World*Go*Round, Vol. 31, No. 5, December, 2004

Letter from the President 

In my June 2004 President’s letter I reviewed some of the arguments for and against the use of traditional psychometric approaches to the assessment of children with learning disabilities. The main stimulus for this came from my visit to the NASP convention in Dallas where I found that debates about approaches to psychological assessment were alive and well. Indeed these had been given fresh impetus in the USA by the proposal (or requirement) that the evaluation of learning disabilities should no longer be based on the size of the discrepancy between measured IQ and attainment but on the extent to which a child has responded to intervention – the so called RTI approach. In the UK the recent court case – where a judge ruled that in order for a school psychologist (SP) to assess a child’s dyslexia, it was not necessary to carry out a formal IQ test - has also given fresh impetus to those SPs who are keen to abandon psychometrics.

In my June letter I also suggested that, despite the rhetoric about the need for school psychologists (SPs) to move away from using traditional psychometric approaches, many seemed reluctant to do so. In my conversations with SPs from all over the world I do not get the impression that they have abandoned IQ tests and have, instead, embraced curriculum based approaches, drawing evidence from the child’s response to intervention (RTI). Of course I may be wrong and, perhaps SPs are adopting less traditional ways of working. In order to bring some clarity to this issue my colleague Kevin Woods and I are currently embarking on a research project in the UK in which we will be carrying out a survey of current SP practice in this area.

In the meantime it is important to acknowledge that many SPs work in a context in which there are a number of pressures that make it hard for them to adopt alternative approaches to their assessments of children with learning difficulties. In the remainder of this letter I reflect on some of these pressures since they help us to understand why it is sometimes difficult for the profession to move forward.

1. The unique role that SPs have in the administration of individual IQ tests is, in my view, a key factor in maintaining our IQ testing behaviour. For, in the UK, these are »closed tests« and can only be used by trained psychologists. No other professional is allowed to use them and hence they become the unique tool of the applied psychologist and a symbol of our professional identity – a truly distinctive function! Hence there is a tendency to clutch lovingly to our IQ kit and carry on IQ testing as before!

2. Perhaps this behaviour is given firm and unshakable roots during our training to become school psychologists. In the UK the accurate administration and interpretation of IQ tests is a key part of the training process, is introduced early on in the course and often supervised more heavily than any other aspect of the role. Hence the role of IQ testing becomes embedded in the psyche of the emerging new recruits.

3. All of this is reinforced by teachers who expect SPs to test the children that are referred to them. A recent informal survey of teachers’ perceptions of school psychologists in Chicago indicated that they strongly expect the SP to test their child. And indeed, if the SP spends the bulk of the time assessing a child’s problems in a separate room administering an IQ test, the whole process causes minimal disruption for the teacher. Alternative approaches, for example consultations with teachers, curriculum based assessments that may lead to an assessment based on an RTI evaluation may require more than one visit and on each visit more time is spent with the teacher and hence this is potentially more disruptive to the smooth running of the school as cover has to be found so that the teacher can released to talk to the SP. The assessment of the child in a separate room, based predominately on an IQ test, suits the SP, because they are performing their distinctive role, and also suits the teacher because the assessment does not disrupt the normal process of running a classroom

4. This is further reinforced by the explicit adoption of a within child model which is embodied by the use traditional approaches to assessment. It is the child who is refereed – not the school or the teacher – therefore it is he or she who needs »fixing«. Hence the SP predominately works with the child. We employ instruments that come up with a diagnosis of what is wrong with him/her. Alternative ways of working, e.g. using an RTI approach, raise the possibility that it is not the child who is the problem – maybe it is the school or the parent. But this might be uncomfortable for the teachers and school staff to accept. Hence SPs collude with a system where the odds are unfairly stacked up against the child and psychometrics provide an ideal vehicle for legitimising this approach.

5. But why don’t SPs spend their time with children using approaches based on Dynamic Assessment (DA). There is, after all, a growing literature supporting this approach. Perhaps the problem with DA is that it is not well known or understood by teachers and the fact that such an assessment does not result in a single score which has immediate »meaning«. In contrast teachers generally know that an IQ score of 100 is average and this benchmark helps them to understand the results of assessment of an individual child that includes an IQ figure. So perhaps we have created a monster that is extremely hard to shake off!

This letter may seem quite depressing to those of us who are keen for SPs to move away from their traditional approaches to the psychological assessment of children with learning difficulties. Our history and others’ perceptions of our role can make it extremely hard for us to move forward. The debate has special significance in relation to the development of school psychology services in other countries. In my experience many developing countries are desperate to translate IQ tests such as the WISC into their native language and standardise them for use in their country. Given many of the concerns expressed about the use of these instruments, I would urge caution.

Countries with developing school psychology services have a unique opportunity to start afresh. They are not shackled by a history of psychological service development that exists in the UK and USA. They are presented with new and exciting opportunities to develop alternative models that should bring greater benefits to children, schools and families.

Peter Farrell