continuing professional development needs and activities of school psychologists

CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND ACTIVITIES OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS

evelyn fowler

Barbour County, Alabama School District

patti l. harrison

The University of Alabama

The study investigated school psychologists’ continuing professional development (CPD) needsand their relationship to selected demographic factors, preservice training, incentives, and typicalengagement in various CPD activities. A survey questionnaire was mailed to 500 randomly select-ed National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) members, and responses were receivedfrom 235. Respondents reported their greatest CPD needs to be in the areas of direct service andconsultation. No demographic variables were related to respondents’ CPD needs. Few preservicetraining or incentive factors were related to CPD needs. Respondents’ perceived value of preser-vice training in CPD management was related to their CPD needs, but few respondents reportedthat they had received this type of preservice training. Several personal incentives for CPD, in-cluding self-assessment of CPD needs, opportunity to practice new skills and receive feedback dur-ing CPD training, and opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of CPD training and CPD goal at-tainment were related to CPD needs. Respondents’ CPD needs in each specific skill area, includingdirect service, consultation, assessment, program planning and evaluation, supervision, and re-search, had significant but low correlations with the amount of actual CPD activity in the respec-tive skill area. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dubin (1972) observed that the durability of professional competence can be measured in termsof “half-life”—a term borrowed from the field of physics that refers to the amount of time requiredfor a substance to decrease to half of it original value. Dubin estimated that the half-life of a psy-chologist’s preservice training ranges from 5 to 10 years. Hynd, Pielstick, and Schakel (1981), con-sidering the rapid developments within the field of school psychology, estimated the half-life of itspreservice training to be about three to five years. Due to increasingly complex new challenges anda rapidly expanding field, the durability of today’s school psychologist’s competence may be erod-ing even more quickly. The changing demographics of the student population have reinforced schoolpsychologists’ need for additional training and skills upgrading. Today’s public school children havenumerous learning and emotional needs, which range from those encountered regularly by all schoolchildren, to those at risk for developing problems, to those exhibiting severe and profound learningneeds and emotional problems. Several contemporary researchers have noted, for example, that chil-dren’s legal rights and the recent medical and pharmacological advances have added younger chil-dren and children with more severe disabilities to the ranks of the regular school population (De-Mers, 1994; Power, Du Paul, Shapiro, & Parrish, 1995).

The need for continuing professional development (CPD), its benefits, and its theoretical ties toprofessionalism are well documented in the literature (Reschly & Grimes, 1991; Rosenfield, 1985).Many professions across the nation now require continuing education of some form as a means ofassuring quality control and accountability and as proof of competence for certification, licensure,or their renewal (Fowler & Harrison, 1995; Tucker & Huerta, 1984). Several of the suggested, moresalient benefits derived from CPD engagement are improved service provision, enhanced knowl-

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 38(1), 2001© 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

75

Note: This manuscript is an abbreviated version of the first author’s dissertation that was submitted in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School Psychology Program at the University of Alabama.The authors thank Dr. David McIntosh, Associate Editor, and two anonymous reviewers for the comments about an earlierversion of the manuscript.

Correspondence to: Patti L. Harrison, Ph.D., The University of Alabama, School Psychology Program, 303 CarmichaelHall, Box 870231, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0231. E-mail: [email protected].

edge, improved attitude, improved skills and techniques, greater confidence, increased awarenessand ability in dealing with others, better job performance, increased salary and fringe benefits, andjob promotion (Cervero & Rottet, 1984; Houle, 1980). As with other professions, the two nationalprofessional organizations that have school psychologists as members, the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), have addressedCPD issues in their ethical, service, and credentialing standards (APA,1992; NASP, 1994, 1997a,1997b). Attesting to the perceived value of CPD is the fact that many states now require a minimumnumber of CPD hours for school psychology certificate renewal and at least 42 states require someamount of CPD for renewal of independent practice license (Prus, Draper, Curtis, & Hunley , 1995;Prus & Mittelmeier, 1995).

Few empirically based, comparative studies devoted exclusively to school psychologists’ CPDactivities, CPD related factors, and instrumentation for managing CPD have been conducted. Brown(1994) described results of two similar but unpublished studies concerning school psychologists’ in-terest in CPD in certain subject areas and at a particular level. According to Brown, practitioners ex-pressed significant interest in CPD in intervention methodology. A few researchers have assessedschool psychologists’ CPD needs incidentally as a by-product of their primary investigation (e.g.,Ross & Goh, 1993; Watkins, Tipton, Manus, & Hunton-Shoup, 1991).

The specific focus of the present study was the investigation of school psychologists’CPD needsand their relationship to selected demographic, preservice training, and incentives. The current types,areas, amount, and frequency of CPD activities in which school psychologists engage were identi-fied. The study also investigated the relationship between school psychologists’CPD needs and theirtypical engagement in various CPD activities. CPD was categorized according to the six broad ar-eas of consultation, supervision, research, program planning and evaluation, direct service, and psy-choeducational and psychological assessment (NASP, 1997b).

Demographic, preservice training, and incentive factors were selected for investigation basedon previous literature suggesting their relationship with school psychologists’ CPD needs. For ex-ample, previous research suggested positive relationships between age and job satisfaction and be-tween tenure and years of experience and self-perception of competence (Levinson, 1990; Williams,Williams, & Ryer, 1990). Family responsibilities such as child care, family separations, and spousalobjections may act as deterrents or constraints to many professionals’ CPD efforts (e.g., McGowen& Hart, 1992; Wilson & Reschly, 1995). Preservice training is a factor that appears to be highly as-sociated with the CPD needs of school psychologists, because entry level skills following initial grad-uate training may impact continuing educational needs throughout school psychologists’careers. Ac-creditation and program approval standards directly influence preservice training and define thecomprehensiveness and scope of entry-level competencies, and it has been suggested that less thancomprehensive entry-level skills immediately impact CPD needs (Curtis & Batsche, 1991). Elementsof CPD incentives were identified in the literature as viable and relevant criteria for adult learning(e.g., Cervero & Rottet, 1984; Houle, 1980; Rosenfield, 1985).

Method

Participants

The participants for the study included 235 school psychologists working within the schools whoresponded to the survey instrument used in the study. Although a limitation of the study is its rela-tively small sample size, demographic characteristics of the present sample compared very favorablywith those of a national sample of the regular NASP membership for the 1994–1995 school year(Curtis, Hunley, Walker, & Baker, 1999). The present sample was 75.3% female and 24.7% male.The mean age of the sample was 45.5 years, and the majority (64%) of respondents were in the age

76 Fowler and Harrison

range of 41–55 years. Respondents were primarily married (71.9%) and had two or more children(52.3%). A total of 57% of the respondents to this survey reported experience ranging from 6 to 21years. The ethnicity of the respondents in the present study, like that of the Curtis et al. sample, wasprimarily Caucasian (95.7 % and 94.5%, respectively). Respondents lived in all regions of the coun-try, although most respondents (56.6%) lived in the middle Atlantic, south Atlantic, or southeast re-gions. The largest percentage of respondents (28.5%) reported working in a suburban school system,and the largest percentage (44.7%) reported serving all grade levels (i.e., elementary through highschool or grades K–12). The largest percentage of respondents (44.7%) in this study reported certi-fication or licensure by a state department of education and Nationally Certified School Psychologist(NCSP) status. Assessment and consultation were the two largest consumers of respondents’ dailyactivities. Nearly 40% of respondents reported that they spend at least 50% of their time in assess-ment functions, and 42% reported that they spend at least 20% of their time in the consultation role.

Instrumentation

The instrument for this study evolved from a CPD-needs inventory developed in the early 1990sby the first author. An initial rating scale for assessing school psychologists’ CPD needs was then de-veloped (Fowler & Harrison, 1995). Preliminary pilot testing with the initial versions indicated thatthe instrument had good overall clarity and overall Cronbach alpha coefficients of .96–.98.

The version of the survey used in the present study contained two parts. Part I contained de-mographic items, items requesting information about preservice training (see Table 1), items con-cerning incentives for CPD (see Table 2), and items requesting information about typical CPD ac-tivities (see Table 3). Part II of the survey contained a rating scale of CPD needs, based on the sixareas of skill development cited in the NASP’s Standards for the Provision of School PsychologicalServices (1997b). Subsumed under those six areas were a total 40 discrete skill items (see Table 4),defined by NASP as necessary components of a comprehensive psychological service delivery mod-el. Respondents were directed to rate the 40 items on a 5-point Likert scale according to need forCPD in their present position. The alpha coefficient for the present sample of 235 school psycholo-gists was .92 for the total score of the rating scale of CPD needs. Alpha coefficients for the subscaleswere Assessment, .86; Consultation, .77; Direct Service .78; Program Planning and Evaluation, .85;Research, .90; and Supervision .78.

Procedures

The NASP central office provided mailing labels for a random sample of 500 NASP memberswho were school psychology practitioners working within the schools. The survey instrument usedin the study was mailed to the 500 prospective respondents in December 1996. As an incentive forresponding, participants were informed that by completing and returning their response sheet, theywould be entered in a drawing for a gift to be held at the conclusion of the study. Those proceduresproduced an initial return of 203 usable surveys. Follow-up, reminder postcards were mailed a monthlater and produced an additional 32 useable surveys. In all, 235 useable surveys were returned, or areturn rate of 47%.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Preservice Training Factors (Table 1). Most respondents held sixth-year or specialist degrees(52.8%), received their school psychology degree after 1981 (62.6%), and reported that their pre-service training program was state only (31.3%) or both state-approved and NASP-approved(24.9%). Regarding preservice training in CPD self-management (e.g., selecting CPD goals, select-

Continuing Professional Development 77


Table 1 Frequency Data for Preservice Training Factors of the Respondents

n %

Degree LevelMaster’s degree 60 25.5Sixth-year/Specialist (Ed.S.) 124 52.8Doctorate (Ed.D.) 10 4.3Doctorate (Psy.D.) 5 2.1Doctorate (Ph.D.) 36 15.3Total 235

Recency of School Psychology DegreeBefore 1970 8 3.41970–1975 30 12.91976–1980 9 21.01981–1985 41 17.61986–1990 35 15.0After 1991 70 30.0Total 233

Preservice Training Program Accreditation Approvala

Not accredited 3 1.3SDE 73 31.3NASP 15 6.4APA 8 3.4Both SDE & NASP 58 24.9Both SDE & APA 12 5.2Both NASP & APA 10 4.3SDE/NASP/APA 29 12.4Other 1 0.4Unknown 24 10.3Total 233

Preservice Training in CPD Self ManagementYes 25 10.7No 209 89.3Total 234

Preservice Training in Aspects of CPD Self ManagementSelecting and stating CPD goals and objectives

Yes 5 2.2No 227 97.8Total 231

Selecting learning options to meet CPD goalsYes 5 2.2No 227 97.8Total 232

Process for evaluating CPD goal attainmentYes 0 —No 232 100Total 232

Selecting and stating CPD goals and objectives and selecting learning options to meet CPD goalsYes 2 0.9No 230 91.9Total 232

(continued)

ing learning options, evaluating goal attainment), an overwhelming majority (89.3%) reported thatthey had not received such training. Yet, 83% rated the value of training in CPD management at orabove the scale midpoint of three (the mean rating was 3.54).

CPD Incentives (Table 2). About three-fourths of the respondents reported that state depart-ments of education and NCSP recredentialing requirements affected their CPD engagement. Paidleave time for CPD training (16.7%) and paid leave combined with monetary reimbursement for CPDexpenses (38.5%) were the most frequently reported employer-provided CPD incentives. Most re-spondents rated the value of personal needs and interests as CPD incentives likely to extremely like-ly to enhance their CPD participation.

Type, Level, Amount, and Frequency of CPD Activities (Table 3). Respondents engaged in avariety of CPD activities during the calendar year prior to completing the survey. Attending work-shops and institutes, inservice training, and self-study were the three most common types of CPDactivities. Respondents rated their level of CPD activity on a 5-point Likert scale anchored at the ex-tremes with A 5 no CPD activity to E 5 extremely high level of CPD activity. Ratings of C, D, andE were defined as moderate to high levels of CPD activity. Considered according to that criterion,moderate to high levels of CPD activity reported by the largest proportion of respondents (76.6%)were in the area of direct service. The largest percentage of respondents (43.2%) in the present studyreported that they engaged in CPD activities quarterly. Respondents reported varying amounts of


Table 1 (Continued )

n %

Selecting and stating CPD goals and objectives and evaluating CPDgoal attainmentYes 1 0.4No 231 99.6Total 232

Selecting learning options to meet CPD goals and evaluating CPD goal attainmentYes 0 —No 232 100Total 232

All of the Above 10 4.3None of the Above 209 90.1Value of Preservice Training CPD Managementb

A = extremely unimportant 9 3.8B 31 13.2C 78 33.2D 59 25.1E = extremely important 58 24.7Total 235Overall Mean Rating 3.54

aSDE 5 State Department of Education; NASP 5 National Association of School Psychologists; APA 5American Psychological Association.

bRespondents rated the value of preservice training in CPD management on a 5-point Likert scale anchoredat the extremes with A (assigned a numerical value of 1) 5 extremely unimportant to E (assigned a numerical val-ue of 5) 5 extremely important.


Table 2Frequency Data for CPD Incentive Factors Reported by Respondents

n %

Credentialing Inducements for CPDa

NCSP recredentialing requirements 50 21.3SDE recredentialing requirements 54 23.0Independent practice recredentialing requirements 4 1.7NCSP and SDE recredentialing requirements 70 29.8NCSP and independent practice recredentialing requirements 12 5.1SDE and independent practice recredentialing requirements 23 9.8NCSP, SDE, and independent practice recredentialing requirements 23 9.8Other 19 8.1Total 235

Employer Incentives for CPDPaid leave time for CPD training 39 16.7Monetary reimbursement for CPD training expenses 19 8.1Career advancement 2 0.9Paid leave and monetary reimbursement 90 38.5Paid leave and career advancement 1 0.4Monetary reimbursement and career advancement 12 5.1Paid leave, monetary reimbursement, and career advancement 13 5.6None of the above 48 20.5Other 10 4.3Total 234

Personal Needs and Interestsb

Opportunity for self-assessment of personal CPD needsA 5 extremely unlikely to enhance my CPD participation 36 15.3B 58 24.7C 76 32.3D 46 19.6E 5 extremely likely to enhance my CPD participation 19 8.1Total 235

Opportunity for input into formulating goals and objectives for personal CPD needsA 5 extremely unlikely to enhance my CPD participation 19 8.1B 33 14.0C 74 31.5D 84 35.7E 5 extremely likely to enhance my CPD participation 25 10.6Total 235

Opportunity to select learning options to meet personal CPD learning needsA 5 extremely unlikely to enhance my CPD participation 6 2.6B 18 7.7C 50 21.3D 95 40.4E 5 extremely likely to enhance my CPD participation 66 28.1Total 235

Opportunity to practice new skills and receive feedback during CPD trainingA 5 extremely unlikely to enhance my CPD participation 6 2.6B 22 9.4C 63 26.8

(continued)

CPD (total number of clock hours) for the past calendar year. The largest percentage (about 28%)reported 41 or more hours.

CPD Needs (Tables 4 and 5). Mean ratings for each item on the rating scale of CPD needs arereported in Table 5, and items with moderate to high levels of CPD need are reported in Table 5. Re-spondents’ two areas of greatest CPD need were consultation and direct service, and 50% or moreof respondents rated all eight items in the former and six of the seven items in the latter area as be-ing moderate to high CPD needs. The two skills rated by the largest proportion of respondents (80.9%and 78.3% , respectively) as needs for CPD were interventions for individuals and interventions foraffective development. Only three of the six items in the research area and two of the three items inthe program planning and evaluation area were rated by 50% or more of respondents as being a mod-erate to high level of CPD need, and those proportions were less than 62%. Only five of the thirteenitems in the assessment area were rated by 50% or more of respondents as CPD need areas. No itemin the supervision area was rated as being a moderate to high CPD need.

CPD Needs and Their Relationship with Demographic, Preservice, and Incentive Factors and Typical CPD Activities

One-way ANOVAs were used to investigate group differences in respondents’ subscale and to-tal scores on the CPD needs rating scale, with each demographic, preservice, and CPD incentive fac-tor as an independent variable in a separate ANOVA. Because of the large number of analyses, a con-servative alpha of .001 was used to identify significant main effects. No significant main effects inCPD needs were found for any demographic variables.

Significant main effects in CPD needs were not found for level of degree, recency of training,and type of training program, and were found for only one of the preservice training factors, “valueof preservice training in CPD management.” For this training factor, significant differences (p ,.001) in CPD needs were found on the assessment subscale, F (4, 230) 5 4.66, the direct service sub-scale, F (4, 230) 5 5.60, the research subscale, F (4, 230) 5 4.97, and the total scale score, F (4,230) 5 7.09.

Several significant (p , .001) main effects in CPD needs were found for personal CPD incen-tive factors, but not for credentialing or employer inducements. Significant main effects were foundwith the independent variable, “opportunity for self-assessment process of personal CPD needs” for



n %

D 96 40.9E 5 extremely likely to enhance my CPD participation 48 20.4Total 235

Opportunity to evaluate CPD training and goal attainmentA 5 extremely unlikely to enhance my CPD participation 16 6.8B 41 17.4C 77 32.8D 78 33.2E 5 extremely likely to enhance my CPD participation 23 9.8Total 235

aSDE 5 State Department of Education; NCSP 5 Nationally Certified School Psychologist.bRespondents rated the value of preservice training in CPD management on a 5-point Likert scale anchored at the ex-

tremes with A 5 extremely unimportant to E 5 extremely important.

Table 3Respondents’ CPD Activities During the Past Year

Engaged in CPD Did Not Engage inType of CPD Activities During Past Year During Past Year CPD During Past Year

n % n %

College course work 63 26.8 172 73.2Self-study 160 68.4 74 31.6Attended inservice training 219 93.2 16 6.8Taught courses 47 20.0 188 80.0Attended workshops and institutes 222 94.5 13 5.5Conducted research 40 17.0 195 83.0Wrote for publication 29 12.3 206 87.7Conducted workshops/institutes/inservices 142 60.4 93 39.6

Level of Respondents’ CPD Activities by Skills and Knowledge Areas During the Past Year

Ratingsa

A B C D E

n % n % n % n % n %

Consultation 54 23.0 72 30.6 60 25.5 35 14.9 14 6.0Program Planning & Evaluation 106 45.1 63 26.8 50 21.3 12 5.1 4 1.7Assessment 32 13.6 69 29.4 70 29.8 47 20.0 17 7.2Direct Service 11 4.7 44 18.7 78 33.2 77 32.8 25 10.6Research 188 80.0 27 11.5 11 4.7 8 3.4 1 0.4Supervision 185 78.7 27 11.5 12 5.1 7 3.0 4 1.7

Respondents’Amount (clock hours) of CPD Activities

n %

,5 hours 11 4.75–10 hours 11 4.711–15 hours 17 7.316–20 hours 28 12.021– 25 hours 27 11.626–30 hours 31 13.331–35 hours 18 7.736–40 hours 25 10.7411 hours 65 27.9

Respondent’s Frequency of CPD Engagement

n %

Weekly 9 3.8Biweekly 3 1.3Monthly 65 27.8Quarterly 101 43.2Biannually 30 12.8Annually 19 8.1Once every 2 yers 2 0.9Once every 3 years 1 0.4Once every 4 or more years 1 0.4Other 3 1.3

aAll items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale anchored at the extremes with A (assigned a numerical value of 1) 5 noCPD activity to E (assigned a numerical value of 5) 5 extremely high level of CPD activity.

Table 4Rating Scale of CPD Needs Item and Scale Means and Standard Deviations (n 5 235)

Mean SD

AssessmentAcademic Achievement 2.29 1.09Adaptive Behavior 2.58 1.15Aptitude/Interest 1.92 1.08Scholastic Aptitude 1.96 1.01Career/Vocational 2.09 1.22Ethical Considerations 2.52 1.14Family/Environmental/Cultural 2.87 1.06Intellectual/Cognitive 2.55 1.24Language/Communications 2.56 1.15Multifactored 2.67 1.08Non-Biased 2.57 1.16Personality/Emotional/Social 3.24 1.21Sensory/Perceptual-Motor 2.55 1.11

Subscale Mean of Item Scores 2.49 .69

ConsultationBehavioral Consultation 3.41 1.11Promotion of Improving Educational Systems 2.90 1.19Educational Consultation 3.08 1.10Facilitation of Delivery of Services by Others 2.63 1.19Professional Inservice 2.84 1.18Mental Health Consultation 3.04 1.06Promotion of Mental Health and Learning 2.84 1.02Promotion of Prevention of Disorders 2.80 1.11

Subscale Mean of Item Scores 2.94 .69

Direct ServiceInterventions for Affective Development 3.32 1.08Interventions for Cognitive Development 2.96 1.12Intervention Enhancement by Collaborative Relationships 2.69 1.16Interventions for Groups 3.25 1.11Interventions for Individuals 3.44 1.12Direct Service Interventions for Systems and Organizations 2.84 1.18Interventions for Vocational Development 2.24 1.23

Subscale Mean of Itme Scores 2.96 1.75

Program Planning and EvaluationDecision Making 2.49 1.11Planning and Developing Educational Evaluation Activities 2.69 1.15Program Planning 2.53 1.20

Subscale Mean of Item Scores 2.57 1.01

ResearchOn Educational Programs and Techniques 2.72 1.27On Educational Processes 2.41 1.16On Psychological Functioning 2.46 1.25On Psychological Treatments 2.81 1.28On Social Systems and Organizational Factors 2.23 1.13On Assessment Tools and Procedures 2.59 1.23

Subscale Mean of Item Score 2.54 1.00

(continued)



Mean SD

SupervisionContinuing Professional Development 2.45 1.24Supervision of Others 2.10 1.25Peer Review 2.05 1.21

Subscale Mean of Item Score 2.20 1.03Total Scale Mean of Item Scores 2.65 .57

Note. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale anchored at the extremes with A (assigned a numericalvalue of 1) 5 no CPD needed for this skill to E (assigned a numerical value of 5) 5 extensive CPD needed forthis skill.

Table 5Frequency Distribution of Respondents’ Moderate to High Areas of CPD Need

n %

AssessmentFamily/Environmental/Cultural 154 65.5Language/Communications 119 50.7Multifactored 134 57.0Personality/Emotional/Social 168 71.5Sensory/Perceptual-Motor 121 51.4

ConsultationBehavioral Consultation 182 77.4Promotion of Improving Educational Systems 142 60.5Educational Consultation 165 70.2Facilitation of Delivery of Services by Others 119 50.7Professional Inservice 138 58.7Mental Health Consultation 161 68.5Promotion of Mental Health and Learning 150 63.8Promotion of Prevention of Disorders 138 58.7

Direct ServiceInterventions for Affective Development 184 78.3Interventions for Cognitive Development 154 65.5Intervention Enhancement by Collaborative Relationships 124 52.7Interventions for Groups 175 74.5Interventions for Individuals 190 80.9Interventions for Systems and Organizsations 143 60.9

Program Planning & EvaluationDecision Making 120 51.1Developing Educational Activities 134 57.0

ResearchOn Educational Programs and Techniques 128 54.4On Psychological Treatments 145 61.7On Assessment Tools and Procedures 125 53.2

Note: The n’s for each item idicate the number of respondents who rated the item as C, D, or E. Mod-erate to high levels of CPD need were defined as those items rated by 50% or more of the sample as C, D,and E. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale anchored at the extremes with A 5 no CPD needed forthis skill to E 5 extensive CPD needed for this skill.

CPD needs on the supervision subscale, F (4, 230) 5 5.86, and the total score, F (4, 230) 5 5.49.Significant main effects were found with the independent variable, “opportunity to practice newskills and receive feedback during CPD training,” another one of the personal CPD incentives, forCPD needs on the direct service subscale, F (4, 230) 5 5.74, the research subscale, F (4, 230) 55.02, and the total score, F (4, 230) 5 5.05. Significant main effects were found with the indepen-dent variable “opportunity to evaluate CPD training and CPD goal attainment,” for CPD needs onthe direct service subscale, F (4, 230) 5 5.46, the supervision subscale, F (4, 230) 5 4.86, and thetotal score, F (4, 230) 5 6.3.

The self-reported CPD activities of the respondents, including type, frequency, amount (clockhours), and level of CPD engagement were correlated with the subscale and total scores of the rat-ing scale of CPD needs. In this analysis CPD needs and level, amount, frequency, and types of CPDactivity were treated as ordinal data and Kendall’s tau beta coefficient was used to analyze their re-lationships. Because fewer variables were used in the correlational analyses than in the ANOVAs, aless conservative alpha of .01 was used to identify significant correlations. As anticipated, the re-spondents’ CPD need in each skill area (direct service, consultation, assessment, program planningand evaluation, supervision, and research) was significantly related to their level of CPD activity inthe respective skill area, with correlations ranging from .16 to .23 (p , .001). Although statisticallysignificant, the correlations are of a small magnitude and may have few practical implications. Re-spondents’ self-reported clock hours and frequency of CPD participation were not significantly re-lated to their CPD needs. Respondents’ reports of their engagement in different types of CPD activ-ity (e.g., attending workshops, attending inservices, self-study, etc.) were not significantly related totheir CPD needs, with one exception. Respondents’ report of their CPD needs in the research skillarea had a correlation of 2.15 (p , .001) with their report of conducting research as a type of CPDactivity. Although the correlation is low, the result suggests that respondents have fewer CPD needsin research when they actually engage in research as a CPD activity.

Discussion

Empirical research on the CPD needs and activities of school psychologists has been lacking.For the present study, CPD needs were defined as a response to the items on a rating scale of CPDneeds. Responses to the rating scale suggested that consultation and direct service were respondents’two areas of greatest CPD need, considering that 50% or more of the respondents rated every itemin the consultation area and the majority of items in the direct service area as skills in need of CPD.In fact, about 83% of the skills rated by 70% or more of respondents as CPD needs were in the con-sultation and direct service areas. These skills included interventions for individuals, interventionsfor affective development, behavioral consultation, interventions for groups, and educational con-sultation. The only skill in the assessment area rated by 70% or more of the respondents as a skill inneed of development was assessment of personality, emotional status, and social skills. Only aboutone-quarter of the NASP-affiliated school psychologists supervise others (Ross & Goh, 1993), atrend that may explain the lower rates of CPD-need expressed by respondents in this investigationin the supervision area.

Significant relationships between demographic, preservice training, and incentive factors andCPD needs were anticipated, but few were found. The present study found no significant main ef-fects in CPD needs for any demographic variable including age, gender, and credential status, mar-ital status, parental status, and years of experience as a school psychologist. Similarly, no significantdifferences in CPD needs were found for degree level, training program accreditation, and recencyof preservice training. Significant group differences in CPD needs were found for respondents’ per-ceived value of preservice training in CPD management, suggesting that respondents’ CPD needsare related to their perception of the value of CPD management. Most respondents (83%) indicated


that preservice training in CPD management has value, but most respondents (89.3%) reported thatthey had not received such training in their graduate program. The results suggest that preservicetraining in CPD management is not offered, but is recommended by practicing school psychologists.For this sample of school psychologists, no significant group differences in CPD needs were notedfor the credentialing or employer incentive factors.

Although the sample was very comparable to the overall NASP membership, the relativelysmall sample of 235 may have contributed to the lack of significant findings for demographic, pre-service training, credentialing, and employer incentive factors. However, other possibilities for thenon-significant findings are that most professionals in school psychology, in general, may feel thatCPD activity is important, adopt a professional commitment to engage in CPD activity, and recog-nize their continuous need to acquire CPD regardless of their demographic characteristics, preser-vice training, or incentives. National and state school psychology standards and state and local edu-cation agency practices for all public education employees certainly emphasize the importance ofCPD. Findings of this study suggest that most of the respondents were very actively involved in CPD.The present sample reported a high level of CPD need in many areas, especially in direct service andconsultation. The present sample also engaged in frequent CPD activity. The most commonly re-ported frequency of CPD engagement for respondents in the present study was quarterly, followedby those who reported that they engaged in CPD monthly. Most respondents (71.2%) reported clockhours of CPD ranging from 21 to 41 or more hours for the past year. That amount of CPD obtainedannually would place the present sample well within reach of NASP standards and NCSP recreden-tialing requirements of at least 75 contact hours of CPD every three years (NASP, 1994). Most of therespondents engaged in similar types of CPD activities, and over 90% of the respondents had at-tended inservices and workshops in the past year.

Another type of CPD incentive factor investigated for significant group differences in respon-dents’ CPD needs was personal needs and interests. According to Knowles (1975), personal and pro-fessional needs and interests provide the motivation for professionals’ continuing education and ca-reer efforts. Significant group differences in CPD needs were noted for the personal incentive items(a) self-assessment of CPD needs, (b) opportunity to practice new skills and receive feedback dur-ing CPD training, and (c) opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of CPD training and CPD goalattainment. These findings lend support to recommendations that adults learn best when they are al-lowed to control their own learning by choosing learning experiences that are applicable to their in-dividual personal and professional contexts, self-diagnose their own strengths and weaknesses, andmake choices about those needs (Rosenfield, 1985; Wade & Reynolds, 1989).

Another purpose of the present study was the investigation of relationships between respon-dents’ CPD needs and their self-reported CPD activities including level of CPD activity, frequencyand amount or CPD, and type of CPD activity. According to respondents in the present study, mostof their CPD activity was in the areas of direct service, consultation, assessment. Respondents’ self-report CPD needs in each specific skill area were significantly related to the amount of CPD activi-ty in the respective skill area. Although the significant correlations were very low and of little prac-tical significance, they suggest that respondents engaged in CPD activity in the skill areas for whichthey had CPD needs. Respondents’ perceived CPD need was not related to frequency and amount ofCPD or type of CPD activity, again, perhaps because most respondents are engaging in relativelyfrequent and large amounts of CPD and use similar types of CPD activities, such as inservices andworkshops.

The present study identified important factors that may be related to the CPD needs of schoolpsychologists, but additional research would be helpful in planning for future CPD activities andpolicies in the profession. The sample for the study was drawn from intact, NASP affiliated profes-sional school psychologists practicing within the schools, and future research may include other seg-


ments of the profession such as non-NASP members, university trainers, and private practice prac-titioners. Only certain items (demographic, training, and incentive factors) were selected for exam-ination as independent variables in the study, and it is possible that future research may identify oth-er equally or more important factors associated with the CPD needs of school psychologists. Finally,the present study did not investigate an important assumption about a school psychologist’s CPD ac-tivity: CPD will lead to more effective services and better outcomes for clients. Future researchshould investigate the relationships between CPD, school psychology services, and outcomes forchildren and families.

References

American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psycholo-gist, 47, 1597–1611.

Brown, D.T. (1994). Will the real school psychologist please stand up: Is the past a prologue for the future of school psy-chology? The consolidation of the profession. School Psychology Review, 23, 589–600.

Cervero, R.M., & Rottet, S. (1984). Analyzing the effectiveness of continuing professional education: An exploratory study.Adult Education Quarterly, 34, 135–146.

Curtis, M.J., & Batsche, G.M. (1991). Meeting the needs of children and families: Opportunities and challenges for schoolpsychology training programs. School Psychology Review, 20, 565–577.

Curtis, M.J., Hunley, S.A., Walker, K.J., & Baker, A.C. (1999). Demographics and professional practices in school psychol-ogy. School Psychology Review, 28, 104–116.

DeMers, S.T. (1994). Legal and ethical issues in school psychologists; participation in psychopharmacological interventionswith children. School Psychology Quarterly, 9, 41–52.

Dubin, S. (1972). Obsolescence or lifelong education: A choice for the professional. American Psychologist, 27, 486–498.Fowler, E., & Harrison, P.L. (1995). Continuing professional development for school psychologists. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes

(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp. 81–89). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psy-chologists.

Houle, C.O. (1980). Continuing learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Hynd, G.W., Pielstick, N.L., & Schakel, J.A. (1981). Continuing professional development in school psychology: Current sta-

tus. School Psychology Review, 10, 480–486.Knowles, M.S. (1975). The modern practice of adult education. New York: Association Press.Levinson, E.M. (1990). Actual/desired role functioning, perceived control over role functioning, and job satisfaction among

school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 64–73.McGowen, K.R., & Hart, L.E. (1992). Exploring the contribution of gender identity to differences in career experiences. Psy-

chological Reports, 70, 723–737.National Association of School Psychologists. (1994). Standards for the credentialing of school psychologists. Silver Spring,

MD: Author.National Association of School Psychologists. (1997a). Principles for professional ethics. Bethesda, MD: Author.National Association of School Psychologists. (1997b). Standards for the provision of school psychological services. Bethes-

da, MD: Author.Power, T.J., Du Paul, G.J., Shapiro, E.S., & Parrish, J.M. (1995). Pediatric school psychology: The emergence of a subspe-

cialization. School Psychology Review, 24, 244–257.Prus, J., Draper, A., Curtis, M.J., & Hunley, S. (1995). A summary of credentialing requirements for school psychologists in

public schools. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp. 1237–1247). Silver Spring,MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Prus, J., & Mittelmeier, K. (1995). A summary of licensure requirements for independent practice in psychology and schoolpsychology. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp. 1249–1256). Silver Spring,MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Reschly, D.J., & Grimes, J.P. (1991). State department and university cooperation: Evaluation of continuing education in con-sultation and curriculum based assessment. School Psychology Review, 20, 522–529.

Rosenfield, S. (1985). Professional development management. In C.A. Maher (Ed.), Professional self management (pp. 85–104). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Ross, R.P., & Goh, D.S. (1993). Participating in supervision in school psychology: A national survey of practices and train-ing. School Psychology Review, 22, 63–80.

Tucker, B.A., & Huerta, C.G. (1984). Continuing professional education. (Report No. CE 040 445). Washington, DC: Na-tional Institute of Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 252 674).


Wade, S.E., & Reynolds, R.E. (l989). Developing metacognitive awareness. Journal of Reading, 33, 6–14.Watkins, C.E. Jr., Tipton, R.M., Manus, M., & Hunton-Shoup, J. (1991). Role relevance and role engagement in contempo-

rary school psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22,328–332.Williams, K.J., Williams, G.M., & Ryer, J.A. (1990). The relationship between performance feedback and job attitude among

school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 19, 550–563.Wilson, M.S., & Reschly, D.J. (1995). Gender and school psychology: Issues, questions, and answers. School Psychology

Review, 24, 45–61.


continuing professional development needs and activities of school psychologists

Documents