1 / 30

March 4, 2010

Improving Consultation Outcomes by Matching Teacher Expectations P. Dawn Tysinger, Ph.D., NCSP Jeffrey A. Tysinger, Ph.D., NCSP Shelley Knowles, M.Ed. March 4, 2010. Consultation Approach. • School-based consultation Between teacher and school psychologist Stages of consultation

Download Presentation

March 4, 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Improving Consultation Outcomes by Matching Teacher ExpectationsP. Dawn Tysinger, Ph.D., NCSP Jeffrey A. Tysinger, Ph.D., NCSP Shelley Knowles, M.Ed. March 4, 2010

  2. Consultation Approach • School-based consultation • Between teacher and school psychologist • Stages of consultation • Indirect service delivery • Decades long debate in literature • Primarily focused on collaborative versus expert

  3. Consultation Approach • Collaborative consultation • Include consultee in content and process • School psychologist offers forum for processing consultee’s ideas without becoming directive • Consultee role • Identify problem • Brainstorm ideas • Select data collection technique • Select intervention

  4. Consultation Approach • Collaborative consultation continued • Unclear operational definition • Research support • Higher satisfaction ratings (Wenger, 1979) • Preference across all stages (Babcock & Pryzwansky, 1983) • Increasing control led to preference of consultation over referral services (Gutkin & Hickman, 1988)

  5. Consultation Approach • Expert Consultation • Consultant role • Direct process • Select issue • Determine data collection • Choose intervention

  6. Consultation Approach • Expert Approach Continued • Research support • Highest intervention acceptability when technical language used and low consultee involvement (Rhoades & Kratochwill, 1992) • Topic determination related to consultant effectiveness (Witt, et al, 1991) • Conversation dominance related to consultant effectiveness (Erchul, 1987) • Consultant requests related to consultant effectiveness (Erchul & Chewning, 1990).

  7. Consultation Approach • Approach • Inconsistent Results • When consultee made a vague request for consultation, a collaborative approach was preferred. Expert approach preferred when consultee made a clear request for consultation (Graham, 1998) • Providing personal support for the consultee yielded increased ratings of consultant effectiveness. However, consultants who generate causal hypotheses in the initial sessions received more positive consultant effectiveness ratings (Hughes & DeForest, 1993)

  8. The Reconceptualization • Erchul, 1992 • “The presence of consultant dominance does not signal the absence of collaboration” • “. . .a false dichotomy”

  9. The Reconceptualization • Gutkin, 1999 • Collaborative and Expert not opposites • Continuum from collaborative to coercive • Continuum from directive to nondirective • Collaborative-directive and Collaborative-nondirective approaches are conceptualized

  10. The Reconceptualization • Collaborative-directive • Consultant role • Prescriptive when appropriate • Settle disputes through shared decision making • Employ interpersonal influence techniques as necessary • Respectful of consultee rights to reject ideas

  11. The Reconceptualization • Collaborative-nondirective • Consultant role • Assist consultee in developing his/her own ideas • Minimize directiveness and control • Accept consultee leads • First dimension of current research

  12. Consultee Expectations • Expectations and Success • Agreement on roles and goals (Erchul, et al, 1992) • Awareness assists with rapport building and circumventing resistance (Harris, Ingraham, & Lam, 1994) • Failure to meet expectations leads to resistance (Piersal & Gutkin, 1983; Bradley, 1994) • Second dimension of current research

  13. Hypotheses • Preference for C-D over C-N leading to higher consultant effectiveness ratings • Preference for C-D over C-N leading to higher intervention acceptability ratings • Matching expectations leading to higher consultant effectiveness ratings • Matching expectations leading to higher intervention acceptability ratings

  14. Hypotheses • Within mismatched condition, participants who expect C-D and view C-N will have higher consultant effectiveness than the opposite • Within mismatched condition, participants who expect C-D and view C-N will have higher intervention acceptability than the opposite

  15. Method • Participants • 202 teachers enrolled in graduate-level education courses • 170 female; 32 male • 34 African American, 24 Asian, 122 Caucasian; 2 Hispanic, 20 unidentified • 127 actively teaching; 73 not teaching

  16. Method • Videotape vignettes • One C-D; one C-N • Differed according to operational definitions • Problem Id and problem analysis • Approximately 12 minutes long

  17. Method • Measures • Demographic Information Form • Consultant Role Questionnaire • Designed for this study • 7 semantic differential items alligned to C-D and C-N • Strongly or mildly agree with one of the two statements • Used to determine consultation expectations

  18. Method • Measures • Consultant Effectiveness Form (Erchul, 1987) • Used to assess consultant effectiveness • 12 item Likert scale • Coefficient alpha, .85 • Consultant Effectiveness Scale (Knoff, Sullivan, & Liu, 1995) • Used to assess consultant effectiveness • 52 item Likert scale • Four factors- Interpersonal skills, Problem-solving skills, Consultation process and application skills, Ethical and professional practice skills

  19. Method • Measures • Intervention Rating Profile (Witt & Martens, 1983) • Used to assess perceived intervention acceptability • Procedures • Pre-measures • Assign to condition • View videotape • Post-measures

  20. Method • Analyses • 2 X 2 between subjects factorial design • Two independent variables • Collaborative-directive versus collaborative-nondirective • Matched versus mismatched conditions • For CEF and IRP, 2 X 2 ANOVAs • For CES, MANOVA

  21. Results • Hypothesis 1 supported by the CEF and 2 factors of CES (problem-solving and consultation process and application) • Consultant in C-D rated significantly higher than C-N • Hypothesis 2 supported by IRP • Intervention rated significantly higher in C-D than C-N

  22. Results • Hypothesis 3 supported by CEF and two factors of CES • Matching expectations led to higher consultant effectiveness ratings • Hypothesis 4 supported by IRP • Matching expectations led to higher intervention acceptability ratings

  23. Results • Hypotheses 5 and 6 were not supported • No interactions between approach and condition were found across the CEF, CES, and IRP.

  24. Discussion • Importance of research • Practical application • Selecting appropriate approach to increase consultant effectiveness and intervention acceptability • Preference for C-D • Preference for directiveness in content and process • Teachers appreciate feedback, interpretations, and ideas of consultant

  25. Discussion • Collaboration present across both approaches • Consultant appearance of motivation/ high activity • C-D led to higher intervention acceptability • Treatment integrity • Problem resolution

  26. Discussion • Matching expectations leads to greater perception of consultant effectiveness • Matching expectation leads to greater intervention acceptability • Importance of formally or informally assessing expectations

  27. Limitations • Analog design • Sample deviates from national demographics • Use of female actors • Sampling bias

  28. Future research • Use of behavioral issue • Qualitative designs • Use of actual consultations

  29. Questions? Dawn Tysinger, Ph.D., NCSP dtysinger@georgiasouthern.edu

More Related