Psychology in rhr School.? Volurnr 22, April 1985

COMPARING PRESERVICE, ELEMENTARY, AND JUNIOR HIGH TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS:

TWO DECADES LATER’ HERBERT H. SEVERSON MARIANNE PICKETT DEBORAH J . HETRICK

Oregon Research Institute and Burlington City Schools University of Oregon University of Oregon

One hundred eighty-one experienced teachers (elementary and junior high), and 189 preservice teachers were surveyed regarding their perceptions of school psychologists. The survey instrument used essentially the same categories as Styles in 1965, in- cluding: (a) level of training, (b) effectiveness, (c) qualifications for tasks, and (d) usefulness in specific duties. Analysis of the survey data showed there were significant differences between preservice and experienced teachers’ effectiveness ratings of school psychologists on eight tasks typically performed by school psychologists. Significant differences also were found between preservice and experienced teachers on their ratings of school psychologists’ qualifications to undertake specific tasks, although almost half of the experienced teachers were unable to rate the effectiveness of school psychologists. There was a small, but significant, negative relationship between the amount of contact with the school psychologist and the perceived effec- tiveness. Limitations inherent in survey methodology and the need to foster greater teacher awareness of the school psychologist’s role are discussed.

The role and function of the school psychologist remain in flux. As a result, the func- tions are often determined by role perceptions of other school personnel. With teachers providing the primary source of referrals, their perceptions are of prime importance in determining the psychologist’s activities.

Several researchers have studied teacher perceptions of school psychologists. Two early and significant studies were conducted by Styles (1965) and by Baker (1965). Styles reported that, in general, teachers did not hold exaggerated views of school psy- chologists’ training and effectiveness. Teachers tended to believe that a school psy- chologist has more training in clinical psychology than most do, and that they were most effective with emotionally maladjusted students, but least effective with gifted, mentally retarded, and physically handicapped children. Baker reported that the more experienced teachers were less satisfied with school psychology services, and that frequency of con- tact, as well as good communication, made the difference in effectiveness ratings.

Gilmore and Chandy (1973a,b) published findings similar to those of Baker and of Styles. Like Baker’s results, teachers in this group who had no contact with school psy- chologists rated them higher than those who had contact. Supporting Styles’ finding, these teachers also felt school psychologists were very qualified to work with, and most effective with, children who had emotional problems. This group also wanted school psy- chologists to spend more time in the schools, be involved in implementation of interven- tions, and use a more consultative approach.

Unlike Baker’s (1965) results, Kahl and Fine (1978) found that, as teacher ex- perience increased, school psychologists were seen as providing adequate services, func- tioning consultatively, working with the community, and being more helpful to learning disabled and underachieving children. As the number of contacts increased, effectiveness ratings also increased. Lucas and Jones (1970) also found that the more contacts a

Requests for reprints should be sent to Herbert Severson, Oregon Research Institute, 195 W. 12th Ave.,

‘The authors wish to thank Charles Stephens and the Eugene 4-3 School District for their cooperation. Eugene, OR 9740 1.

Norm Constantine and Dr. Dennis Ary provided statistical information. 179

180 Perceptions of School Psychologists

teacher had with a psychologist, the higher the effectiveness ratings. The teachers in their study reported, however, that they were unsure of the role of a school psychologist and felt that psychotherapy would be a useful role for one.

Roberts (1970) reported similar findings on teachers’ perceptions of useful roles for school psychologists. The teachers he surveyed stated that school psychologists spent too little time on prevention and mental health services, as well as educational programming. They wanted more emphasis on therapy, mental hygiene, diagnosis, psychological testing, and programming. The teachers also felt more training was needed in classroom- related areas, since psychologists were not as effective in this area as they needed to be.

Ford and Migles (1979) found virtually no relationship between years of experience (as well as grade level, gender, or specialty areas) and teachers’ perceptions of school psy- chologists. The general consensus of their subjects was that direct services that did not in- trude too much on the teacher’s territory and responsibilities were the most important tasks for the psychologists.

In a study of particular relevance to the current one, Dean (1980) compared the ex- pectations of preservice teachers with those of experienced teachers in three areas: (a) the perceived importance of the school psychologist to the educational process, (b) ap- propriate problem areas for referral, and (c) the number of areas of perceived com- petence. Both the experienced and inexperienced teachers agreed that referral to the school psychologist was appropriate for emotional and learning problems. There was also more than 50% agreement that the psychologists ranked third in importance (behind the principal and the nurse). The two groups disagreed on effectiveness, however; the more experienced group had a slightly more negative view of overall effectiveness. Dean felt this result was basically a function of contact, since amount of experience did not differentiate the groups as to their perceptions on appropriateness of some referrals or importance of the psychologist in general. Dean states that, while experienced teachers saw psychologists as less effective, they still believed they were a very appropriate referral source in some cases. Their expectations just seemed somewhat lower than that of the teacher trainee.

Dean’s results essentially supported those of Baker (1965) and of Gilmore and Chandy (1973a,b) by finding that number of contacts is a factor in teacher expectations. Dean’s finding that both preservice and experienced teachers believed school psy- chologists to be appropriate referral sources for emotional problems is similar to that of Gilmore and Chandy (1973a,b), Lucas and Jones (1970), Roberts (1970), and Styles (1965). The teachers in Dean’s study also felt that school psychologists were the ap- propriate personnel to handle learning problems. This is similar to findings by Kahl and Fine (1978) and consistent with reports on the most commbn area of current functions of school psychologists (Bardon, 1982, p.9).

While the methods and findings of all the above studies have not been totally consis- tent, they are still useful in indicating some particular concerns of teachers that warrant further investigation. For example, the Roberts (1970) study revealed that teachers did not feel school psychologists were as skillful as they should be in classroom-related areas. Kahl and Fine (1978) discovered that more experienced teachers believed school psy- chologists needed to know more about children’s abilities. It is not known at this time whether these perceptions are an accurate assessment of the school psychologist’s abilities, or what role the teacher’s experience plays in this perception.

Essentially, the current study replicates and extends earlier research in this area. The authors used a survey based on those devised by Styles (1965) and by Baker (1965)’

Perceptions of School Psychologists 181

and surveyed both experienced and preservice teachers. Results were expected to provide validation of earlier studies, as well as to update information regarding teacher percep- tions of school psychologists. This study differentiates teachers by level of instruction (elementary vs. junior high), which many previous studies did not. The inclusion of preservice teachers allows further elaboration of the influence that teaching experience may play in altering teachers’ perceptions of school psychologists’ services.

METHOD Subjects

Two samples of subjects were used in this study. Sample 1 . One hundred and eight-one elementary and junior high level teachers

from 1 I representative public schools in Eugene, Oregon served as subjects in this sam- ple. Of this sample, 95 were elementary and 84 were junior high level teachers (2 did not indicate level). Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Most subjects (86%) were between the ages of 30 and 59, with a mean of 14.2 years of teaching experience. There were about twice as many female teachers (66.3%) as male teachers (33.7%) in this sam- ple. This breakdown by sex approximates the school district proportion of 63% female and 37% male. Sample 1 was solicited by distributing the survey to elementary and junior high teachers at regularly scheduled faculty meetings, with a return rate of 64%.

Sample 2 . The subjects in this sample were students enrolled in an educational psy- chology course at the University of Oregon. Participation was both voluntary and anonymous. Of the 32 1 students introduced to the study, 189 (59%) returned completed surveys. Seventy-one percent of the students were juniors and seniors, while 14% were graduates, 13% were sophomores, 1% were freshmen, and 1% were nonclassified in this area. Seventy percent of the respondents were females, 30% were males, and the age range of respondents was from 18 to 44 years. The majority of the subjects were in the 18-23-year range. Twenty-two percent responded that they had some teaching experience (mean= 14.87 months), and 65% stated that they had practicum experience (mean=3.94 months). Thirteen percent of the respondents reported that within the past two years they had had contact with a school psychologist concerning a student.

Materials and Procedures Teachers’ attitudes about school psychologists were measured by their responses on

a survey similar to one developed by Styles (1965). This modified survey consisted of demographic data and five additional sections, including the extent of the subjects’ con- tact with a school psychologist and their perceptions of school psychologists’ level of training, effectiveness, qualifications for specific tasks, and usefulness.

Specifically, the first section solicited demographic data, including sex, age, level, years of teaching experience, and number of contacts with school psychologists. The sec- ond section covered their perceptions of school psychologists’ background and training. Teachers were asked to check which of several professionals had training similar to a school psychologist’s. In the third section, subjects indicated which of 10 categories of student referral types they had ever referred to a school psychologist (multiple response was possible). The fourth section required teachers to rate school psychologists’ effec- tiveness with each of the 10 referral types listed in Section 111. This section used a 5-point rating scale ranging from “extremely effective” to “not effective.” The fifth section covered their ratings of school psychologists’ qualifications to undertake specific tasks,

182 Perceptions of School Psychologists

using a Likert-type scale. Included in this section were both tasks that school psy- chologists are commonly qualified to perform and those that are more atypical (e.g., “prescribing medication to distractible children”). Finally, teachers rated the usefulness of various duties often performed by a school psychologist, also using a Likert-type scale. The survey did not include open-ended questions, and typically required 10 minutes to complete.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The data from the experienced teachers (Sample I ) in Table 1 show that the most

common referral category is “students who lack adequate control over their behavior” (80%) and the least likely is a “student who is physically handicapped” (23%). It is not clear whether these data reflect differences in incidence levels or rates of referral, regardless of behavior. Junior high teachers were more likely to refer “home problems” (64%) and delinquents (45%) than were elementary teachers (44% and 27%, respectively). Preservice teachers were not asked to complete this section.

Table 1 Percentages of Experienced Teachers Referring Various Student Categories

Types of Referrals ~ ~~

70 Subjects

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7 . 8.

9.

10.

Students with severe emotional problems Students lacking adequate controls over their behavior Students who are socially withdrawn Students who are not working up to their ability Students who are delinquent Students who are victims of cultural deprivation Students who are gifted Students who are mentally retarded Students who are physically handicapped Students who are having problems in the home

69.6

19.1

52.2 55.8 35.5

21.5

29.1

36.2

22.5

52.5

Experienced teachers perceived the school psychologist to be most similar in train- ing to a clinical psychologist (84%) and least like a psychiatrist (12%), while the preser- vice group generally saw the school psychologist as similar in training to both the clinical psychologist (56%) and guidance counselor (55%). Preservice teachers saw little similarity in training to the psychometrist (2.6%). Multiple responses allowed the total to exceed 100%.

All subjects were asked to evaluate the perceived effectiveness of the school psy- chologist in dealing with 10 common school referral problems or child behaviors. Sub- jects were asked to rate the psychologist on a 5-point scale ranging from extremely effec- tive ( 5 ) to not effective (1). A chi-square analysis was conducted on the three groups’ ratings of effectiveness. The only significant difference between the preservice, elemen- tary, and junior high teacher groups was with respect to working with students who are victims of cultural deprivation (x2=26.18, p<.Ol).

When the data from elementary and junior high teachers are combined and com- pared to those of preservice teachers, there are two significant differences in perceived effectiveness: the referral categories of culturally deprived students (xz= 16.53, p<.002)

Perceptions of School Psychologists 183

and students who are physically handicapped (xz= 12.02, p<.Ol). Experienced teachers rate the psychologist as more effective with physically handicapped and with the culturally deprived student than do inexperienced teachers. There were no significant sex or age differences noted in responses to this section. Table 2 Percentages for Experienced and Preservice Teachers’ Ratings of School Psychologists’ Qualifications for Specific Tasks

Task Category

1. Hold conferences with parents to interpret their chil- dren’s ability.

2. Train teachers to administer group intelligence tests. 3. Recommend specific school programming for students. 4. Consult with teachers, at their request, about their

classroom problems, and refer them to further sources for help.

5 . Serve on curriculum planning committee. 6. Conduct prolonged psychotherapy with individual

students. 7. Help select teachers of special classes. 8. Determine whether a particular child could be labeled

psychotic. 9. Advise teachers regarding classroom disciplinary

procedures. 10. Give neurological examinations. 1 I . Provide administration with evaluations of the mental

health of teachers. 12. Prescribe medication for nervous and distractible

children.

Teachers’ Rating %

Fully In Certain Not Qualified Cases Qualified

Exp‘ Pre’ Exp Pre Exp Pre

59.2 31.6 39.6 63.1 1.2 5.3** 61.2 51.3 32.7 33.7 6.1 15.0** 40.5 28.3 54.2 62.0 5.4 9.6*

61.4 71.8 35.7 23.9 2.9 4.3** 18.8 31.0 48.1 50.8 33.1 18.2***

20.3 23.8 51.0 43.2 28.8 33.0 19.5 29.7 62.2 51.4 18.3 18.9

28.8 16.7 38.1 35.5 33.1 47.8***

21.7 36.2 64.6 54.3 13.7 9.6* 14.8 10.9 19.4 17.4 65.8 71.7

8.3 10.2 38.5 39.6 53.2 50.3

3.6 2.7 15.1 14.4 81.3 82.9

‘Experienced Teachers zPreservice Teachers All x z have four degrees of freedom

*p<.05 comparing preservice and experienced teachers **p<.OI comparing preservice and experienced teachers

***p<.OOI comparing preservice and experienced teachers

When asked whether a school psychologist was “qualified” to perform certain tasks, the results varied considerably. Experienced teachers felt most confident about the ability of the psychologist to: (a) hold conferences to interpret their child’s ability; (b) train teachers to administer group intelligence tests; (c) recommend specific school program- ming for students; and (d) consult with teachers, at their request, about their classroom problems and refer them to further sources for help (Table 2). Teachers indicated that psychologists are generally not qualified to “serve on curriculum committees.” A poten- tial problem area is where only 22% of the teachers felt that school psychologists were fully qualified to advise teachers on disciplinary matters. This is a common reason for referral, and one would expect high marks for psychologists.

184 Perceptions of School Psychologists

Junior high teachers rated psychologists as more qualified to administer neurological exams than did elementary teachers (x2=8.65, p<.Ol) . Junior high teachers also rated psychologists as more qualified to prescribe medicine for distractible children than did elementary teachers (x*=6.16, p<.04). The results of this chi-square analysis are shown in Table 2, with significant differences noted by asterisks.

Results of a chi-square analysis comparing the preservice and experienced teachers show a number of significant differences. Seven of the 12 items are significantly different for the two teacher groups. On three tasks, the experienced teachers rated the psy- chologist as more qualified than did the preservice teachers. The items include parent conferences, training teachers to administer group intelligence tests, and recommending specific programming for students. The preservice group rated psychologists much more qualified on their ability to serve on curriculum committees and advising teachers on classroom discipline problems.

When asked to rate their perception of the “usefulness” of school psychologists’ ser- vices, the teachers responded that the most useful services were, in decreasing order of magnitude: (a) individual conferences with the teacher regarding a student, (b) written reports on evaluation of students, (c) specific test results, (d) case study conferences, (e) specific ideas or programs to use with referred children, and (f) individual or group counseling. No significant differences were found by sex or age. Two differences were found between junior high and elementary teachers. Elementary teachers rated their receipt of specific test scores, such as IQ, as more useful than did junior high teachers (xa= 16.17, p<.OOl). Similarly, elementary teachers rated specific program ideas with referred children as more useful than did junior high teachers (x’=9.39, p<.02) .

When comparing the experienced with preservice teachers on this set of items, we find that, on 7 of the 8 items, the chi-square analysis showed significant differences. In all cases, the preservice teachers rated the usefulness at a higher level than did experienced teachers. Only when asked about the usefulness of individual or group counseling do the two groups agree. Both groups rate this as a useful activity, with 75% of each group rating it as either “very useful” or “useful.”

There were many similarities between the perceptions of the experienced and inex- perienced teachers in this study. They agreed on the ratings of the school psychologists’ effectiveness on 9 of the 10 referral groups. The similarity of ratings ran across teacher variables such as age, sex, and grade levels served. This suggested that their perceptions were not merely a function of teaching experience or other teacher variable. There were some notable differences between groups, however.

When it came to rating the “usefulness” of specific tasks of the school psychologist, there was almost no agreement between preservice and experienced teachers. The tasks rated most useful by experienced teachers were in approximately the same rank order in which one would expect the school psychologist to be engaged. Elementary teachers found specific test results and specific programming suggestions more useful than did junior high teachers, which is consistent with the widely held view that elementary teachers are more concerned with individualization of instruction.

The results indicate that experienced teachers rate the school psychologist as more effective with students who are physically handicapped and victims of cultural depriva- tion than do inexperienced teachers. It is disconcerting to find that experienced teachers made 80% of their referrals for “students with inadequate behavior control,” but only 4% of this group rate the school psychologist as extremely effective in working with these students. Additionally, 70% of the experienced teachers referred a child with severe

Perceptions of School Psychologists 185

emotional problems, while only 6.3% rated the psychologist as extremely effective with this group. One caution on the interpretation of the effectiveness data: this section of the questionnaire had 42% missing responses from experienced teachers. Both oral and written comments indicated that teachers simply did not have adequate information from which to make a reasonable judgment. Preservice teachers had a much lower percentage of missing responses. Teachers may not have received adequate feedback or follow-up on student referral from their class and, in the words of one teacher, “We are always the last to know.”

The comparisons between experienced teachers’ and preservice teachers’ ratings of school psychologists’ qualifications indicated: teachers in training would expect the psy- chologist to be knowledgeable about curriculum and do consultation, while experienced teachers have found through experience that parent conferences, intelligence and ability testing, and assessments of emotionally handicapped students are more frequent roles.

The finding that junior high teachers rate the psychologist as qualified to give neurological exams and prescribe medication is as disturbing as it is unrealistic. These teachers may be more aware of drug-related problems and outside consultation with medical personnel, which biases their perceptions. The psychologists serving this district do not participate in conducting neurological exams, so further study would be needed to clarify the reasons for these findings.

There was a small, but significant, negative correlation between perceived effec- tiveness and amount of contact ( r= -.22, p<.003), indicating that contact with a school psychologist is an important factor in perceptions. These results are similar to those of Dean (1980)’ Baker (1965), and Gilmore and Chandy (1973).

While a body of research has developed around perceptions of school psychologists by teachers, one needs to exercise caution in interpreting the results. This survey was a brief assessment and was completed anonymously. Teachers’ understanding of questions could not be clarified, and the high number of omissions in the effectiveness section in- dicates some difficulty in responding to these questions. An interview would clarify some of the responses and allow further elaboration. The limitations of the study also include the limited sample and response rate. Since approximately one-third of the teachers did not return the questionnaire, the sample may be biased. Additionally, the sample is limited to one school district and one university teacher training program, which limits the generalizability to other teacher groups. Of greater concern, however, is the lack of data on more germane behaviors. Direct observation of the interaction between psy- chologist and teacher may be a more fruitful course of future research, given the limitations of the survey methodology.

However, the present research can be used to look at the alteration of perceptions of an 1 %year span using the same questions. The data provide specific perceptions held by different teacher groups that can be pursued in more depth using other methods. The present study represents an adequate sample comparison between preservice and ex- perienced teachers that has direct implications for perceptions that need clarification both in the teacher training programs and by the school psychology staff in a school dis- trict. Clearly, school psychologists have not done an adequate job of educating their pres- ent or future constituency. The promotion of new roles of the school psychologist would best accompany an ongoing effort to help teachers become knowledgeable and sophisticated consumers of psychological services in the schools.

186 Perceptions of School Psychologists

REFERENCES BAKER, H. L. (1965). Psychological services: From the school staffs point of view. Journal of School

BARDON, J . I . (1982). The psychology of school psychology. In C. Reynolds & T. Gutkin (Eds.), Handbook

DEAN, R. S. (1980). A comparison of pre-service and experienced teachers’ perceptions of the school psy-

FORD, J . D., & MIGLES, M. (1979). The role of the school psychologist: Teachers’ preferences as a function of

GILMORE, G. E., & CHANDY, J. M. (1973a). Teachers’ perceptions of school psychological services. Journal

GILMORE, G. E., & CHANDY, J. M. (1973b). Educators describe the school psychologist. Psychology in the

KAHL, L. J. , & FINE, M. J . (1978). Teachers’ perceptions of the school psychologist as a function of teaching experience, amount of contact, and socioeconomic status of the school. Psychology in (he Schools, I S ,

Attitudes of teachers of mentally retarded children toward psy-

Perceptions of actual and desired role functions of school psychologists by psy-

Teachers’ perceptions of the school psychologists’ role. Journal of School Psychology,

Psychology, 3, 36-42.

of school psychology (pp.3-14). New York: Wiley.

chologist. Journal of School Psychology, 18, 283-289.

personal and professional characteristics. Journal of School Psychology, 17, 372-377.

Of School Psychology, 2 , 139-147.

Schools, 10, 397-403.

577-582. LUCAS, M. S., & JONES, R. L. (1970).

ROBERTS, R . D. (1970).

STYLES, W. A. (1965).

chological reports and services. Journal of School Psychology, 8, 122-130.

chologists and teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 7 , 175-1 78.

3. 23-27.