Premium
Interclinician agreement and bias in school psychologists' diagnostic and treatment recommendations for a learning disabled child
Author(s) -
Frame Roger E.,
Clarizio Harvey F.,
Porter Andrew C.,
Vinsonhaler John R.
Publication year - 1982
Publication title -
psychology in the schools
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.738
H-Index - 75
eISSN - 1520-6807
pISSN - 0033-3085
DOI - 10.1002/1520-6807(198207)19:3<319::aid-pits2310190310>3.0.co;2-6
Subject(s) - psychology , checklist , learning disability , developmental psychology , agreement , perception , recall , clinical psychology , linguistics , philosophy , neuroscience , cognitive psychology
Interclinician agreement was measured among 24 practicing school psychologists who assessed a simulated learning disability case of a fourth‐grade girl. The data were analyzed with both an unprompted report written by each subject (recall), and a checklist of descriptive statements about the case (recognition). Interclinician agreement was found to be moderately high for diagnoses, and somewhat less for prescriptions. Interpretation bias due to the child's race (black, white), SES (low, high) and achievement level of the child's school (low, high) was not observed on most diagnostic statements. Only 17 of the 744 possible diagnostic main effects and 2‐way interactions were significant at p <.01, while 7 such differences would be expected purely by change. No statements about intelligence, classroom behavior, or social relationships were statistically significant. However, the simulated low SES black child did tend to be classified as “not eligible for special education” much more often than did the white or upper class black on both the written reports and on the checklist, while the upper SES child was labelled learning disabled more frequently than was the low SES child on the recognized checklist. Other main effects and interactions also were noted in some statements about developmental history, arithmetic achievement, perceptual‐motor integration, and excessive dependence.