Students develop competence in the scientific, theoretical and conceptual foundations of professional school psychology.

Students demonstrate competency in the scientific, methodological and theoretical foundations of professional school psychology.

Successfully pass the National School Psychology Exam (PRAXIS). The PRAXIS is a national licensing exam that assesses competence of the candidate with respect to the following test subcategories: Diagnosis and Fact-Finding; Prevention and Intervention; Applied Psychological Foundations; Applied Educational Foundations; Ethical and Legal Considerations.

Minimum score of 165 and scoring at least within the average range on each of the 6 categories of the PRAXIS exam (a national exam that certifies school psychologists). Attached to the document is a copy of a PRAXIS report. The actual exam is copyrighted and we cannot, at this time, present it.

Five School Psychology students took the PRAXIS. Total scores ranged from 171 to 183 with a mean of 176. On the sub-categories, all scored at or above the national average on (1) Data-based decision making; (2) Research-based behavioral and mental health practices; (3) Consultation and collaboration; (4) Applied psychological foundation; (5) Ethical/legal and professional foundations.  Five of the six students scored at or above the national average on Research-based academic practices.

Overall, all students passed the PRAXIS with all but one performing at least the national average on all sub-categories. We are pleased that the changes put in place this past academic year with respect to Research-based academic practices and Ethical/legal and professional foundations seemed to work. We are still a bit concerned about the former of these two sub-categories and will see that this area is addressed (and stressed) in each of the classes in the SSP Program. Students will also be given example of how research-based practices can be utilized in their decision making.

Students develop competence in skill application of professional school psychology in a public school setting.

Candidates in the school psychology program demonstrate knowledge and skills for application of professional school psychology in a public school setting in the areas of assessment and consultation.

Rating Forms
(1) Satisfactory ratings from Field Supervisors
       1(A) Ratings for Practicum II candidates (Year 2 of 3)
       1(B) Ratings for candidates on Internship (Year 3 of 3)
On-site, or field, supervisors are asked to evaluate each candidate’s performance in order to gauge their professional performance in each of eight areas: 1) Interpersonal and Collaborative Skills, 2) Diversity Awareness and Sensitive Service Delivery, 3) Technological Applications, 4) Professional, Legal, Ethical, and Social Responsibility, 5) Data-Based Decision Making and Accountability, 6) Systems-Based Service Delivery, 7) Enhancing the Development of Cognitive and Academic Skills, and
8)Enhancing the Development of Wellness, Social Skills, Mental Health, & Life Competencies.
(2) Satisfactory ratings from Program Faculty           
       2(A) Faculty Rating Forms (FRF) for each of four Portfolio cases  submitted                                               
       2(B) Procedural Integrity Rubrics (PIR) for each of four Portfolio cases submitted
Candidates completing the Internship Portfolio assessment will obtain satisfactory ratings from the Program Faculty on each of four cases submitted. These cases include: 1) an Assessment case, 2) a Behavioral Intervention case, 3) an Academic Consultation case, and 4) a Counseling case. Two faculty members will evaluate each case, and the average of these two ratings on the FRF will be reported.
Positive Impact Data
(3) Quantitative data gathered as part of the case intervention
       3(A) Effect Size
       3(B) Percent of Non-Overlapping Data Points (PND)
       3(C) Other
Candidates completing the Internship Portfolio assessment will submit quantitative data gathered as part of the case intervention monitoring for three of four cases submitted. These cases include: 1) the Behavioral Intervention case, 2) the Counseling Case, and 3) the Academic Consultation case. Effect size, percent of non-overlapping data points (PND), or other means of quantitatively evaluating the candidates positive impact on the student(s) will be calculated.

1A: Candidates will be rated by field supervisors on a three point scale which includes the following competency rating categories: Improvement Needed (1), Competent (Supervision Needed; 2), and Professionally Competent (No Supervision Needed; 3). Because candidates in their final practicum will be under supervision for two more years, they are expected to not fall below an average rating of “2.0” for each of the eight competency areas evaluated.
1B:  Candidates will be rated by field supervisors on a three point scale    which includes the following competency rating categories: Improvement Needed (1), Competent (Supervision Needed; 2), and Professionally Competent (No Supervision Needed; 3). Because candidates completing their internship year will continue to be under supervision for one more year, they are expected to not fall below an average rating of “2.0” for each of the eight competency areas evaluated.
2A: Candidates completing their internship experience are required to submit four distinct Portfolio cases. Each case will be reviewed by two faculty members and ratings on the Faculty Rating Form (FRF) will be       given and then averaged across the two faculty raters. The FRF addresses all domains of practice related to the type of case being reviewed. Each item on the FRF includes the following competency rating categories: Pass (score 1), No Pass (score 0), Not Included (score 0), and Not Applicable (removed from the scoring calculation). Candidates are expected to achieve a minimum domain competency average of 85%.
In addition, candidates are given a single faculty rating for the overall case completion. This rating ranges from 1 (Very Poor) to 5 (Very Good). Candidates are expected to achieve a minimum overall rating of 3, which is equivalent to “average” work completed in the field.
2B: Internship portfolio case submissions are also scored by faculty using a Procedural Integrity Rubric, or PIR. Each case PIR includes critical procedures that must be performed as part of completing the case in order for the intern to be following best practices within the field. Each item on the PIR can be scored as follows: 0 = Incomplete, 1 = Needs Improvement (task is completed, with some concerns), 2 = Completed Satisfactorily (Competency Met), and 3 = Exemplary Performance (task is completed at a level above expectations. Each PIR for the four cases submitted has an established cut score equivalent to achievement of at least 85%.                                                 
Additionally, candidates are expected to obtain no ratings of “0” on any PIR.
3A: Based on the quantitative data included as part of the Behavioral  Intervention, Counseling, and Academic Consultation Portfolio case  submissions, the candidate’s impact on student behavior and/or learning can be calculated in a variety of ways. Effect size allows for the  comparison of the standard mean difference in student performance during baseline and treatment phases of intervention. At this time, there is no specific achievement criterion for candidates, but instead the SSP Program is using these quantitative measurements as a means to examine programmatic continuous improvement. The data reported for the 2010-2011 academic year are the first to be compiled.                     
3B: Based on the quantitative data included as part of the Behavioral Intervention, Counseling, and Academic Consultation Portfolio case submissions, the candidate’s impact on student behavior and/or learning  can be calculated in a variety of ways. Percent of Non-overlapping Data points, or PND, provides a comparison of the percentage of data points during the treatment phase that do not overlap with the most extreme baseline phase point. Again, there is no specific achievement criterion for candidates, but instead the SSP Program is using these quantitative measurements as a means to examine programmatic continuous improvement. The data reported for the 2010-2011 academic year are the first to be compiled.
3C: Based on the quantitative data included as part of the Behavioral Intervention, Counseling, and Academic Consultation Portfolio case submissions, the candidate’s impact on student behavior and/or learning can be calculated in a variety of ways. The “Other” positive impact category has been developed to accommodate data-based interventions that have positive impact best analyzed in another way in addition to or instead of the use of effect size or PND.

 1A: Data Tables for Practicum II field supervisor ratings and Internship field supervisor ratings are attached to this document.

1A: There were seven candidates who participated in the final Practicum II experience during the Spring 2011 semester. Field supervisors rated our candidates as a whole very well and solidly within the “Competent” range. One candidate received two ratings below the level of “2” in Competence Area 4 (Professional, Legal, Ethical, and Social Responsibility) and Competence Area 6 (Systems-Based Service Delivery). These ratings were given based on the candidate’s need to improve knowledge of applicable state and federal laws governing service and understanding the school setting as a system. Both areas were believed by the supervisor to be very difficult to adequately understand and apply until one was regularly working in the field setting.
Because the two competency areas for one candidate appeared to be rated lower as a function of supervisor rating style, and also because some candidates received numerous ratings of “3.0,” which indicates no supervision needed and is much out of line with supervisory expectations in the field, the faculty intend to enhance supports given to field supervisors related to the accurate rating of candidate progress on the evaluation forms used by the Program.

 1B: There were five SHSU candidates who participated in the internship experience this academic year. Field supervisors rated our candidates as a whole very well and solidly within the “Professionally Competent” range. In fact, there were only three ratings given that fell below a rating of “3.0.”
While Program faculty are grateful that field supervisors find our candidates well-prepared to enter professional practice in the field, because the standard in the field is for candidates to complete one additional year of supervision it would appear that the ratings assigned to the candidates exhibit some error with regard to inflation. The faculty intend to enhance supports given to field supervisors related to the accurate rating of candidate progress on the evaluation forms used by the Program.

 2A, B: Data Tables for the Portfolio Reviews are attached to this document. 
2A: Five candidates completed their Internship Portfolios this academic year. Faculty rated each of the four cases as part of the Portfolio assessment using the Faculty Rating Form (FRF), which contains items related to eight competency standards. All five candidates achieved average FRF competency ratings at or above the expectation of 85%. Additionally, all five candidates received a faculty- awarded Overall Rating for each case submitted of 3 or higher. As a cohort, this group of candidates has met broad competency standards as set forth by the Program.
2B: Five candidates completed their Internship Portfolios this academic year. Faculty evaluated each of the four cases as part of the Portfolio assessment using the Procedural Integrity Rubric (PIR), which contains important procedural items related to best practices in the field of school psychology. All candidates obtained competent Assessment and Academic Consultation case PIR scores. For Behavioral Intervention, four of five candidates obtained competent PIR scores, and for Counseling three of five candidates obtained competent PIR scores. Those candidates not attaining PIR scores at the cut score typically lacked evidence of adequate data collection for progress monitoring. All five candidates met competency related to not having PIR ratings of “0” for the Behavioral Intervention and Academic Consultation cases. Two candidates obtained one rating each of “0” for their Counseling case related to data collection, and one candidate obtained one Assessment PIR rating of “0” for not providing feedback to parents prior to the IEP meeting.

3A-C: Data for Positive Impact Statistics are attached to this document.
This is the first year of quantitative data collection, and the fact that all cases submitted except one included data allowing for the calculation of candidate positive impact is a tremendous improvement for the SSP Program and its candidates. Beyond this achievement, many of the cases submitted demonstrate impressive effect sizes and high percentages of non-overlapping data points, suggesting very positive impacts of these interventions on student behavior and/or learning. 

 

Current program faculty are working to enhance supports given to field supervisors to get a more accurate rating of student progress. The main strategy to achieve this goal is to more carefully describe each anchor point.

In addition, we are refining our assessment tools used to determine individual student progress and capabilities. The goal is to increase validity by increasing the quantitative nature of those tools.  In addition, those assessment tools are being reviewed by an external reviewer for feedback as to their appropriateness and usefulness. When the final reviews are returned, we will make adjustments/refinements as recommended by the external reviewer.