school psychology problem solving model

Problem-Solving Model for Improving Student Achievement

Principal Leadership Magazine, Vol. 5, Number 4, December 2004

Counseling 101 column, a problem-solving model for improving student achievement.

Problem solving is an alternative to assessments and diagnostic categories as a means to identify students who need special services.

By Andrea Canter

Andrea Canter recently retired from Minneapolis Public Schools where she served as lead psychologist and helped implement a district-wide problem solving model. She currently is a consultant to the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) and editor of its newspaper, Communiquè . “Counseling 101” is provided by NASP ( www.nasponline.org ).

The implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has prompted renewed efforts to hold schools and students accountable for meeting high academic standards. At the same time, Congress has been debating the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which has heightened concerns that NCLB will indeed “leave behind” many students who have disabilities or other barriers to learning. This convergence of efforts to address the needs of at-risk students while simultaneously implementing high academic standards has focused attention on a number of proposals and pilot projects that are generally referred to as problem-solving models. A more specific approach to addressing academic difficulties, response to intervention (RTI), has often been proposed as a component of problem solving.

What Is Problem Solving?

A problem-solving model is a systematic approach that reviews student strengths and weaknesses, identifies evidence-based instructional interventions, frequently collects data to monitor student progress, and evaluates the effectiveness of interventions implemented with the student. Problem solving is a model that first solves student difficulties within general education classrooms. If problem-solving interventions are not successful in general education classrooms, the cycle of selecting intervention strategies and collecting data is repeated with the help of a building-level or grade-level intervention assistance or problem-solving team. Rather than relying primarily on test scores (e.g., from an IQ or math test), the student’s response to general education interventions becomes the primary determinant of his or her need for special education evaluation and services (Marston, 2002; Reschly & Tilly, 1999).

Why Is a New Approach Needed?

Although much of the early implementation of problem-solving models has involved elementary schools, problem solving also has significant potential to improve outcomes for secondary school students. Therefore, it is important for secondary school administrators to understand the basic concepts of problem solving and consider how components of this model could mesh with the needs of their schools and students. Because Congress will likely include RTI options in its reauthorization of special education law and regulations regarding learning disabilities, it is also important for school personnel to be familiar with the pros and cons of the problem-solving model.

Student outcomes. Regardless of state or federal mandates, schools need to change the way they address academic problems. More than 25 years of special education legislation and funding have failed to demonstrate either the cost effectiveness or the validity of aligning instruction to diagnostic classifications (Fletcher et al., 2002; Reschly & Tilly, 1999; Ysseldyke & Marston, 1999). Placement in special education programs has not guaranteed significant academic gains or better life outcomes for students with disabilities. Time-consuming assessments that are intended to differentiate students with disabilities from those with low achievement have not resulted in better instruction for struggling students.

READ MORE: Best Appetite Suppressant: 5 Hunger Control Supplements Complete Guide

Dilemma of learning disabilities. The learning disabilities (LD) classification has proven especially problematic. Researchers and policymakers representing diverse philosophies regarding disability are generally in agreement that the current process needs revision (Fletcher et al., 2002). Traditionally, if a student with LD is to be served in special education, an evaluation using individual intelligence tests and norm-referenced achievement tests is required to document an ability/achievement discrepancy. This model has been criticized for the following reasons:

• A reliance on intelligence tests in general and with students from ethnic and linguistic minority populations in particular
• A focus on within-child deficiencies that often ignore quality of instruction and environmental factors
• The limited applicability of norm-referenced information to actual classroom teaching
• The burgeoning identification of students as disabled
• The resulting allocation of personnel to responsibilities (classification) that are significantly removed from direct service to students (Ysseldyke & Marston, 1999).

Wait to fail. A major flaw in the current system of identifying student needs is what has been dubbed the wait to fail approach in which students are not considered eligible for support until their skills are widely discrepant from expectations. This runs counter to years of research demonstrating the importance of early intervention (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). Thus, a number of students fail to receive any remedial services until they reach the intermediate grades or middle school, by which time they often exhibit motivational problems and behavioral problems as well as academic deficits.

For other students, although problems are noted when they are in the early grades, referral is delayed until they fail graduation or high school standards tests, increasing the probability that they will drop out. Their school records often indicate that teachers and parents expressed concern for these students in the early grades, which sometimes resulted in referral for assessments, but did not result in qualification for special education or other services.

Call for evidence-based programs. One of the major tenets of NCLB is the implementation of scientifically based interventions to improve student performance. The traditional models used by most schools today lack such scientifically based evidence. There are, however, many programs and instructional strategies that have demonstrated positive outcomes for diverse student populations and needs (National Reading Panel, 2000). It is clear that schools need systemic approaches to identify and resolve student achievement problems and access proven instructional strategies.

READ MORE: Red Boost Reviews – Ingredients, Benefits, Pros and Cons

How It Works

Although problem-solving steps can be described in several stages, the steps essentially reflect the scientific method of defining and describing a problem (e.g., Ted does not comprehend grade-level reading material); generating potential solutions (e.g., Ted might respond well to direct instruction in comprehension strategies); and implementing, monitoring, and evaluating the effectiveness of the selected intervention.

Problem-solving models have been implemented in many versions at local and state levels to reflect the unique features and needs of individual schools. However, all problem-solving models share the following components:

• Screening and assessment that is focused on student skills rather than classification
• Measuring response to instruction rather than relying on norm-referenced comparisons
• Using evidence-based strategies within general education classrooms
• Developing a collaborative partnership among general and special educators for consultation and team decision making.

Three-tiered model. One common problem-solving model is the three-tiered model. In this model, tier one includes problem-solving strategies directed by the teacher within the general education classrooms. Tier two includes problem-solving efforts at a team level in which grade-level staff members or a team of various school personnel collaborate to develop an intervention plan that is still within the general education curriculum. Tier three involves referral to a special education team for additional problem solving and, potentially, a special education assessment (Office of Special Education Programs, 2002).

Response to intervention. A growing body of research and public policy discussion has focused on problem-solving models that include evaluating a student’s RTI as an alternative to the IQ-achievement discrepancy approach to identifying learning disabilities (Gresham, 2002). RTI refers to specific procedures that align with the steps of problem solving:

• Implementing evidence-based interventions
• Frequently measuring a student’s progress to determine whether the intervention is effective
• Evaluating the quality of the instructional strategy
• Evaluating the fidelity of its implementation. (For example, did the intervention work? Was it scientifically based? Was it implemented as planned?)

Although there is considerable debate about replacing traditional eligibility procedures with RTI approaches (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), there is promising evidence that RTI can systematically improve the effectiveness of instruction for struggling students and provide school teams with evidence-based procedures that measures a student’s progress and his or her need for special services.

New roles for personnel. An important component of problem-solving models is the allocation (or realignment) of personnel who are knowledgeable about the applications of research to classroom practice. Whereas traditional models often limit the availability of certain personnel-for example, school psychologists-to prevention and early intervention activities (e.g., classroom consultation), problem-solving models generally enhance the roles of these service providers through a systemic process that is built upon general education consultation. Problem solving shifts the emphasis from identifying disabilities to implementing earlier interventions that have the potential to reduce referral and placement in special education.

Outcomes of Problem Solving and RTI

Anticipated benefits of problem-solving models, particularly those using RTI procedures, include emphasizing scientifically proven instructional methods, the early identification and remediation of achievement difficulties, more functional and frequent measurement of student progress, a reduction in inappropriate and disproportionate special education placements of students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and a reallocation of instructional and behavior support personnel to better meet the needs of all students (Gresham, 2002; Ysseldyke & Marston, 1999). By using problem solving, some districts have reduced overall special education placements, increased individual and group performance on standards tests, and increased collaboration among special and general educators.

READ MORE: Exipure Review : Weight loss Pills Dosage, Works, Uses

The enhanced collaboration between general education teachers and support personnel is particularly important at the secondary level because staff members often have limited interaction with school personnel who are outside of their specialty area. Problem solving provides a vehicle to facilitate communication across disciplines to resolve student difficulties in the classroom. Secondary schools, however, face additional barriers to collaboration because each student may have five or more teachers. Special education is often even more separated from general education in secondary school settings. Secondary school teachers also have a greater tendency to see themselves as content specialists and may be less invested in addressing general learning problems, particularly when they teach five or six class periods (and 150 or more students) each day. The sheer size of the student body and the staff can create both funding and logistical difficulties for scheduling training and team meetings.

Is Problem Solving Worth the Effort?

Data from district-wide and state-level projects in rural, suburban, and urban communities around the country support the need to thoughtfully implement problem-solving models at all grade levels. There are several federally funded demonstration centers that systematically collect information about these approaches. Although national demonstration models may be a few years away, it seems likely that state and federal regulations under IDEA will include problem solving and RTI as accepted experimental options. Problem solving continues to offer much promise to secondary school administrators who are seeking to improve student performance through ongoing assessment and evidence-based instruction. PL

• Fletcher, J., Lyon, R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K., Francis, D., Olson, R., Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Donaldson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities (pp. 185-250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Gresham, F. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Donaldson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities (pp. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Marston, D. (2002). A functional and intervention-based assessment approach to establishing discrepancy for students with learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Donaldson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities (pp. 437-447). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction-Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: Author.
• Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Specific learning disabilities: Finding common ground (Report of the Learning Disabilities Round Table). Washington, DC: Author.
• President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
• Reschly, D., & Tilly, W. D. III (1999). Reform trends and system design alternatives. In D. Reschly, W. D. Tilly III, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming (pp. 19-48). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
• Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (Eds.) (2003). Special issue: Response to intervention. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3).
• Ysseldyke, J., & Marston, D. (1999). Origins of categorical special education services in schools and a rationale for changing them. In D. Reschly, W. D. Tilly III, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming (pp. 1-18). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Case Study: Optimizing Success Through Problem Solving

By Marcia Staum and Lourdes Ocampo

Milwaukee Public Schools, the largest school district in Wisconsin, is educating students with Optimizing Success Through Problem Solving (OSPS), a problem-solving initiative that uses a four-step, data-based, decision-making process to enhance school reform efforts. OSPS is patterned after best practices in the prevention literature and focuses on prevention, early intervention, and focused intervention levels.  Problem-solving facilitators provide staff members with the training, modeling, support, and tools they need to effectively use data to drive their instructional decision-making. The OSPS initiative began in the fall of 2000 with seven participating schools. Initially, elementary and middle level schools began to use OSPS, with an emphasis on problem solving for individual student issues. As the initiative matured, increased focus was placed on prevention and early intervention support in the schools. Today, 78 schools participate in the OSPS initiative and are serviced by a team of 18 problem-solving facilitators. 

OSPS in Action: Juneau High School

The administration of Juneau High School, a Milwaukee public charter school with 900 students, invited OSPS to become involved at Juneau for the 2003-2004 school year. Because at the time OSPS had limited involvement with high schools, two problem-solving facilitators were assigned to Juneau for one half-day each week. The problem-solving facilitators immediately joined the Juneau’s learning team, which is a small group of staff members and administrators who make educational decisions aimed at increasing student achievement.

When the problem-solving facilitators became involved with Juneau, the learning team was working to improve student participation on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE). The previous year, Juneau’s 10th-grade participation on the exam had been very low. The learning team used OSPS’s four-step problem-solving process to develop and implement a plan that resulted in a 99% student participation rate on the WKCE. After this initial success, the problem-solving model was also used at Juneau to increase parent participation in parent-teacher conferences. According to Myron Cain, Juneau’s principal, “Problem solving has helped the learning team at Juneau go from dialogue into action. In addition, problem solving has supported the school within the Collaborative Support Team process and with teambuilding, which resulted in a better school climate.”

By starting at the prevention level, Juneau found that there was increased commitment from staff members. OSPS is now in the initial stages of working with Juneau to explore alternatives to suspension.  The goal is to create a working plan that will lead to creative ways of decreasing the number of suspensions at Juneau.

Marcia Staum is a school psychologist, and Lourdes Ocampo is a school social worker for Optimizing Success Through Problem Solving.

What Is Response to Intervention?

Many researchers have recommended that a student’s response to intervention or response to instruction (RTI) should be considered as an alternative or replacement to the traditional IQ-achievement discrepancy approach to identifying learning disabilities (Gresham, 2002; President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). Although there is considerable debate about replacing traditional eligibility procedures with RTI approaches (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), there is promising evidence that RTI can systematically improve the effectiveness of instruction for struggling students and provide school teams with evidence-based procedures to measure student progress and need for special services. In fact, Congress has proposed the use of research-based RTI methods (as part of a comprehensive evaluation process to reauthorize IDEA) as an allowable alternative to the use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy procedure in identifying learning disabilities.

RTI refers to specific procedures that align with the steps of problem solving. These steps include the implementation of evidence-based instructional strategies in the general education classroom and the frequent measurement of a student’s progress to determine if the intervention is effective. In settings where RTI is also a criteria for identification of disability, a student’s progress in response to intervention is an important determinant of the need and eligibility for special education services.

It is important for administrators to recognize that RTI can be implemented in various ways depending on a school’s overall service delivery model and state and federal mandates. An RTI approach benefits from the involvement of specially trained personnel, such as school psychologists and curriculum specialists, who have expertise in instructional consultation and evaluation.

• National Center on Student Progress Monitoring, www.studentprogress.org
• National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, www.nrcld.org

This article was adapted from a handout published in Helping Children at Home and School II: Handouts for Families and Educators (NASP, 2004). “Counseling 101” articles and related HCHS II handouts can be downloaded from www.naspcenter.org/principals .

You May Also Like

Asperger syndrome: a guide for secondary school principals, collaborating with physicians: a guide for school leaders.

the Kick-ass Multipurpose WordPress Theme

Problem-Solving Practices and Complexity in School Psychology

• Published: 07 November 2016
• Volume 21 , pages 38–48, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• John Brady   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1065-0897 1 &
• William R. Espinosa 2  

439 Accesses

Explore all metrics

How do experienced school psychologists solve problems in their practice? What can trainers of school psychologists learn about how to structure training and mentoring of graduate students from what actually happens in schools, and how can this inform our teaching at the university? This qualitative multi-interview study explored the processes that five experienced school psychologist used to solve problems in their practice in the schools. The interviews described their problem-solving efforts as being imbedded in complex school contexts and reliant on a dynamic team process of searching for solutions. The paper suggests that these teams fit what the field of complexity theory calls complex adaptive systems (CAS) and outlines what the research on such systems tells us about enhancing their function. It concludes with suggestions that training programs include these concepts in their consultation training and ensure that all students experience case work that is ongoing and supervised.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Beyond Black Swans. Managing Complexity: A Contradiction in Terms?

Complexity and Systems Thinking Models in Education: Applications for Leaders

Anton-LaHart, J., & Rosenfield, S. (2004). A survey of preservice consultation training in school psychology programs. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15 (1), 41–62.

Article   Google Scholar  

Athanasiou, M. S., Geil, M., Hazel, C. E., & Copeland, E. P. (2002). A look inside school-based consultation: a qualitative study of the beliefs and practices of school psychologists and teachers. School Psychology Quarterly, 17 (3), 258–298. doi: 10.1521/scpq.17.3.258.20884 .

Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Google Scholar  

Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy . New York: Plenum Press.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bramlett, R. K., Murphy, J. J., Johnson, J., Wallingsford, L., & Hall, J. D. (2002). Contemporary practices in school psychology: a national survey of roles and referral problems. Psychology in the Schools, 39 (3), 327.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

DiGregorio, S. (2000). Using NVivo for your literature review. In Strategies in Qualitative Research: Issues and Results from Analysis Using QSR, NVivo and NUD*IST. Conference at the Institute of Educatin, London (pp.29-30).

Donovan, L., McCoy, D., Denune, H., Barnett, D. W., Graden, J. L., & Carr, V. (2014). Preparing doctoral-level consultants for systems change: implementing and supervising multitiered practices in early childhood education . doi: 10.1080/10474412.2014.929957 .

Dowd-Eagle, S., & Eagle, J. (2014). Qualitative and mixed methods design in consultation research. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (2nd ed., pp. 450–472). New York: Routledge.

Fishman, D. B. (1999). The case for pragmatic psychology eBook Academic Collection on EBSCOhost. (pp. 1 online resource (xxvii, 387 p.)). Retrieved from http://libproxy.chapman.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=100438

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory . Chicago: Aldine.

Gutkin, T. B. (2002). Training school-based consultants: some thoughts on grains of sand and building anthills. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13 (1/2), 133–146.

Hazel, C., Laviolette, G., & Lineman, J. (2010). Training professional psychologists in school-based consultation: what the syllabi suggest. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4 (4), 235–243. doi: 10.1037/a0020072 .

Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: an update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 196–205. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196 .

Holland, J. H. (2014). Complexity a very short introduction . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Illback, R. (2014). Organizational development and change facilitation in school settings. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (pp. 276–303). New York: Routledge.

Kennedy, E. K., Frederickson, N., & Monsen, J. (2008). Do educational psychologists “walk the talk” when consulting? Educational Psychology in Practice, 24 (3), 169–187. doi: 10.1080/02667360802256733 .

Kratochwill, T. R., Hoagwood, K. E., Kazak, A. E., Weisz, J. R., Hood, K., Vargas, L. A., & Banez, G. A. (2012). Practice-based evidence for children and adolescents: advancing the research agenda in schools. School Psychology Review, 41 (2), 215–235.

Lopez, E. C., & Nastasi, B. K. (2014). Process and outcome research in selected models of consultation. In W. P. Erchul & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education : Wiley Blackwell.

Meyers, J. (2002). A 30 year perspective on best practices for consultation training. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13 (1/2), 35–54.

Meyers, J., Truscott, S., Meyers, A., Varjas, K., & Kim, S. (2014). Qualitative and mixed methods design in consultation research. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (2nd ed., pp. 103–137). New York: Routledge.

Morrison, K. (2002). School leadership and complexity theory . London: Routledge-Falmer.

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) (2010). Model for comprehensive and integrated school psychological services . Bethesda, Maryland: National Association of School Psychologists.

Newell, M., & Newman, D. (2014). Qualitative and mixed methods design in consultation research. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (2nd ed., pp. 421–429). New York: Routledge.

Polkinghorne, D., & Gribbons, B. (1999). Applications of qualitative research strategies to school psychology research problems. In C. Reynolds & T. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 108–136). New York: Wiley.

Pryzwansky, W. B., & Noblit, G. W. (1990). Understanding and improving consultation practice: the qualitative case study approach. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1 (4), 293.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action . New York: Basic Books.

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Shulman, L. S., & Wilson, S. M. (2004). The wisdom of practice: essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: studying how things work . New York: Guilford Press.

Thornberg, R. (2014). Consultation barriers between teachers and external consultants: a grounded theory of change resistance in school consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 24 (3), 183–210. doi: 10.1080/10474412.2013.846188 .

Tilly, W., Niebling, B., & Rahn-Blakeslee, A. (2010). Making problem solving school psychology work in schools. In G. Peacock, R. Ervin, E. Daly, & K. Merrell (Eds.), Practical handbook of school psychology (pp. 579–596). New York: Guilford.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Studies, Chapman University, One University Drive, Orange, CA, 92866, USA

23 Carpenteria, Irvine, CA, 92602, USA

William R. Espinosa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Brady .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

John Brady has a consulting position with the school system used in the study and was an instructor in the participants’ graduate programs. William Espinosa has declared that he has no conflicts of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.

Interview Protocol

First interview: focused life history.

Tell me as much about yourself in relation to your becoming a school psychologist and your history with the aspect of problem solving.

How did you come to be a school psychologist?

What in your past led you to the profession?

In the first 5 years on the job as a school psychologist, how did you start off as a psychologist, and how does that compare to today?

From then on the following years?

What has the role of leadership influenced your practice?

Tell me about your leadership role.

How did you get into leadership?

Why did you get into it?

How did it go?

Helping other psychologists be successful.

Looking back, how do you think that experience influenced you in this regard?

Second Interview: the Details of the Psychologists’ Lived Experience of Consulting

The purpose of this interview is to concentrate on the concrete details of his/her experience as a consultant problem solver. This is not the time for opinions but for describing the day-to-day details of what is done, which form the foundation for later exploration of opinions/theories. We are striving to reconstruct the myriad details of our participants’ experiences.

Let us look at the two cases you made notes on; tell me about the first on in terms of your work on it.

What in your practice helps with this consulting?

What are the barriers to it?

What training have you gotten in these areas?

What do you like about this kind of work?

Let us look at your time sheets for the past few days. You marked off the time you were consulting. Tell me about some of that experience.

Third Interview: the Meaning/Theory/Understanding of the Experience of Consulting

The purpose of this interview is to address the intellectual and emotional connections between the participant’s work and life. This interview focuses on meaning making by them about consulting.

Given what you have said about your life before you became a psychologist and your practice of consulting now, how do you understand consulting in your life?

What sense does it make to you?

Where do you see yourself going in the future with this?

What factors in your life interacted to bring you to your present situation/practice?

We have talked about your practice of consulting/problem solving/helping as part of being a school psychologist starting with your early life experiences and things that got you into the field and then on some specific cases you are working on now and looking at what you do daily for a 3-day period. Now let us focus on what you think of all this. What meaning do you make of this part of your practice as a school psychologist?

What theories or rules or processes do you use to help in this?

Do you see any patterns in what you do?

Where have you gotten help to do this?

What in your life and work environment facilitates your problem solving?

What in your life, work environment is a barrier to problem solving? Have you been able to overcome barriers and how did you do that?

How do you rate yourself in this area?

What could you do to get better?

Is there anything else you want to say about this?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Brady, J., Espinosa, W.R. Problem-Solving Practices and Complexity in School Psychology. Contemp School Psychol 21 , 38–48 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-016-0103-0

Download citation

Published : 07 November 2016

Issue Date : March 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-016-0103-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Problem solving
• School psychologist
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Supervision in School Psychology

DOI link for Supervision in School Psychology

Get Citation

Supervision in School Psychology: The Developmental, Ecological, Problem-solving Model examines specific factors that contribute to successful supervision in school psychology, including the integration of a developmental process of training, the ecological contexts that impact practice, and evidence-based problem-solving strategies. Supervision is a core professional competency requiring specific training for the benefit of supervisees, clients, and the profession. Written for graduate students, researchers, and professionals in the field of school psychology, this book provides thorough, specific, and immediately applicable methods and principles for supervisory practice. Featuring a diverse set of pedagogical tools, Supervision in School Psychology is an important resource for navigating the distinct challenges specific to the demanding and diverse competencies associated with supervision in school-based settings.

This second edition is significantly expanded and includes updated research on best practices in school psychology supervision. Expanded coverage and new chapters address system change and social justice advocacy skills, problems in professional competence, self-care, telesupervision, and deliberate practice. Maintaining DEP’s focus on the practical application of best practices, additional strategies are presented for teaching diveristy and multicultural responsiveness anchored in cultural humility. Supplemental case study material, supervisory process and reflection activities, tables, graphics, and practice-ready appendices as tools that illustrate best practices in supervision.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part | 21  pages, introduction, chapter 1 | 19  pages, the status of school psychology supervision, part 1 | 83  pages, foundations of effective supervisory relationships, chapter 2 | 22  pages, clinical supervision, chapter 3 | 19  pages, characteristics of effective supervisory relationships, chapter 4 | 11  pages, processing supervisory relationships, chapter 5 | 29  pages, ethical and legal issues in supervision, part 2 | 222  pages, the developmental, ecological, problem-solving (dep) model, chapter 6 | 11  pages, introduction to the developmental, ecological, problem-solving (dep) model, chapter 7 | 120  pages, the developmental component, chapter 8 | 55  pages, the ecological component, chapter 9 | 34  pages, the problem-solving component, part 3 | 82  pages, essential skills within dep supervision, chapter 10 | 10  pages, chapter 11 | 23  pages, social justice advocacy, chapter 12 | 31  pages, addressing problems in professional competence, chapter 13 | 16  pages, telesupervision, part 4 | 46  pages, professional development for supervisors and credentialed school psychologists, chapter 14 | 16  pages, professional development and collegial support networks, chapter 15 | 28  pages, dep applied to supervision of credentialed psychologists and psychological services, part 5 | 68  pages, preparing for the future of supervision within school psychology, chapter 16 | 51  pages, educating neophyte and veteran supervisors in best practices in supervision, chapter 17 | 15  pages, future development.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

• Request info
• Majors & Degrees
• Prospective Students
• Current Undergraduate Students
• Current Graduate Students
• Online Students
• Alumni and Friends
• Faculty and Staff

School of Psychology

Training Model: The School Psychologist as a Data-based Problem-Solver

Page content, primary objective.

    The primary objective of School Psychology training at USM is to prepare behavioral scientists who can apply their skills to the solution of a broad range of problems related to the processes of schooling. Generalized empirically-based problem-solving skills represent the program's primary emphasis and are seen as essential in order for graduates to assume the diversity of roles associated with School Psychology today and in the future. All training in School Psychology is based on the scientist-practitioner model with special emphasis on integration of the scientist and practitioner dimensions.

    The goal of integrating the science and practice dimensions of the scientist-practitioner model is approached through incorporation of an additional training scheme designated as the Data-Based Problem-Solver model (DBPS). One of the program's primary training objectives is to produce school psychologists who approach their professional activities from a cohesive frame of reference: that of a Data-Based Problem-Solver. The DBPS model teaches students to view all school psychological functions from a problem-solving perspective requiring systematic progression through the steps of (a) problem identification, (b) problem solution, and (c) problem evaluation. In addition, the DBPS stresses the importance of basing hypotheses and conclusions at each step on empirical data.

To facilitate communication..

Training in the Science area

The Practice area

Entry level preparation

Education dimension

The Education dimension includes coursework and experience related to: (a) Professional Issues, (b) Scientific Methodology, and (c) Theory and Data Bases. Since School Psychology is viewed as a sub-specialty of generic Psychology, training in these areas is provided relative to both the general discipline of Psychology and the School Psychology specialty area. The study of Professional Issues familiarizes students with the major professional organizations and their contributions to the discipline of Psychology and the profession of School Psychology.

Training elements in the Professional Issues area include: professional organizations, standards, ethics, and credentialing; and an introduction to School Psychology. The study of Scientific Methodology provides students with an empirical orientation and the skills to critically evaluate and contribute to the literature of Psychology and School Psychology. Training elements in the Scientific Methodology area include: research design and methodology, scientific writing, research in school psychology, and research participation including thesis and dissertation development. Study in the Theory and Data Bases area provides students with experience in the identification and critical evaluation of theory and data. Specific training elements in the Theory and Data Bases area include: biological and social bases; normal and abnormal development; and educational foundations.

Training dimension

The Training dimension represents supervised experience in the application of problem-solving skills to problems encountered by school psychologists in the schools. Supervised field experiences begin during the first semester of training, promoting an early integration of theory and practice, and continue throughout the program. The specific training elements associated with the Training dimension are organized around the problem-solving components of: (a) problem identification, (b) problem solution, and (c) problem evaluation. Other School Psychology training programs often label similar components as: (a) assessment, (b) intervention, and (c) evaluation. Use of the more general problem-solving terms reflects a conviction that general rather than specific problem-solving strategies are necessary to adequately prepare students to assume the variety of roles expected of school psychologists today and in the future. While the acquisition of specific problem-solving skills associated with the typical roles of school psychologists today constitutes a major focus of field training, students also gain experience in the use of their generalized skills to acquire new information and problem-solving strategies to develop solutions appropriate to the unpredictable problems encountered in the field. Under the supervision of program faculty, students representing each year level work together in teams providing supervisory experience for advanced students and allowing for observational learning by beginning students.

231 Owings-McQuagge Hall (OMH)

Campus Hattiesburg

Email psychologyFREEMississippi

Phone 601.266.4177

320 Hardy Hall

Gulf Park Campus

Campus Gulf Park

Phone 228.214.3340

, , , and

Practical Handbook of School Psychology

Effective practices for the 21st century, edited by gretchen gimpel peacock , ruth a. ervin , edward j. daly iii , and kenneth w. merrell.

• description T his authoritative guide addresses all aspects of school psychology practice in a response-to-intervention (RTI) framework. Thirty-four focused chapters present effective methods for problem-solving-based assessment, instruction, and intervention. Specific guidelines are provided for promoting success in core academic domains—reading, writing, and math—and supporting students' positive behavior and social-emotional functioning. The book also describes ways to team with teachers and parents to develop collaborative solutions and overcome obstacles. Grounded in research, this is an indispensable resource for daily practice and an invaluable text for school psychology training programs. -->
• sample chapter
• All titles by Gretchen Gimpel Peacock
• All titles by Ruth A. Ervin
• All titles by Edward J. Daly III
• All titles by Kenneth W. Merrell
• contributors Amanda Albertson , MA, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, Nebraska Keith D. Allen , PhD, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Munroe–Meyer Institute for Genetics and Rehabilitation, Omaha, Nebraska Brent Alsop , PhD, University of Otago, Department of Psychology, Dunedin, New Zealand Melissa Andersen , MEd, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, Nebraska Theresa Andreou , MEd, University of British Columbia, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and Special Education, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Scott P. Ardoin , PhD, University of Georgia, Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology, Athens, Georgia Scott K. Baker , PhD, Pacific Institutes for Research, Eugene, Oregon Elizabeth Barkley , MEd, University of Cincinnati, Division of Human Services, Cincinnati, Ohio David W. Barnett , PhD, University of Cincinnati, Division of Human Services, Cincinnati, Ohio Jaime L. Benson , MEd, Lehigh University, Department of Education and Human Services, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Carrie A. Blevins , MA, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, Nebraska Genery D. Booster , MEd, Lehigh University, Department of Education and Human Services, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Matthew K. Burns , PhD, University of Minnesota, Department of Educational Psychology, Minneapolis, Minnesota Bryan Bushman , PhD, McKay–Dee Behavioral Health Institute, Ogden, Utah David J. Chard , PhD, Southern Methodist University, Simmons School of Education and Human Development, Dallas, Texas Nathan H. Clemens , MEd, Lehigh University, Department of Education and Human Services, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Edward J. Daly III , PhD, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, Nebraska Anna Dawson , MA, University of Otago, Department of Psychology, Dunedin, New Zealand Jennifer L. DeSmet , MS, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Department of Educational Psychology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Ronnie Detrich , PhD, Wing Institute, Oakland, California George J. DuPaul , PhD, Lehigh University, Department of Education and Human Services, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Ruth A. Ervin , PhD, University of British Columbia, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and Special Education, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Randy G. Floyd , PhD, University of Memphis, Department of Psychology, Memphis, Tennessee Lynae J. Frerichs , MA, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, Nebraska Patrick C. Friman , PhD, Father Flanagan’s Boys Home, Clinical Services and Research, Boys Town, Nebraska Kristin A. Gansle , PhD, Louisiana State University, Department of Educational Theory, Policy, and Practice, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Donna Gilbertson , PhD, Utah State University, Department of Psychology, Logan, Utah Gretchen Gimpel Peacock , PhD, Utah State University, Department of Psychology, Logan, Utah Jami E. Givens , MA, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, Nebraska Barbara A. Gueldner , PhD, The Children's Hospital, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Aurora, Colorado Kimberly A. Haugen , PhD, Father Flanagan’s Boys Home, Clinical Services and Research, Boys Town, Nebraska Renee O. Hawkins , PhD, University of Cincinnati, Division of Human Services, Cincinnati, Ohio Keith C. Herman , PhD, University of Missouri, Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, Columbia, Missouri Thomas S. Higbee , PhD, Utah State University, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Logan, Utah John M. Hintze , PhD, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Department of Student Development and Pupil Personnel Services, Amherst, Massachusetts Kathryn E. Hoff , PhD, Illinois State University, Department of Psychology, Normal, Illinois Kristi L. Hofstadter , EdS, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, Nebraska Kenneth W. Howell , PhD, Western Washington University, Department of Special Education, Bellingham, Washington Kevin M. Jones , PhD, Louisiana State University in Shreveport, Department of Psychology, Shreveport, Louisiana Kathleen Jungjohann , MA, University of Oregon, Department of Special Education and Clinical Services, Eugene, Oregon Lee Kern , PhD, Lehigh University, Department of Education and Human Services, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Leanne R. Ketterlin-Geller , PhD, Southern Methodist University, Department of Educational Policy, Dallas, Texas David A. Klingbeil , PhD, University of Minnesota, School Psychology Program, Minneapolis, Minnesota Sara Kupzyk , MA, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, Nebraska Verity H. Levitt , PhD, Glenview School District, Glenview, Illinois Sylvia Linan-Thompson , PhD, University of Texas at Austin, Department of Special Education, Austin, Texas Leslie MacKay , MA, University of British Columbia, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and Special Education, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Katie L. Magee , MA, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, Nebraska Amanda M. Marcotte , PhD, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Department of Student Development and Pupil Personnel Services, Amherst, Massachusetts Brian K. Martens , PhD, Syracuse University, Department of Psychology Syracuse, New York Rebecca S. Martinez , PhD, Indiana University, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Bloomington, Indiana Merilee McCurdy , PhD, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, Nebraska Kent McIntosh , PhD, University of British Columbia, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and Special Education, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Kenneth W. Merrell , PhD (deceased), University of Oregon, Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences, Eugene, Oregon David N. Miller , PhD, University at Albany, State University of New York, Division of School Psychology, Albany, New York Julie Q. Morrison , PhD, University of Cincinnati, Division of Human Services, Cincinnati, Ohio Shobana Musti-Rao , PhD, National Institute of Education, Early Childhood and Special Needs Education, Singapore, Singapore Bradley C. Niebling , PhD, Heartland Area Education Agency, Johnston, Iowa George H. Noell , PhD, Louisiana State University, Department of Psychology, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Alecia Rahn-Blakeslee , PhD, Heartland Area Education Agency, Johnston, Iowa Wendy M. Reinke , PhD, University of Missouri, Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, Columbia, Missouri Robert L. Rhodes , PhD, New Mexico State University, Department of Special Education and Communicative Disorders, Las Cruces, New Mexico Kristin D. Sawka-Miller , PhD, Siena College, Department of Psychology, Loudonville, New York Elizabeth Schaughency , PhD, University of Otago, Department of Psychology, Dunedin, New Zealand Stephanie Schmitz , EdS, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, Nebraska Joan Schumann , MEd, University of Utah, Department of Special Education, Salt Lake City, Utah Susan M. Sheridan , PhD, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, Nebraska Mark D. Shriver , PhD, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Munroe–Meyer Institute for Genetics and Rehabilitation, Omaha, Nebraska Rebecca Sonnek , EdS, Utah State University, Department of Psychology, Logan, Utah Karen Callan Stoiber , PhD, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Department of Educational Psychology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Michelle S. Swanger-Gagné , MA, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, Nebraska Susan M. Swearer , PhD, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, Nebraska W. David Tilly III , PhD, Heartland Area Education Agency, Johnston, Iowa Amanda M. VanDerHeyden , PhD, Education Research and Consulting, Inc., Fairhope, Alabama Sharon Vaughn , PhD, University of Texas at Austin, Department of Special Education, Austin, Texas Jennifer L. Volz , PhD, Father Flanagan’s Boys Home, Clinical Services and Research, Boys Town, Nebraska Lisa L. Weyandt , PhD, University of Rhode Island, Department of Psychology, Kingston, Rhode Island Katherine F. Wickstrom , PhD, Louisiana State University in Shreveport, Department of Psychology, Shreveport, Louisiana -->

Supervision in school psychology: The developmental/ecological/problem-solving model

• Psychology in the Schools 51(6)
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

• Illinois State University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

No full-text available

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

• Dennis J. Simon

• Caroline Keaney

• Myooran Canagaratnam
• PSYCHOL SCHOOLS

• Jamilia J. Blake

• Thomas Brant
• Charles Magoba Muwonge
• Céline Igoe
• Jane Florence Amoding

• Kelsey M. Ragan

• Kavya Kandarpa

• Prof Alcina Martins

• Curr Psychiatr Rep
• Eugene F. Augusterfer
• Colleen R. O’Neal
• Shannon W. Martin
• Richard F. Mollica

• Amanda L. Sullivan

• Amanda Faler
• Keisha L Hill

• Vivian Hill
• Bernadette Cairns
• James Boyle

• Audrey J. Ford
• Korrie Allen
• Olivia A. Walsh
• Mark Terjesen
• Rebecca Stock
• Rachel Vaughn

• Rachel Butler
• Timothy B. Smith
• Alivia Smith
• Linda K. Knauss
• Patrick O’Donnell

• Yuanfang Liu

• Nam Soon-Im
• Hyeong Keun Yu
• Susan Posada

• Virginia Smith Harvey

• Greg J. Neimeyer

• Ronald H. Rozensky
• David R. Cox

• Shara M. Johnson
• Jennifer McLaughlin
• Mary Alice Conroy
• Susan G. Forman

• Catherine L. Grus

• Raymond E. Crossman

• Ann O’Connor Slimp

• Cynthia A. Sturm
• Roberta L. Nutt

• Kelly Robinson

• PSYCHOTHERAPY

• Elizabeth Holloway
• Cal D. Stoltenberg

• Ursula Delworth

• SCHOOL PSYCHOL REV

• Edward J. Daly
• Ann C. Schulte
• P C Kendall
• Lucille Eber

• W. David Tilly
• Pamela Orpinas
• Arthur M. Horne

• Eleanor W. Lynch

• Gloria Maccow
• Steven R. Shaw
• Phil Foster
• Howard M. Knoff
• Joy G. Dryfoos

• Eugene W. Farber

• Andrew C. Scallet

• B F Chorpita
• J A Cummings
• J A Struzziero
• C C Swenson
• S W Henggeler
• O W Addison
• M E Swerdlik
• J Ysseldyke
• American Psychological Association, APA Task Force on the Assessment of Competence in Professional Psychology
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

NASP: The National Association of School Psychologists

Communiqué

In this issue.

• Dyslexia Screening Myths: A Response to VanDerHeyden and Burns

Strengths-Based Supervision in School Psychology: Accentuate the Positive; Eliminate the Negative

• Unauthorized Immigrant Students in the United States: Educational Policies, Practices, and the Role of School Psychology
• Editor's Note: You Can Never Know Enough Psychology
• President's Message: The Power of One: Creating Connections
• Identification of ADHD and Autism Spectrum Disorder: Responsibilities of School Psychologists
• Coping With Anxiety on a New Job
• Using Data to Address Racial Disproportionality in Discipline Practices
• Communiqué Editorial Policies: Current Practice and Future Directions
• An Environmental Scan Tool to Assess District and School Readiness to Support Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth
• What School Psychologists Need to Know About Factor Analysis
• Rights Without Labels and IQ
• You Be the Judge #13: IEEs at Public Expense
• Handout: Understanding Race and Privilege
• Experience the Power of One, Chicago Style
• 2018 Convention Highlights
• Remembering George McCoy
• Nominations for NASP Elections Due
• Leadership in Action Spotlight
• Yoga as a School-Based Mental Health Intervention
• Just a Click Away: Virtual School Psychologist for Hire
• Book Review: Interventions for Disruptive Behaviors: Reducing Problems and Building Skills
• Book Review: The ABCs of CBM: A Practical Guide to Curriculum-Based Measurement (2nd Ed.)
• Book Review: DBT Skills in Schools: Skills Training for Emotional Problem Solving for Adolescents (DBT STEPS-A)
• Download 46-1

Professional Practice

By Daniel S. Newman, Meaghan C. Guiney & Arlene E. Silva

Volume 46 Issue 1, pp. 1, 21

By Daniel S. Newman, Meaghan C. Guiney & Arlene E. Silva

Supervision is increasingly recognized as a distinct and essential professional competency in health service psychology, including school psychology (American Psychological Association, 2015). The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP, 2011) “strongly promotes the professional supervision of school psychologists by school psychologists” at all levels to support effective school psychology training and practice (p. 1). Despite the fact that all trainees receive supervision during training, and approximately one third of early career practitioners have access to such support (Silva, Newman, Guiney, Valley-Gray, & Barrett, 2016), most supervisors are unlikely to have received formal supervision training (Flanagan & Grehan, 2011). As a result, supervisors may lack theoretical frameworks to guide their supervision. One approach that has emerged recently in clinical and counseling psychology is strengths-based supervision, a model built upon principles of positive psychology (Edwards, 2017; Wade & Jones, 2015). The purpose of this article is to describe a strengths-based approach to supervision in school psychology, including its application to the prevention and remediation of supervisee problems of professional competence.

Supervision in School Psychology

NASP (2011) defines supervision as an “ongoing, positive, systematic, collaborative process between the school psychologist and the school psychology supervisor” that promotes competence and benefits all parties involved (p. 1). Supervision is distinguished from related domains (e.g., consultation) by its evaluative and hierarchical nature. Goals of supervision include protecting the welfare of clients (e.g., students, family, staff) in addition to facilitating supervisee growth through teaching, serving as an emotional support for supervisees, and modeling competent supervision practices that promote the supervisee's ability to self-monitor in the future (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014).

Models of supervision in school psychology have borrowed conceptually from other health service fields such as clinical and counseling psychology (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). Many supervision approaches are tied directly to models of psychotherapy, yet school psychologists’ roles and functions are significantly broader in scope. Scholars have begun to build school psychology specific approaches to supervision, such as Simon and Swerdlik's (2017) developmental ecological problem-solving model. Such models are still in their infancy and require further conceptual and empirical exploration.

Strengths-Based Supervision and School Psychology

We define strengths-based supervision (SBS) as a process in which supervisors and supervisees collaboratively assess and build upon supervisee strengths, including cultural assets, and in which supervisee contributions to supervision are valued. This definition aligns with NASP's (2011) description of supervision, yet deviates from some traditional supervision conceptualizations by focusing on supervisee strengths rather than deficits (e.g., reframing as “filling in the gaps”) and by happening with rather than to the supervisee. Although supervision remains hierarchical, the supervisee is viewed as a contributor to the experience. SBS can be considered a framework for supervision in and of itself, or can be applied in conjunction with other supervision approaches (Nikter & Dowda, 2017). Despite being positively oriented, SBS does not ignore supervisee challenges, problems, or weaknesses. On the contrary, the supervisory dyad works together to focus on areas in need of development, with constructive feedback articulated within the context of a trusting relationship (Nikter & Dowda, 2017).

Although strength-based orientations to clinical practice have existed for decades, the application of a strength-based approach to supervision is relatively new (e.g., Edwards, 2017; Wade & Jones, 2015). Therefore, SBS has a limited empirical base and has yet to be applied in school psychology. However, SBS is built upon foundations of positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), for which there is a growing base of empirical support (e.g., Bolier et al., 2013), and has clear conceptual relevance in education (Conoley, Conoley, Spaventa-Vancil, & Lee, 2014). Several key SBS concepts are particularly applicable to professional supervision in school psychology.

Negativity bias. To avoid danger, it is adaptive for individuals to exhibit a negativity bias , or a tendency to focus on threatening aspects of events (Wade & Jones, 2015). If an event has potential negative consequences that are ignored, it may pose danger, while ignoring possible positive consequences may result in regret, but not threat (Wade & Jones, 2015). Negativity bias may explain why supervisors are quick to hone in on supervisee weaknesses, and why supervisees tend to recall what went wrong in their own work more easily than what went right. A negativity bias, whether or not supervisors or supervisees are aware of it, can orient the supervision process to focus on deficits rather than strengths.

Learned helplessness and optimism. Although a negativity bias may be helpful in the short term, it can be detrimental to long-term growth (Wade & Jones, 2015). For example, Seligman's (2002) work on learned helplessness suggests that a supervisee who receives ongoing negative, deficit-based supervisory feedback in conjunction with difficult work circumstances (e.g., challenging cases, limited training supports) may give up, believing competency is out of reach. In contrast, SBS reorients the supervisor's focus to how to foster growth by building upon what is going well. Such a focus may nurture learned optimism and help supervisees view problems as solvable and challenges as addressable setbacks (not permanent blockades) on the path to reaching goals.

Self-fulfilling prophecy. Negativity bias and learned helplessness/learned optimism intersect with the notion of the self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e., the situation where behavioral expectations directly or indirectly cause behaviors to become true). A focus on supervisee deficiencies could lead to decreased expectations of the supervisee from self or supervisor, and poorer performance. Contrastingly, in a SBS framework, positive expectations from a supervisor would lead to enhanced supervisee expectations and stronger performance (Edwards, 2017). Establishing a positive self-fulfilling prophecy can occur early in the supervision process. For example, a supervisor can introduce a new supervisee to the school staff by highlighting strengths, including the reasons that individual was hired (Wade & Jones, 2015).

Broaden-and-build theory. Fredrickson's (2001) broaden-and-build theory suggests that positive emotions act to (a) widen an individual's short-term repertoire of potential thoughts and actions; (b) enhance long-term resources, strategies, well-being, and health; and (c) alleviate harmful consequences of prior negative emotional experiences. For example, consider an intern experiencing mixed results implementing a lunch bunch group. Emphasizing successes (e.g., “What went right?” or “What went well that we can build upon?”) may provide a more fruitful starting point than immediately honing in on what went wrong. A strength-based focus could help to broaden and build upon the intern's positive feelings, knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, and pragmatic next steps for the lunch bunch and other activities. Challenges are not ignored; rather, they are viewed as opportunities for growth in conjunction with building on strengths to broaden the supervisee's breadth of success.

Culturally responsive supervision. In increasingly diverse school-based settings, “the practice of the supervisee and the process of supervision must be ecologically sensitive and consider the influences of all environmental and contextual factors” (Simon & Swerdlik, 2017, p. 143). However, addressing issues of diversity in supervision is a challenging supervisory task, “raising images of a minefield to be crossed, filled with perils” (Wade & Jones, 2015, p. 127). On the contrary, in SBS, diversity is viewed as a bridge that strengthens supervision processes and outcomes (Wade & Jones, 2015). Consistent with the growth mindset, cultural responsiveness in school psychology is viewed as a journey rather than a destination (Simon & Swerdlik, 2017). This perspective can be made explicit in supervision, permitting important discussions of cultural similarities and differences, and their saliency for practice and for the supervision itself. Given hierarchical differences in the relationship, it is incumbent upon the supervisor to initiate discussions about culture and other diversity factors (Eklund, Aros-O'Malley, & Murrieta, 2014). In so doing, supervisors can highlight the value of cultural differences in fostering diverse perspectives, new insights, and flexible practices.

Reframing Problems of Professional Competence Through SBS

One might question how SBS applies when a supervisee is exhibiting problems of professional competence (PPC), or performance, behavior, or attitudes that are misaligned with professional expectations or standards given a supervisee's stage of training or practice (Elman & Forrest, 2007). These circumstances certainly pose challenges: Most training programs report dismissing at least one trainee every 3 to 5 years (Forrest, Elman, Gizara, & Vacha-Haase, 1999) and trainees themselves can identify peers with PPC (Shen-Miller et al., 2015). Although PPC are relatively infrequent in terms of overall occurrence, they can be time and energy intensive for supervisors to manage. Supervisors must balance advocating for supervisees with their evaluative role, while always protecting the welfare of clients, and they are not typically trained how to have difficult conversations with supervisees (Jacobs et al., 2011). As a result, supervisees that exhibit PPC can be moved forward like a hot potato from one supervisor to the next, without concerns being sufficiently addressed (Johnson et al., 2008).

Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) assert that “psychology is not just the study of pathology, weakness, and damage; it is also the study of strength and virtue. Treatment is not just fixing what is broken; it is nurturing what is best” (p. 7). How do supervisors build upon supervisees’ strengths and virtues, and nurture what is best when it comes to supervisees exhibiting PPC? A list of SBS supervisor actions that might support successful navigation of PPC, built upon suggestions from Wade and Jones (2015), are described in Table 1. The following brief case example further exemplifies several of these strategies.

Table 1 SBS Strategies to Support Supervisees With Problems of Professional Competence

STRATEGY	EXAMPLES OF SUPERVISOR ACTIONS
Reframe PPC from a deficit perspective to an ecological perspective	Move beyond “problematic supervisee” and consider contributions of factors such as:
Emphasize prevention and early intervention
Intervene within the context of a strong supervision relationship
Engaging in ongoing self-reflection	Ask questions such as: Model for your supervisee your own periodic self-assessment of skills in growing areas, such as developing cultural responsiveness or working with specific populations.

Sbs in School Psychology: An Example

Jill was excited about the many strengths her new intern, Lilah, would bring to her internship year. During their first meeting, Jill asked Lilah to describe her training and share examples of positive feedback she had received from faculty and field supervisors. To facilitate entry to the district, Jill included Lilah in all faculty and staff events and introduced her to colleagues, enthusiastically noting Lilah's specific areas of interest and experience.

Come October, Jill had concerns. She liked Lilah, but she found it difficult to respond to her many questions each day, and observed that Lilah made scoring errors on tests and lacked confidence in her abilities. She contacted Lilah's university-based supervisor to inform her of the situation and committed herself to applying SBS principles to support Lilah's development.

During supervision the next morning, Jill stated, “Lilah, I am enjoying our work together, but I feel like I am not doing all I can to support you. I remember how stressful it was to adjust to a new role, a new school culture, and a new supervisor when I started my internship. I want to think of ways we can use your areas of strength to build your skills and help you to feel more comfortable and confident. Remember that no intern begins the year ready to be a credentialed school psychologist—if they did, there would be no need for internship! So, to start, I want you to think of three areas of strength you bring to your work as a school psychologist.” Though surprised by the question, Lilah identified three strengths. Jill discussed specific cases in which Lilah had overcome challenges to support students and families, and reframed Lilah's struggles with the technical aspects of assessment as another type of trial to work through. Jill emphasized the value of making mistakes, highlighting for Lilah how they provided opportunities to learn from constructive feedback.

Of course, Jill knew she could not simply ignore Lilah's difficulties with assessment. She also recognized that several ecological factors had affected Lilah's ability to be successful with assessment, including limited opportunities to conduct comprehensive evaluations during practicum and lack of appropriate scaffolding from Jill. They agreed to step back and use an “I do, we do, you do” approach in conjunction with a specific set of assessment objectives (e.g., “I will observe all basal and ceiling rules correctly”) that would indicate when Lilah was ready to take cases on her own. Jill also worked with Lilah to identify examples of questions that she should bring to Jill immediately and those that she could attempt to answer for herself before requesting clarification. Both parties agreed to monitor progress in these areas as a specific feature of weekly supervision sessions.

Jill made consistent efforts to praise Lilah for her ongoing improvements and shared feedback from teachers and parents who had positive impressions of their work with Lilah. Over the course of the year Lilah became competent in the assessment of students with a variety of disabilities and her confidence grew. In June, as Jill reviewed the summative evaluation form required by Lilah's university, she highlighted all the growth and progress Lilah had made during the year. Lilah attributed much of her success to Jill's patience, support, and high expectations: “Once I knew you really believed in me, I started to believe in myself.”

Professional supervision is essential for learning in school psychology. However, school psychology-specific approaches to supervision are only beginning to emerge. SBS, an approach built on the research-based foundations of positive psychology, appears relevant to inform supervision in school psychology. SBS focuses on supervisees’ strengths and positive qualities and treats them as building blocks for the development of professional competency. Although the application of SBS might require a shift in mindset for supervisors and supervisees, it is likely well worth the effort.

D aniel S. N ewman , PhD, NCSP, is an assistant professor of school psychology in the department of human services at the University of Cincinnati. His research interests include school consultation practice and training, supervision, and professional issues in school psychology.. M eaghan C. G uiney , PhD, NCSP, is a clinical assistant professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Teaneck, New Jersey.. A rlene E. S ilva , PhD, NCSP, is the school psychology department chair and an associate professor at William James College in Newton, Massachusetts. Her research and practice interests include consultee-centered consultation, culturally responsive practice, supervision and mentoring, and systems change.