School psychologists and autism identification: Present challenges and potential solutions

Although federal law has provided guidelines for autism eligibility for special education, school-based autism assessment and eligibility vary widely across states and identification continues to lag behind national prevalence data. The main role of the school psychologist continues to be conducting evaluations for special education eligibility, and given current barriers, some school psychologists do not feel equipped to make a recommendation for autism eligibility. This article summarizes the barriers school psychologists face when conducting autism assessments in the schools, including systemic barriers, lack of training or professional development, resulting lack of confidence, among others. We conclude by highlighting recommendations for multipronged systemic changes that will improve the capacity of special education teams and specifically support the pivotal role of the school psychologist in conducting autism eligibility evaluations in the schools.     

Training for Impact: Improving the Quality of Staffs Performance

The study reported in this article examines the effects of training, feedback, and on–the–job coaching on the quality of staff performance. Forty staff members in three units of a psychiatric hospital were trained in a new system for writing patient progress notes. Initial training (Training 1) included a) establishing the importance of progress notes, b) rules and format for good notes, and c) examples of properly written notes. Training 1 resulted in slight improvement in performance over baseline. A second training program (Training 2), including examples and non–examples of well–written notes, was followed by a substantial increase in quality of staff notes. The quality of notes reached desired levels only after a feedback component was added in which the trainer posted data showing overall quality of notes and provided individual coaching to staff members regarding quality of group notes. We conclude from these results that the quality of staff performance of an organizationally significant task can be improved by a combination of training, feedback, and on–the–job coaching. Training using both examples and non–examples of properly completed tasks is superior to training using examples only. Training followed by feedback and on–the–job coaching is superior to training alone. The results support our conclusion that omitting a basic element of performance technology will yield low quality performance.