Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:08:25.154Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making Sense of Inconsistencies in Psycho-Educational Assessment: A Case Report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2015

Linda Gilmore ,
Robyn Miller  and
Heather Ward
Linda Gilmore*
Affiliation:
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Robyn Miller
Affiliation:
Private Practice, Lima, Peru
Heather Ward
Affiliation:
Private Practice, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
*
address for correspondence: Linda Gilmore, School of Cultural and Professional Learning, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia. Email: l.gilmore@qut.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

The case is presented of an 8-year-old boy who was referred for psycho-educational assessment because of difficulties with writing. The article provides an example of the way in which a case unfolds as further assessment data become available, and describes a number of challenging aspects of the assessment process. In this case, dilemmas arose when test results were inconsistent at different time points, and when the results were inconsistent with clinical observations. The case report illustrates the ways in which practitioners can collaborate to make sense of such discrepancies, with each contributing a slightly different perspective or set of skills that, in combination, assist to better understand a child's difficulties.

Keywords

psycho-educational assessmentclinical observationdilemmasinconsistenciesprofessional collaboration
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools , Volume 25 , Special Issue 1: Psycho-Educational Assessment , June 2015 , pp. 77 - 86
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adi-Japha, E., Landau, Y., Frenkel, L., Teicher, M., Gross-Tzur, V., & Shalev, R. (2007). ADHD and dysgraphia: Underlying mechanisms. Cortex, 43, 700–709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, I., & Mellor, D. (2009). Clinical judgements: Research and practice. Australian Psychologist, 44, 112–121. doi:10.1080/00050060802550023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, D. (2004). Expression, Reception and Recall of Narrative Instrument. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Delis, D.C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J.H. (2001). Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Dodd, B., Holm, A., Oerlemans, M., & McCormack, M. (1996). Queensland University Inventory of Literacy. Brisbane, Australia: Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, The University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Dunsmuir, S., Clifford, V., & Took, S. (2006). Collaboration between educational psychologists and speech and language therapists: Barriers and opportunities. Educational Psychology in Practice, 22, 125–140. doi:10.1080/02667360600668246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, M.C. (2005). Agreeing about disagreements: A personal reflection on Achenbach, McConaughy, and Howell (1987). Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 10, 440–445. doi:10.1177/1359104505053760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finello, K.M. (2011). Collaboration in the assessment and diagnosis of pre-schoolers: Challenges and opportunities. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 442–453. doi:10.1002/pits.20566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garred, M., & Gilmore, L. (2009). To WPPSI or to Binet, that is the question: A comparison of the WPPSI-III and SB5 with typically-developing preschoolers. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 19, 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gioia, G.A., Isquith, P.K., Guy, S.C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Grondhuis, S.N., & Mulick, J.A. (2013). Comparison of the Leiter International Performance Scale — Revised and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, 5th edition, in children with autism spectrum disorders. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 118, 44–54. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, D., Fogg, L., Garvey, C., & Julion, W. (2004). Behavior problems in young children: An analysis of cross-informant agreements and disagreements. Research in Nursing & Health, 27, 413–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammill, D.D., & Larsen, S.C. (1996). Test of Written Language — third edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Korkman, M., Kirk, U., & Kemp, S. (1998). NEPSY: A developmental neuropsychological assessment manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Law, J., & Durkin, C. (2000). Literacy skills of language-impaired children: Time for ‘joined up’ thinking? Educational Psychology in Practice, 16, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maksic, S., & Iwasaki, K. (2009). Perfectionism of academically gifted primary school students: The case of Japan. Gifted and Talented International, 24, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnellogue, S. (2011). Professional roles and responsibilities in meeting the needs of children with speech, language and communication needs: Joint working between educational psychologists and speech and language therapists. Educational Psychology in Practice, 27, 53–64. doi:10.1080/02667363.2011.549354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, J., & Meyers, K. (1995). The Meyers Scoring System for the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure and Recognition Trial. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Roedel, W.C. (1984). Vulnerabilities of highly gifted children. Roeper Review, 6, 127–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roid, G.H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, fifth edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
Roid, G.H., & Miller, L.J. (1997). Leiter International Performance Scale — Revised. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting Co.Google Scholar
Sander, A. M., Raymer, A., Wertheimer, J., & Paul, D. (2009). Perceived roles and collaboration between neuropsychologists and speech-language pathologists in rehabilitation. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 1196–1212. doi:10.1080/13854040902845706CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sattler, J.M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations. San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler Publisher.Google Scholar
Schuler, P. (2002). Perfectionism in gifted children and adolescents. In Neihart, M., Reis, S.M., Robinson, N.M., & Moon, S.M. (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 71–79). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
Semel, E., Wiig, E.H., & Secord, W. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals – Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Sollie, H., Larsson, B., & M⊘rch, W-T. (2013). Comparison of mother, father, and teacher reports of ADHD core symptoms in a sample of child psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Attention Disorders, 17, 699–710. doi:10.1177/1087054711436010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, S.L., Speltz, M.L., Collett, B., & Werler, M.M. (2013). Socioeconomic factors in relation to discrepancy in parent versus teacher ratings of child behaviour. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 35, 314–320. doi:10.1007/s10862-013-9348-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test — Second edition (WIAT-II Australian). Sydney, Australia: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (2004). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence — Third edition (WPPSI-III Australian). Sydney, Australia: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (2005). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children — Fourth edition. Australian standardised edition (WISC-IV Australian). Sydney, Australia: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
Wilson, K., & Gilmore, L. (2012). Assessing intellectual functioning in young adolescents: How do the WISC-IV and SB5 compare? Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22, 1–14. doi:10.1017/jgc.2012.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar