made. Special education
eligibility decisions should be made by a multidisciplin-
ary team (P.L. 108–446 § 303.24); however, school psy-
chologists still hold considerable weight in making deci-
sions from assessment data (Becker et al. 2014; Burns
et al. 2014a, b), which is likely a reflection of school
psychologists’ expertise in assessment administration and
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( N a t io n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f Sc h o o l
Psychologists 2020; Ysseldyke et al. 2008). Given
school psychologists’ important role on the multidisci-
plinary team and unique assessment interpretation skills,
ensuring that assessment data result in appropriate report
recommendations is necessary to help students receive
appropriate support in school.
Contemp School Psychol (2020) 24:478–487
Types of Recommendations
At its core, SLD reflects achievement difficulties in at least
one of eight academic areas outlined in IDEA (P.L. No. 108–
446 § 300.309[a][1]). Thus, the students whose reports were
analyzed in this study all likely demonstrated academic diffi-
culties whether they were identified with SLD or not. It is
therefore interesting that relatively few of the recommenda-
tions directly addressed specific academic difficulties and that
only 33.0% of the recommendations were for interventions
generally. For students demonstrating academic difficulties,
it is important to provide systematic, explicit intervention to
develop the academic skills (Burns et al. 2014a, b). School
psychologists likely demonstrate unique skills regarding aca-
demic intervention supports for students (National
Association of School Psychologists 2020) and thus can use
these skills to develop evidence-based interventions or recom-
mendations to support students’ academic strengths and
needs.
Given that reading difficulties represent the most common
referral for special education (Bramlett et al. 2002) and that
most students receiving special education services under SLD
have a reading disability (Cortiella and Horowitz 2014), it is
interesting that relatively few of the recommendations specif-
ically addressed reading. Early intervention targeting reading
is particularly important because early reading skills predict
later academic achievement, high school graduation, and em-
ployment (Hernandez 2011). Thus, evidence-based targeted
reading interventions could be an important area in which to
provide report recommendations for the large number of stu-
dents who demonstrate those needs.
Recommendations Based on Data
Of particular importance, only slightly less than half (48.5%)
of the recommendations identified in this study were based on
the student evaluation data in the reports. School psycholo-
gists should use data to drive decision-making (National
Association of School Psychologists 2020), but these findings
suggested that school psychologists may not consistently use
data-based decision-making to inform evaluation recommen-
dations. It may also suggest that school psychologists are fre-
quently including generic recommendations that are not based
on the student’s unique needs, strengths, or contexts, which is
the most important characteristic of a recommendation
(Mastoras et al. 2011). Such practice may be problematic giv-
en the importance of matching interventions and other sup-
ports with students’ specific strengths and needs (Burns et al.
2014a, b). Research has suggested that special education ser-
vices are not particularly effective (Fuchs et al. 2010; Kavale
and Forness 2000). Although many hypotheses have been
suggested to explain this lack of effectiveness, the data from
this study may suggest that students do not receive appropriate
 Author's personal copy
Contemp School Psychol (2020) 24:478–487
instruction for their specific strengths and difficulties. Report
recommendations could serve as an important starting point to
drive implementation of evidence-based instructional prac-
tices for students demonstrating severe difficulties.
Perhaps the link between SLD identification and recom-
mendations being based on data was because students identi-
fied with a disability will receive an IEP with individualized
goals and objectives. The school psychological reports pro-
vided data on which the goals and objectives could be built
(Macy and Hoyt-Gonzales 2007). Data-based interventions
are critical for successful prevention efforts (Herman et al.
2012; McKenna and Stahl 2015) as well as for developing
IEP goals and objectives. Tier 2 interventions are more effec-
tive if they address specific student strengths and needs, as
opposed to a comprehensive intervention received by all stu-
dents getting a tier 2 intervention that addresses multiple needs
(Hall and Burns 2018). Data from school psychological re-
ports could help inform tier 2 intervention efforts, which sug-
gests a potential need for more data-based recommendations
in school psychological reports.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Despite the merits of the study, there were limitations that lend
themselves to suggestions for future research. First, although
reports were randomly sampled from one RESA, which in-
creases generalizability to the entire population of reports
within the service area, results may not be generalizable to
other regions of the country. Future researchers may wish to
examine regional differences in recommendations, as regional
differences have been found to be related to the identification
of SLDs and special education decision making (Barrett et al.
2015). Second, there was limited information about the school
psychologists who conducted the evaluations and wrote the
reports. Research has suggested there are differences between
how school psychologists assess and identify SLDs (Cottrell
and Barrett 2016, 2017), which may be related to the recom-
mendations that are put forth based on data. Future researchers
may wish to include a greater number or more diverse sample
of school psychologists and their reports. Third, it is possible
that some school districts do not allow school psychologists to
include recommendations in their report, which could affect
the results of this research. Additional research is likely need-
ed regarding why school psychologists do and do not include
recommendations in their reports. Fourth, the study did not
consider the effect that the referral question had on the assess-
ment or resulting disability identification decision, which sug-
gests an area for future research. Finally, it was unclear the
extent to which the recommendations were subsequently im-
plemented by general or special education teachers. Future
researchers may wish to examine whether or not recommen-
dations are included in IEPs, implemented, and ultimately able
to improve student outcomes.
485
Implications
This study has potentially significant implications for the pro-
vision of school psychological service delivery. This study
offers a rationale for the importance of including recommen-
dations in school psychological reports, a framework for cat-
egorizing types of recommendations, and highlights the need
for practicing school psychologists to ensure that recommen-
dations are based on assessment data collected through the
evaluation process. School psychologists may wish to reflect
upon or monitor their own practice to increase the quantity
and quality of their recommendations. At the systems level,
school districts or RESAs may wish to engage in a similar
process and periodically review reports for the number and
types of recommendations, and then provide professional de-
velopment or coaching for school psychologists to support
them in making effective, data-based recommendations.
The current data may also have implications for training
school psychologists. Future practitioners could be directly taught
how to use data to construct specific recommendations based on
individual student strengths and needs. Additionally, given that
extra time on tests, breaking tasks into smaller units, and prefer-
ential seating were the three most commonly listed recommenda-
tions, training programs could also teach additional interventions
to more effectively address student strengths and needs.
Conclusion
School psychologists are in a unique position to provide school-
based recommendations to effectively assist with service deliv-
ery. As school psychological reports provide teachers and edu-
cators with critical knowledge about student strengths and
needs, the current study examined the types and frequency of
recommendations made within school psychological reports to
address referral concerns related to specific learning disabilities.
Although a nontrivial number of reports did not include any
recommendations (38.5%), findings showed that the majority
of reports that did include recommendations were typically re-
lated to interventions or accommodations. There were negligi-
ble differences in the frequency of recommendations provided
between those who qualified and those who did not, although
those identified had recommendations that were more likely to
be aligned with actual student data. Finally, of the 377 recom-
mendations provided across 130 reports, only about half includ-
ed recommendations that were specifically linked to student
evaluation data. This study adds empirical data to the literature
regarding the types and frequency of school-based recommen-
dations. Studies should be conducted with other regional school
districts to help determine generalizability of results. Given the
importance of assessment to any prevention or intervention
model, and the data presented here, the additional research
seems warranted.
 Author's personal copy
486
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The authors do not have any potential conflicts of interest, and all research
was approved by a university Institutional Research Board. The research
and informed consent process was consistent with ethical standards
outlined by the American Psychological Association and the approving
IRB.
References
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. L. (1994). On understanding intervention in
psychology and education. Westport: Praeger.
Barrett, C. A., Cottrell, J. M., Newman, D. S., Pierce, B. G., & Anderson,
A. (2015). Training school psychologists to identify specific learn-
ing disabilities: a content analysis of syllabi. School Psychology
Review, 44, 271–288.
Becker, S. P., Paternite, C. E., & Evans, S. W. (2014). Special educators’
conceptualizations of emotional disturbance and educational place-
ment decision making for middle and high school students. School
Mental Health, 6, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-014-
9119-7.
Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2010). Reading com-
prehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995—
2006: a meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 423–
436.
Bradley-Johnson, S. & Johnson, C. M. (2006). A handbook for effective
report writing (2nd ed). PRO-ED.
Bramlett, R. K., Murphy, J. J., Johnson, J., & Wallingsford, L. (2002).
Contemporary practices in school psychology: a national survey of
roles and referral problems. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 327–335.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10022.
Burns, M. K., Kanive, R., & Karich, A. C. (2014a). Best practices in
implementing school-based teams within a multitiered system of
support. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school
psychology VI, (pp. 569–582). National Association of School
Psychologists.
Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Zaslofsy, A. F. (2014b). Best
practices in delivery intensive academic interventions with skill-by-
treatment interaction. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best prac-
tices in school psychology VI, (pp. 129–142). National Association
of School Psychologists.
Byrnes, M. (2008). Educators' interpretations of ambiguous accommoda-
tions. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 306–315.
Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities:
facts, trends and emerging issues. National Center for Learning
Disabilities.
Cottrell, J. M., & Barrett, C. A. (2016). Defining the undefinable:
operationalizing methods to identify specific learning disabilities.
Psychology in the Schools, 53, 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/
pits.21892.
Cottrell, J. M., & Barrett, C. A. (2017). Examining school psychologists’
perspectives about specific learning disabilities: implications for
practice. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 294–308. https://doi.org/
10.1002/pits.21997.
Daly, E. J., & Kupzyk, S. (2012). An investigation of student-selected and
parent-delivered reading interventions. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 21, 295–314.
Dexter, D. D., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Graphic organizers and students
with learning disabilities: a meta-analysis. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 34, 51–72.
Feldman, E., Kim, J. S., & Elliott, S. N. (2011). The effects of accommo-
dations on adolescents’ self-efficacy and test performance. The
Journal of Special Education, 45, 77–88.
Contemp School Psychol (2020) 24:478–487
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. F. (1986). Effects of systematics formative
evaluation: a meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Capizzi, A. M. (2005). Identifying appropriate
test accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 37(6), 1–8.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special
education in a new continuum of general education placements and
services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323. https://doi.org/10.
1177/001440291007600304.
Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo,
J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabil-
ities: a meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of
Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242.
Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K. R. (2015). Formative assessment
and writing: a meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 115,
523–547.
Hall, M. S., & Burns, M. K. (2018). Meta-analysis of targeted small-
group reading interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 66,
54–66.
Harvey, V. S. (2006). Variables affecting the clarity of psychological
reports. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 5–18.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of
Educational Research, 77, 81–112.
Herman, K. C., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Reinke, W. M. (2012). The role
of assessment in a prevention science framework. School
Psychology Review, 41, 306–314.
Hernandez, D. J. (2011). Double jeopardy: how third-grade reading skills
and poverty influence high school graduation. Annie E. Casey
Foundation.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub.
L. No. 108–446,118Stat. 2647; 2004 Enacted H.R. 1350; 108
Enacted H.R. 1350. Final regulations implementing IDEA 2004
were published in the Federal Register, Monday, August 14, 2006,
pp. 46540–46845.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). Policy decisions in special edu-
cation: the role of meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S.
Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: synthe-
sis of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 281–
326). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: a meta-analysis
and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and
Practice, 30, 28–37.
Lang, S. C., Elliott, S. N., Bolt, D. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2008). The
effects of testing accommodations on students' performances and
reactions to testing. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 107–124.
Lichtenstein, R., & Ecker, B. (2019). High-impact assessment reports for
children and adolescents: a consumer-responsive approach. Guilford
Publication.
Macy, M., & Hoyt-Gonzales, K. (2007). A linked system approach to
early childhood special education eligibility assessment. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 39(3), 40–44.
Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data:
research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–
48.
Mastoras, S. M., Climie, E. A., McCrimmon, A. W., & Schwean, V. L.
(2011). A c.l.e.a.r. approach to report writing: a framework for im-
proving the efficacy of psychoeducational reports. Canadian
Journal of School Psychology, 26, 127–147.
McKenna, M. C., & Stahl, K. A. D. (2015). Assessment for reading
instruction. Guilford.
National Association of School Psychologists (2020). The professional
standards of the National Association of School Psychologists.
National Center for Education Statistics (2018). Children and youth with
disabilities. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/
indicator_cgg.asp
 Author's personal copy
Contemp School Psychol (2020) 24:478–487
Newton, P. E. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment.
Assessment in Education, 14, 149–170.
Rahill, S. A. (2018). Parent and teacher satisfaction with school-based
psychological reports. Psychology in the Schools, 55, 693–706.
Rucker, C. N. (1967). Report writing in school psychology a critical
investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 5, 101–108.
Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J., Bolt, S., & Witmer, S. (2012). Assessment in
special and inclusive education. Wadsworth.
Sanches-Ferreira, M., Lopes-dos-Santos, P., Alves, S., Santos, M., &
Silveira-Maia, M. (2013). How individualised are the individualised
education programmes (IEPs): An analysis of the contents and qual-
ity of the IEPs goals. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
28, 507–520.
Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J.,
Reutebuch, C. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Interventions for ado-
lescent struggling readers: a meta-analysis with implications for
practice. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., & Stuebing, K. K. (2015). A
meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12:
1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390.
Sénéchal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy interven-
tions on children’s acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade
3: a meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 78,
880–907.
Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Academic skill problems: direct assessment and
intervention. Guilford.
Stoiber, K. C., & DeSmet, J. L. (2010). Guidelines for evidence-based
practice in selecting interventions Practical handbook of school psy-
chology: Effective practices for the 21st century, 213-234.
Thompson, S. J., Morse, A. B., Sharpe, M., & Hall, S. (2005).
Accommodations manual: how to select, administer, and evaluate
use of accommodations for instruction and assessment of students
with disabilities (2nd). Council of Chief State School Officers.
Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Morse, A. B. (2005).
State policies on assessment participation and accommodations for
students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 38,
232–240.
Young, V. M., & Kim, D. (2010). Using assessments for instruction
improvement: a literature review. Educational Policy Analysis
Archives, 18(19), 1–40.
Ysseldyke, J., Burns, M., Dawson, P., Kelley, B., Morrison, D., Ortiz, S.,
& Telzrow, C. (2008). The blueprint for training and practice as the
basis for best practices. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best
Practices in School Psychology V, (pp. 37–69). National
Association of School Psychologists.
View publication stats
487
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Matthew K. Burns Ph.D. is a Professor of Special Education at the
University of Missouri, and Director of the Center for Collaborative
Solutions for Kids, Practice, and Policy. Dr. Burns is one of the leading
researchers regarding the use of assessment data to determine individual
or small-group interventions, and has published extensively on response
to intervention, academic interventions, and facilitating problem-solving
teams.
Courtenay Barrett Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the School
Psychology program at Michigan State University, and is both a licensed
psychologist and a Nationally Certified School Psychologist. Her re-
search interests include coaching and consultation within multi- tiered
system of supports, data-based decision making and contextual factors
that influence the provision of school psychology service delivery.
Kathrin E. Maki Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of School Psychology in
the School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early
Childhood Studies at the University of Florida. Her research centers on
the conceptual, psychometric, and decision-making issues related to
Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) identification, and the use of assess-
ment data to drive academic intervention implementation for students
with SLD and other academic difficulties.
Daniel B. Hajovsky Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of School Psychology
and Chair of the Division of Counseling and Psychology in Education at
the University of South Dakota. Dr. Hajovsky primarily researches
neurocognitive, social cognitive, and social dyadic influences on reading,
writing, and math achievement in youth and adolescent children.
McKinzie Duesenberg is a third-year student in the School Psychology
Ph.D. program at the University Missouri and is an Associate Director of
A Way With Words and Numbers. Her research interests include academ-
ic and community based interventions specifically geared towards stu-
dents with developmental and intellectual disabilities and families from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
Monica Romero is a third-year student in the School Psychology Ph.D.
program at the University of Missouri. Her research interests include early
identification and intervention/assessments for Emerging Bilinguals,
Latinx, and undocumented immigrant youths with academic difficulties,
language development, bilingual school psychology training and practice,
and family-school partnerships.