Abstract
Since starting graduate training in School Psychology, I have always considered myself keenly attuned to the need for psychology to work for everyone. I was trained in a highly behavioral program with a strong positivist foundation. Twenty-something years later, I still embrace looking at all the data available to me to assist me in my teaching, research, practice, and supervision; however, I now promote the mantra, “There are many ways to do school psychology.” And while there may be many ways to do school psychology, what is our trajectory for ensuring that school psychology is something that works for everyone?
Evidence-Based Practice in School Psychology
Evidence-based practice (EBP) serves as a foundation for the practice of school psychology. The Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) and American Psychological Association (APA) have created similar, but distinct, definitions of EBP. Through the APA 2005 Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice, EBP was defined as “the integration of the best available research with clinical expertise in the context of patient characteristics, culture, and preferences” (American Psychology Association Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practices, 2006, p. 273). The CPA’s Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice of Psychological Treatments describes EBP as the “process by which the best evidence available is used to make optimal clinical decisions” (Dozois et al., 2014). Going further, the CPA Task Force noted that EBP “involves the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of the best available research evidence to inform each stage of clinical decision-making and service delivery” (Dozois et al., 2014, p. 155).
Psychologists strive to bridge the gap between theory and practice in their daily work. Utilizing EBP helps ensure that our clients are likely to obtain the maximum benefit from our services, thereby increasing public trust in the profession. Drawing upon our previous training, continuing education, and clinical experience, we work to apply practices that will best help clients. But what happens when we encounter issues that extend beyond our current knowledge base?
Across training, practice, and research, Dozois et al. (2014) explain this “conscientious, explicit, and judicious” EBP approach requires psychologists to evaluate the peer-reviewed scientific literature and recognize what practice will provide the best results to clients, minimize any risks, and deliver services in a cost-effective manner. The evidence upon which psychologists are to rely includes peer-reviewed literature; however, a hierarchy of research evidence was offered. Based on this framework, stronger evidence includes the synthesis of knowledge (e.g., meta-analyses or systematic reviews) and primary research studies with controls for internal and external validity. Weaker evidence could be obtained from expert consensus, unpublished data, professional opinion, and prior experience. This can be a powerful framework for EBP; however, its value is predicated on the individuals for which we have these data. Another aspect of EBP, as noted by Shaw (2021), is ensuring psychologists discontinue practices that may be widely used, but have been disproved, low-value, or problematic. EBP must change and adapt over time as more data becomes available to psychologists.
Schanding et al. (2023) conducted a review of articles in four major journals focused on school psychology over a 10-year period (2010–2019). In comparing the demographic data of participants in the empirical research articles to youth demographics in the United States, samples tended to include more youth identified as White/Caucasian and more youth from middle- to high-socioeconomic backgrounds generally. Of major note, there tended to be an underrepresentation of sexual minority youth (i.e., sexual orientation and gender identity), youth from low SES backgrounds, and elementary-aged children. Knowing that our professional guidelines encourage psychologists to utilize peer-reviewed literature as the strongest evidence for practice, we can see that some populations are more privileged to have these data available. This review primarily examined gender identity, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, ability/disability status, socioeconomic status, and grade level; however, it did not examine the intersectionality of these factors or touch upon other identities such as religiosity/spirituality (which could be considered a controversial variable within school psychology specifically).
Incorporating Social Justice in School Psychology
Recognizing the critical role of education in shaping future opportunities, school psychology has increasingly embraced social justice practices (Sullivan et al., 2023). In the updated accreditation standards for doctoral and residency programs in psychology, the Canadian Psychological Association (2023) specifically articulates human rights and social justice as underlying values. Pham et al. (2022) define social justice advocacy as “intentional and sustained actions to remove structural and institutional barriers contributing to oppression, racism, or colonialism and to ensure equity, respect, and fairness for the individual(s)” (p. 702). Challenges noted for the field include limited progress in diversifying the profession, insufficient attention to race, culture, and intersectionality in research and practice, and continued systemic biases and inequities.
One way that social justice advocacy has begun impacting school psychology research is through the commitment of the leadership team of the journal
While this is an important step to center social justice within the field of school psychology, there is still much work to do to enhance our practice for those marginalized communities. Additionally, science moves at a slow pace, especially when we seek to build knowledge regarding assessment, diagnosis, intervention, consultation, public policies, and other psychological services.
Tension Between EBP and Social Justice
As a graduate educator and supervising registered psychologist, I acknowledge the tension between what I consider EBPs and how they align with research and service delivery. For example, within my research lab, we’ve had discussions surrounding intervention studies regarding individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders. While refining the question and considering the method, our team discussed several limitations. We were hoping to examine the mental health of individuals with ASD, which led to a discussion of specific tools that have been validated for individuals with ASD. Even further, we then began exploring how we could also be inclusive of those with ASD and an Intellectual Disability. As outlined by Nicolaidis et al. (2020), multiple challenges exist for creating an accessible measure to obtain data for this equity-deserving group. Nicolaidis et al. outlined the problems of vocabulary used in instruments, complex sentences and grammar, imprecise response options, response variations based on different contexts, and ableist language or concepts as just some of the issues. Additionally, as a study with limited resources, how do we recruit a large enough sample to ensure adequate power?
In another research study, our group discussion turned to evaluating the theoretical framework within which a qualitative study was conducted. The group began discussing how the selected framework was based on Western ways of knowing, and a general future extension was to incorporate non-Western ways of knowing as a framework. However, when further pressed to discuss another framework, most involved in the conversation have been trained in Western ways of psychology and could not offer specific recommendations given our training limitations. While the research may “tick off” the boxes related to meeting the rigorous criteria associated with EBP, the inherent bias within our research methodologies could continue to reinforce dominant majority norms.
Tension between EBP and social justice occurs commonly within school-based psychological service delivery as well. Consider the linguistic diversity that may be seen within school-based assessments. A child referred for an assessment may be reported to have exposure to three languages within the home/community setting (for instance, Cantonese, Vietnamese, and English), and be enrolled in a French-immersion program. In determining the child’s language proficiency, many measures may be English-only, or highly outdated (the latest normative update for one test with multiple languages available was in 2005). A lack of appropriate measures may at times lead to poor decisions if a psychologist is unable to collect the most valid and reliable data.
As I write this essay, there are debates in Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and potentially Ontario regarding school policies requiring parental consent for youth under the age of 16 to change their name or use their preferred pronouns in some schools. As a former practitioner in the United States, these issues are reminiscent of proposed laws mandating that school psychologists tell parents if a child identifies as LGBTQ+. These types of issues not only invoke our responsibilities under EBP, but also adhering to ethical guidelines to respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, responsible caring, integrity in relationships, and our responsibility to society (CPA, 2017).
Impact on the Training and Practice of School Psychologists
Psychology is a field interested in the understanding and prediction of human behavior, and we are not immune to trying to predict the future of our field. Seeing how issues have played out over the past 20 years, I remain optimistic, yet I recognize the immense amount of work still ahead of our field.
As a guiding framework, EBP compels school psychologists to ensure that they are aware of the benefits, risks, and costs of providing psychological services that meet our ethical, legal, and societal obligations. Infusing social justice principles into this effort only enhances the value of our services. While there may be elements opposed to the “wokeness” associated with social justice principles, I believe school psychology, along with professional psychology, has moved beyond contemplation to determination and action.
In working with current students and practitioners, I see that they will not be satisfied, nor should they be, with literature or expert consensus that has not, or will not, acknowledge the intersectionality and complexities of the youth, families, and communities. Can we rush science and get all the answers now? No. Do we need to develop and prioritize our agendas so that we can begin to develop the knowledge we need? Definitely. We do not have the data currently to ensure that all our practices will be “best” or “evidence-based,” and honestly, I am not sure that can ever truly be realized in a scientific process; however, we can always fall back to that “conscientious, explicit, and judicious” process where we question why we know what we think we know and what we do to serve others as best we can.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
ORCID iD
