The College of Educational and Developmental Psychologists (CEDP) in Australia, like other colleges, has exceptionally skilled and well-qualified practitioners. But, are the differences between the colleges significant? Is some of the psychology practised by one College so different to that of another? It is not clear that there are any general differences. It is at the level of the individual practitioner who, irrespective of her college membership, will either be particularly skilled or not. It seems pertinent to ask what particular skills does our College have over others. What is it that makes the CEDP practitioners different from the focus of other colleges? Practitioners in educational and developmental psychology have been trained across a wide range of psychological domains and practise in diverse areas, such as gerontopsychology and child development. However, in some ways it is about marketing the skill base and aligning with recognised areas of psychology. In Australia there is a bizarre disparity across states and territories vis-à-vis who is qualified to work as school psychologists but who are not members of the CEDP, either through choice or their qualifications not quite aligning. Focusing on bringing this group more into the fray will, in the opinion of the Editor, provide a clearer focus as to one of the areas of practice that falls clearly into that domain. This is an opportunity to strengthen our focus while strengthening the College's ability to accentuate the wide areas of practice that College endorsement offers.

To build on prior correlational research into personal best (PB) goals and motivational outcomes, an experimental study was conducted to assess the role of PB goal setting in gains (or declines) in students’ motivation in science (viz. biology, anatomy, health). The study (comprising N = 71 elementary/primary and secondary school students) applied a pre/post-treatment/control group experimental design to test whether setting a PB learning goal in a self-paced science education program (conducted in a museum context) leads to growth in science valuing and science aspirations. The treatment group (PB goal setting), but not the control group, demonstrated significant growth in science aspirations (but not valuing) between pre- and post-testing. This study provides support for the proposition that PB learning goals are associated with motivational growth in students’ lives. Findings also hold implications for museum-based education programs for students.

Multidisciplinary practice has become an accepted approach in many education and social and health care fields. In fact, the right to a multidisciplinary assessment is enshrined in the United Nations Convention of the Rights for Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2007). In order to avert a ‘one size fits all’ response to particularly heterogeneous diagnoses, such as autism spectrum disorders (ASD), the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends multidisciplinary input. Yet, multidisciplinarity lacks empirical evidence of effectiveness, is fraught with conceptual difficulties and methodological incompatibilities, and therefore there is a danger of resorting to an ill-defined eclectic ‘hodgepodge’ of interventions. Virtually all evidence-based interventions in autism and intellectual disabilities are behaviourally based. Not surprisingly, therefore, professionals trained in behaviour analysis to international standards are increasingly becoming key personnel in multidisciplinary teams. In fact, professionals from a range of disciplines seek training in behaviour analysis. In this article we brought together a multidisciplinary group of professionals from education, health, and social care, most of whom have a dual qualification in an allied health, social care, or educational profession, as well as in behaviour anlaysis. Together we look at the initial training in these professions and explore how behaviour analysis can offer a common and coherent conceptual framework for true multidisciplinarity, based on sound scientific knowledge about behaviour, without resort to reifying theories. We illustrate how this unifying approach can enhance evidence-based multidisciplinary practice so that ‘one size’ will fit all.

The Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC) is a developmentally appropriate parent-report measure of the Five Factor Model (FFM) that has been validated in several European languages but only recently in English. The English translation of the HiPIC was evaluated in an Australian context. Parent-rated HiPIC scores were obtained for 202 children (aged 5–14 years) via an online survey. Exploratory factor analysis indicated five factors that appeared reasonably congruent with the original Flemish HiPIC structure, though with some apparent differences particularly in regard to the Extraversion and Benevolence facets. A Procrustes targeted rotation was used to evaluate the congruence with the original Flemish structure. This indicated encouragingly high congruences for the overall model (.97), as well as high facet and factor congruence (.92–.99). These findings can be taken to reflect the robust nature of the HiPIC model, validating the instrument and more specifically confirming its applicability for use in practice and research investigating children's development and wellbeing in Australia.

Background: Teachers are required to report suspected child abuse in many parts of the world, but there is a paucity of research characterising how they question children about wrongdoing. Aims: Because children often speak to multiple people before arriving at a forensic interview it is critical to understand how untrained teachers question children. Sample and Methods: Teachers (n = 47) completed a mock interview, written quiz, and rated their expected performance. Results: In both the interview and quiz, teachers asked few open and many leading questions. Yet, they asked proportionally more open and fewer leading questions on the quiz than during the interview, demonstrating an implicit awareness of good questioning. Holding a higher education level degree was associated with asking fewer questions overall, and fewer leading questions, during the mock interview. Higher perceptions of performance after the mock interview were associated with having asked more open and more specific questions. Conclusions: Overall, teachers asked fewer open questions than desired but also demonstrated some awareness of good interviewing skill. We review the teachers’ performance by highlighting the positive aspects of their interviewing skills, identifying areas for improvement, and making suggestions for enhancing teachers’ abilities to question children about wrongdoing.

This article considers current concerns with promoting student mental health and wellbeing against the backdrop of critiques of the ‘therapeutic turn’ in education. It begins by situating accounts of ‘therapeutic education’ within broader theorisation of therapeutic culture. In doing so, the importance of this work is acknowledged, but key assumptions are questioned. The emergence of concerns about self-esteem and wellbeing are then examined through an analysis of changing educational aims in Australia. This enables consideration of the broader context for policy reforms and emergent ideas about the importance of fostering wellbeing and attending to the social and emotional aspects of learning. Finally, the article argues for the salience of historicising both educational policy and scholarly critiques of therapeutic education in order to: (1) situate the contemporary emphasis on student wellbeing within a longer history of educational reforms aimed at supporting young people; (2) unsettle taken-for-granted ways in which mental health and wellbeing are currently foregrounded in contemporary schooling; and (3) develop new perspectives on the therapeutic turn in education.