Parent Perspectives on Psychological Evaluation Reports: A Qualitative Analysis

Parent Perspectives on Psychological Evaluation Reports: A Qualitative Analysis | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Parent Perspectives on Psychological Evaluation Reports: A Qualitative Analysis John Hite This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7882779/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study presents a secondary analysis of qualitative data from Hite ( 2017 ), examining parent perspectives on psychological evaluation reports. Thirty-eight parents reviewed paired reports about fictional children—one traditional, one consumer-focused—and provided written comments. Thematic analysis was conducted on 52 comments (some parents commented on both reports). Traditional reports used technical language and test-by-test organization, while consumer-focused reports employed plain language and theme-based integration. A descriptive, semantic thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's (2006) framework identified four themes. For traditional reports, the key themes were difficult to understand and disempowering . For consumer-focused reports, themes included accessible language and helpful organization and content . Furthermore, parents often described traditional reports as creating barriers to understanding and participation, while in contrast, consumer-focused reports enabled comprehension and engagement. These findings reveal how parents experience different report formats and how report content can either hinder or enable parent participation in educational decision-making. Combined with decades of research on psychological reports, this analysis has direct implications for school psychology training and practice: replace test-by-test organization and technical jargon with theme-based reports in plain language to better serve children and families. psychological assessment psychoeducational assessment psychological reports psychoeducational reports special education health literacy Introduction National surveys indicate that psychologists providing school-based services spend considerable time on assessment-related tasks, including report writing (Farmer et al., 2021 ). Federal mandates (IDEA, 2004) require meaningful parent participation in special education processes and specify that written information, including reports, must be accessible. Nationally, about one in five U.S. adults scores at the lowest literacy levels on the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, making it extremely difficult to read technical texts (Keiper & Rampey, 2024 ). Research indicates that most traditional psychological reports require college-level reading ability (Harvey, 1997 , 2006 ). The mismatch between mandates for clear language, general population reading skills, and report complexity creates significant obstacles. Health literacy theory provides a framework for understanding these accessibility challenges in psychological reports. Ratzan and Parker ( 2000 ) defined health literacy as "the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions" (p. vi). In educational settings, inaccessible reports prevent parents from understanding their children's needs and advocating effectively, as health literacy theory suggests. When reports use extensive jargon, complex sentence structures, and unfamiliar organizational schemes, parents cannot participate as informed decision-makers (Harry et al., 1995 ). Recent experimental work shows that specific writing strategies improve comprehension and readability. Bejnö et al. ( 2025 ) found that student teachers rated theme-based, plain-language reports as significantly more readable than traditional formats. Kerwer et al. ( 2021 ) conducted two large-scale randomized experiments, finding that replacing technical terms with everyday language improved comprehension more than adding definitions in psychology research summaries. Evidence increasingly supports accessible report writing, yet many school psychologists still use traditional test-focused formats, and graduate students continue to struggle with report writing (Eriksen & Cormier, 2025 ; Harvey, 2006 ). Recent research also demonstrates that consumer complaints about psychologist reports focus on comprehensibility problems (Hale & Brown-Chidsey, 2023 ; King et al., 2023 ; Umaña et al., 2020 ). Hale and Brown-Chidsey ( 2023 ) surveyed 349 teachers and administrators and concluded that only one third read psychological reports in their entirety, with reports criticized as too long and difficult to understand. King et al. ( 2023 ) identified a disconnect between school psychologists and teachers, noting that reports were perceived as too long, filled with jargon, and containing vague recommendations that teachers struggled to implement. Teacher perspectives also reveal broader systemic challenges. Lindelauf et al. ( 2018 ) found that Australian teachers valued psychoeducational reports when they were accessible and relevant to classroom practice. Similarly, in an experiment with elementary teachers, Pelco et al. ( 2009 ) found that theme-organized, lower-reading-level reports received higher ratings than measure-by-measure formats for understanding students and developing interventions.Szulevicz and Arnfred ( 2024 ) analyzed recommendations across multiple reports and found evidence of generic, recycled language as well as declining perceived utility. Parent perspectives on report accessibility remain understudied despite parents' central role as educational decision-makers. Weddig ( 1984 ) found that parents struggled to understand and apply information from psychological reports, even those with high levels of education. Rahill ( 2018 ) documented both parent and teacher dissatisfaction with test-focused reports that prioritized psychometric data over child understanding and practical guidance.The present secondary analysis extends Hite's (2017) preliminary qualitative findings by consolidating overlapping categories and clarifying themes through systematic coding and independent peer review. Method Design and Theoretical Framework Parents reviewed paired psychological evaluation reports as part of a larger experimental study (Hite, 2017 ). The current secondary analysis examines parents' written feedback that was provided in the earlier study. A descriptive, semantic thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase guide and a codebook approach was used. This approach is appropriate for brief open-ended survey comments and enabled the researcher to identify patterns across the dataset.. Coding was primarily deductive—distinguishing responses to traditional versus consumer-focused reports—with additional inductive codes developed from the data. Semantic coding focused on explicit meanings in participants' written feedback. Participants The 38 parents who provided written comments for this analysis were drawn from the larger sample of 153 participants who completed the study. Nearly all had previously obtained a psychological or psychoeducational evaluation for their child. Of the 37 who responded to the school-dispute item, 21 reported significant disputes with schools, including recurrent disagreements, formal complaints, or due process hearings. Educational attainment in the sample was high: 20 participants held advanced degrees, 10 held four-year college degrees, 5 held two-year or technical degrees, 2 held high school diplomas or GEDs, and 1 reported less than high school education. In total, 30 of 38 participants held a bachelor's degree or higher. The sample was predominantly White American (n = 32), with smaller representation from Asian (n = 2), Black or African American (n = 1), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (n = 1), and Latino/Latina (n = 1) backgrounds. Materials Participants reviewed two psychological evaluation reports describing fictional fifth-grade students, one written in a traditional format and one in a consumer-focused format. Both reports were 5–7 pages long and described children with specific learning disabilities and ADHD, both commonly encountered in school settings. Each pair of reports contained identical assessment findings. Traditional reports (T1 and T2) incorporated features commonly found in practice. These included test-by-test organization, extensive technical terminology without definitions, detailed score presentations with percentiles and confidence intervals, complex sentence structures, and passive voice construction. These reports required college-level to graduate-level reading ability and were classified as "very difficult." Consumer-focused reports (C1 and C2) contained research-based improvements following Mastoras et al.'s ( 2011 ) C.L.E.A.R. framework. Features included theme-based organization integrating findings across measures, plain language with parenthetical definitions for necessary technical terms, behavioral descriptions emphasizing functional implications, active voice and shorter sentences, and summary tables with recommendations prominently placed. Readability metrics placed these consumer-focused reports at a middle-school reading level, classified as "fairly easy." These versions relocated detailed test scores to an appendix, prioritizing narrative interpretation in the main body. Parent Report Evaluation Scale (PRES) The PRES is a 12-item measure developed for the larger study. It incorporates items adapted from Pelco et al. ( 2009 ). Ten items use 7-point Likert scales assessing the constructs of understanding and utility. Item 11 uses checkboxes to identify helpful report sections. Item 12 provides an open-ended prompt: "Please offer any additional comments about this report, including what was helpful or what would have been helpful." Responses to this final item constitute the data for the present analysis. Procedure Data collection occurred through the Qualtrics online survey platform. After providing informed consent and completing demographic questions, participants (N = 249) were randomly assigned to read one pair of reports (T1/C1 or T2/C2) in counterbalanced order. Participants could view both reports while completing the PRES for each. The median completion time was 35 minutes. The study received IRB approval from William James College (Protocol #2017-042). No compensation was provided. From the 249 participants who initiated the study, 153 completed it. Of these, 38 provided qualitative comments analyzed here. Coding Framework Initial coding categories were established based on the PRES evaluation dimensions (understanding and utility) and report type (traditional vs. consumer-focused). The author added inductive codes as new patterns emerged from the data. Researcher Positionality The author developed the sample reports used and works as a school psychologist writing psychological reports. This dual role provided relevant insider knowledge but also potential bias toward consumer-focused approaches. Throughout the analysis, the author maintained awareness of how professional identity as a report writer might influence interpretation, with particular attention to parent critiques and suggestions for improvement of consumer-focused formats. Data Analysis Analysis followed Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase thematic analysis in a descriptive, semantic mode with a codebook approach. Comments were analyzed by report type (traditional: 33; consumer-focused: 19) to identify patterns within each type and differences between them. Phase 1: Familiarization. The dataset was read and re-read, with notes on emotional tone, salient features, and differences by report type. Phase 2: Coding. Line-by-line semantic coding captured what parents explicitly stated (e.g., jargon barriers, emotional reactions, practical utility, organizational preferences). A working codebook documented labels, definitions, and criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Phase 3: Theme development. Related codes were grouped into candidate themes. Given the brevity of responses, themes were presented as descriptive summaries of recurrent topics. Phase 4: Theme review and consolidation. Candidate themes were checked against coded extracts and the full dataset for coherence and distinctiveness. Overlapping or underdeveloped themes were merged or removed to improve clarity. Negative cases and exceptions were noted. Phase 5: Definition and naming. Final themes received concise labels and scope statements, and exemplar quotations were selected to illustrate typical and divergent cases. Phase 6: Report production. Themes were organized into a comparative narrative (traditional vs. consumer-focused) supported by illustrative quotations. Rigor and transparency. Decisions were documented in an audit trail to support traceability. A psychologist with school and clinically based experiences independently reviewed the coding scheme and theme structure. Multiple rounds of discussion between the author and reviewer led to consolidation and refinement of themes, with discrepancies resolved through return to raw data as needed, consistent with recommended trustworthiness practices in thematic analysis. Results Analysis of 33 comments on traditional reports identified two themes: (1) difficult to understand and (2) disempowering . Analysis of 19 comments on consumer-focused reports yielded two themes: (1) accessible language and (2) helpful organization and content . Theme prevalence is reported as counts and percentages; individual comments could contribute to multiple themes. Table 1 Traditional Report Themes (n = 33 comments) Theme n (%) Representative Quotes Difficult to understand 13 (39%) "The section with the test results was nearly impossible to make sense of. I had no idea, even with reading the descriptions of the testing what was actually being measured, and how." ; "I completed four years in a doctoral program in ed psych. I have received many reports like this for my son. They are hard for me to understand. They give me very little concrete information about what my son needs. They tend to give a vague diagnosis, but no practical help. I cannot imagine what parents with a high school degree do with such information." ; "This report is almost unreadable by a layperson unfamiliar with the terminology, and is a challenge even to those who have some familiarity with it. I found that the report took much longer to read and was bogged down by the detail which, had it been written in plainer language, would have been extremely helpful." ; "I had a difficult time comprehending the breakdown of tests, scores, index. The scientific type Jargon followed by different percentages seems clumped together. I felt overwhelmed when reading it and was unsure what things meant." Disempowering 7 (21%) "Just more of taking away my voice no power to be there for my boy." ; "Second report made me feel extremely uncomfortable, confused and anxious. I did not understand many of the terms used and gave up reading. Seemed like a snooty psychologist wrote it trying to intimidate the reader." ; "This report was a cold, clinical examination of Ruth's educational concerns. I really got the impression that the evaluator had taken Ruth and compared her as a student on a global stage. I as the parent, advocate, mediator or lawyer needs to envision Ruth in the classroom and get as close to her and the problem as possible." ; "This report is more about the tests than the child." ; "All I ever get from school." These themes capture both what parents couldn't understand and how that made them feel. The difficult to understand theme reflected explicit statements about comprehension challenges. Even parents with advanced degrees described reports as "almost unreadable" and "overwhelming." Technical terminology and score presentations created barriers that left parents uncertain about what the numbers meant and what their children needed. Comments coded as disempowering reflected emotional reactions—feelings of being excluded, diminished, or distanced from their child's evaluation. Some parents characterized the reports as "cold" and "clinical," saying they prioritized test data over understanding the child as a learner. These themes often co-occurred. Table 2 Consumer-Focused Report Themes (n = 19 comments) Theme n (%) Representative Quotes Accessible language 10 (53%) "I love this report. Examples are clear and easy to understand. There is way less information to decode. I believe this report would be less intimidating for parents." ; "This one was much more straight-forward – what a relief after slogging through the other one!" ; "This report is the most 'plain language' one I have seen in 12 years of reading my own child's and many other children's eval reports." ; "So much easier to understand. Layman's term" ; "Easier to read and understand for all parents. This version is shorter and uses language parents can understand and explains test results in laymans terms" Helpful organization and content 9 (47%) "The first option you provided looked exactly like the report I received. The 2nd option was significantly better for numerous reasons. Topics were categorized in a reasonable way. By breaking up the topics into categories it was much easier to follow." ; "This was a informative report. It expanded on what accommodations would help. Like the talking book. It explained what tests and what the scores reflected clearly. It puts the child back into the report. Where the other report made her sound more like a number/percentage." ; "I liked that all the test scores were grouped together at the end. They were there for support or referral but didn't feel confusing. I did appreciate having the data available. I felt the text was shorter and spoke to a common parent not a professional to another professional" ; "It was helpful to include the testing at the end of this one- I got completely bogged down in trying to understand that in the middle of the other one, when the numbers themselves were not as important." Parents' comments about consumer-focused reports emphasized different themes. Instead of describing barriers, parents identified specific features that helped them and expressed relief. These features included: plain language using "layman's terms," categorical organization that made information easy to find, and placement of technical data at the end rather than embedded throughout. Parents explained that these features enabled them to understand the information and apply it to educational decisions. Some noted that the reports felt written for parents rather than for communication between professionals. The helpful organization and content theme included frequent mentions of specific structural elements and thematic categorization that made reports easier to follow. Discussion As health literacy theory suggests, when information demands exceed individual capacities, this reflects poor information design, not limited individual ability. Applied to psychological reports, technical writing prevents parents from understanding their children's needs regardless of education level. Accessible reports reduce cognitive burden, allowing parents to focus on children's needs rather than decoding terminology. Parents described feeling relief when reading consumer-focused reports after finding traditional reports difficult to understand. Several parents noted that traditional reports reduced children to numbers and percentages. Consumer-focused reports, in contrast, "put the child back into the report." Even organizational choices can humanize or dehumanize. Theme-based organization integrates findings around functional areas and retains a whole-child focus. Other comments praised features such as placing scores in appendices, enabling parents to find actionable information rather than search through pages of technical data. Parents' observations suggest that report format does more than aid comprehension. It shapes how parents understand their child. When parents cannot construct a coherent picture of their child from fragmented test data, this compromises their ability to advocate for appropriate services. Practice implications. School psychologists can implement accessible report writing immediately by following evidence-based writing principles. Research demonstrates that five writing rules substantially improve report readability: (1) write at a middle school reading level, (2) replace technical jargon with plain language or provide definitions, (3) organize content thematically rather than test-by-test, (4) use concrete behavioral examples, and (5) place detailed scores in appendices. Systemic changes are also needed. Graduate programs should teach consumer-focused methods from the start and require readability checks on all assessment reports. Programs should also build parent-feedback opportunities into assessment courses. Communication skills are as important as assessment competence, yet research suggests such training is not widespread (Eriksen & Cormier, 2025 ; Harvey, 2006 ). Together, these practitioner actions and systemic changes ensure report writing meets both research standards and IDEA requirements for accessible parent communication. Limitations Participants reviewed standardized reports about fictional children rather than their own, which likely reduced emotional reactions and the perceived importance of decisions. Because follow-up interviewing was not possible, outputs are best interpreted as descriptive summaries appropriate for qualitative research. However, comments were brief and optional. Given the brevity of responses, themes described recurrent patterns rather than deep narratives. Systematic coding, category consolidation, and transparent documentation ensured analytical rigor. Recruitment through advocacy-oriented online channels produced a sample that was predominantly White, highly educated, and experienced with school disputes and therefore findings may not generalize to families with different backgrounds or to multilingual contexts. Future Directions Future research should examine parent perspectives using methods that allow deeper exploration, such as semi-structured interviews or focus groups. This research needs more diverse samples, such as families from varied cultural backgrounds, multilingual contexts, different disability types, and broader geographic regions. Studies examining how report format affects family-school relationships could also clarify if and how accessible written material shapes partnerships. Future research should also examine the relationship between consumer-focused report and actual parent participation in educational decision-making in practice. Conclusion Report format profoundly shaped parent experiences. Parents described how format affected their understanding and their ability to participate meaningfully in educational decisions. Traditional reports created two obstacles: comprehension difficulties and disempowerment. Consumer-focused reports supported engagement through accessible language and thoughtful organization. These findings support training and systems changes that prioritize communication as central to competent school psychology practice. Accessible reports enable parents to participate as informed decision-makers. Declarations Ethics and Guidelines The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the William James College Institutional Review Board (Protocol #2017-042). The research was carried out in accordance with the ethical standards of this committee and with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained electronically from all participants prior to participation in the Qualtrics survey. Participation was voluntary and respondents could withdraw at any time without penalty. Consent for Publication I, John Hite, grant Springer a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. Competing Interests The author declares no competing interests. Funding This research received no external funding. Author Contribution John Hite was solely responsible for design, analysis, interpretation, and manuscript preparation. Acknowledgement An AI assistant was used to flag jargon and difficult-to-read phrasing—guided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Clear Communication Index criteria - which the author then revised manually. The tool was not used for data collection, coding, or analysis. All interpretations and final wording are the author's. Data Availability The de-identified qualitative dataset, example reports (traditional and consumer-focused), and the author’s original doctoral research (Hite 2017) are openly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) at https://osf.io/eukh2/. Requests for additional information should be directed to the corresponding author at [email protected] . References Bejnö H, Sonning A, Backman A, Klintwall L. Improved readability in written neurodevelopmental reports by five writing rules. Scand J Psychol. 2025;66(1):28–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.13058 . Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa . Eriksen JL, Cormier DC. A piece of the puzzle: Student clinicians' report writing tendencies and the misalignment with recommended practices. Pract Innovations. 2025;10(1):43–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/pri0000251 . Farmer RL, Goforth AN, Kim SY, Naser SC, Lockwood AB, Affrunti NW. (2021).Status of School Psychology in 2020, Part 2: Professional Practices in the NASP Membership Survey. NASP Res Rep, 5 (3). Hale C, Brown-Chidsey R. Utility of psychological and psychoeducational evaluation reports: A survey of teachers and school administrators. Psychol Sch. 2023;60(8):2674–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22892 . Harry B, Allen N, McLaughlin M. Communication versus compliance: African-American parents' involvement in special education. Except Child. 1995;61(4):364–77. Harvey VS. Improving readability of psychological reports. Prof Psychology: Res Pract. 1997;28(3):271–4. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.28.3.271 . Harvey VS. Variables affecting the clarity of psychological reports. J Clin Psychol. 2006;62(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20196 . Hite JF. (2017). Parent evaluations of traditional and consumer-focused school psychological reports (Doctoraldissertation,William JamesCollege).ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED583208 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of. 2004,20U.S.C.§ 1400etseq. (2004). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1400 Keiper S, Rampey B. (2024).Highlightsofthe2023U.S.PIAACresults(NCES2024 – 202). https://ies.ed.gov/use-work/resource-library/report/first-look-ed-tab/highlights-2023-u-s-piaac-results Kerwer M, Chasiotis A, Stricker J, Günther A, Rosman T. Straight from the scientist's mouth—Plain language summaries promote laypeople's comprehension and knowledge acquisition when reading about individual research findings in psychology. Collabra: Psychol. 2021;7(1).),Article18898. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.18898 . King S, Ritchie KC, McGonnell M, Green JR. Don't do more, do different: Teachers' perspectives on how school psychologists can support their work. Psychol Sch. 2023;60(9):3169–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22917 . Lindelauf J, Reupert A, Jacobs KE. Teachers' use of psycho-educational reports in mainstream classrooms. J Psychologists Counsellors Schools. 2018;28(1):10–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2018.2 . Mastoras SM, Climie EA, McCrimmon AW, Schwean VL. A C.L.E.A.R. approach to report writing: A framework for improving the efficacy of psychoeducational reports. Can J School Psychol. 2011;26(2):127–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573511409722 . Pelco LE, Ward SB, Coleman L, Young L. Teacher ratings of three psychological report styles. Train Educ Prof Psychol. 2009;3(1):19–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.3.1.19 . Rahill SA. Parent and teacher satisfaction with school-based psychological reports. Psychol Sch. 2018;55(6):693–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22126 . Ratzan SC, Parker RM. Introduction. InNational Library of Medicine current bibliographies in medicine: Health literacy. National Institutes of Health; 2000. Szulevicz T, Arnfred J. A structured learning environment: The generic nature of recommendations in psychoeducational reports. Int J Incl Educ. 2024;28(4):567–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2023.2258371 . Umaña I, Khosraviyani A, Castro-Villarreal F. Teachers' preferences and perceptions of the psychological report: A systematic review. Psychol Sch. 2020;57(4):502–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22332 . Weddig RR. Parental interpretation of psychoeducational reports. Psychol Sch. 1984;21(4):477–81. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7882779","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":536032322,"identity":"08ed5045-e451-4252-a393-9003f0f72263","order_by":0,"name":"John Hite","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hite Strategies","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"John","middleName":"","lastName":"Hite","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-17 05:08:29","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7882779/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7882779/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":94733140,"identity":"d8d5cf0e-7b3b-485b-aef5-79431b36d4d3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-30 07:10:04","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":23336,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ParentPerspesctivesonPsychologicalEvaluationreports.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882779/v1/394457fac46c093e85c8c781.docx"},{"id":94733173,"identity":"1a73a3fb-d5a9-4143-ab3a-51a04660e9f4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-30 07:10:05","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3962,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4e98f40c9df0465db00889d0d08ebeee.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882779/v1/b46eda0367fefb4ed3f038a7.json"},{"id":94733136,"identity":"9f141b5b-b07f-4552-a392-962957814d7a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-30 07:10:03","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":64333,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4e98f40c9df0465db00889d0d08ebeee1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882779/v1/43d0c891db4a70df1fb9760a.xml"},{"id":94733133,"identity":"b6b4d911-3bca-47f8-bd8a-1673a23cd1d0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-30 07:10:02","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":59844,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4e98f40c9df0465db00889d0d08ebeee1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882779/v1/ce6a51a5ee530a3ff2a16e09.xml"},{"id":94733058,"identity":"57bde02d-07f3-464e-828f-623f7c881109","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-30 07:09:57","extension":"html","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":69546,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882779/v1/9d88b8a40a4e9890978e0f17.html"},{"id":99679649,"identity":"c97aadf0-20fa-4302-bc86-e38abc1fe17c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-07 08:40:52","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":549793,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882779/v1/2b5c79c4-9378-48cc-87b9-26c5d01139f7.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Parent Perspectives on Psychological Evaluation Reports: A Qualitative Analysis","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eNational surveys indicate that psychologists providing school-based services spend considerable time on assessment-related tasks, including report writing (Farmer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Federal mandates (IDEA, 2004) require meaningful parent participation in special education processes and specify that written information, including reports, must be accessible. Nationally, about one in five U.S. adults scores at the lowest literacy levels on the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, making it extremely difficult to read technical texts (Keiper \u0026amp; Rampey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Research indicates that most traditional psychological reports require college-level reading ability (Harvey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). The mismatch between mandates for clear language, general population reading skills, and report complexity creates significant obstacles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHealth literacy theory provides a framework for understanding these accessibility challenges in psychological reports. Ratzan and Parker (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) defined health literacy as \"the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions\" (p. vi). In educational settings, inaccessible reports prevent parents from understanding their children's needs and advocating effectively, as health literacy theory suggests. When reports use extensive jargon, complex sentence structures, and unfamiliar organizational schemes, parents cannot participate as informed decision-makers (Harry et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecent experimental work shows that specific writing strategies improve comprehension and readability. Bejn\u0026ouml; et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) found that student teachers rated theme-based, plain-language reports as significantly more readable than traditional formats. Kerwer et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) conducted two large-scale randomized experiments, finding that replacing technical terms with everyday language improved comprehension more than adding definitions in psychology research summaries.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvidence increasingly supports accessible report writing, yet many school psychologists still use traditional test-focused formats, and graduate students continue to struggle with report writing (Eriksen \u0026amp; Cormier, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Harvey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Recent research also demonstrates that consumer complaints about psychologist reports focus on comprehensibility problems (Hale \u0026amp; Brown-Chidsey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; King et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Uma\u0026ntilde;a et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Hale and Brown-Chidsey (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) surveyed 349 teachers and administrators and concluded that only one third read psychological reports in their entirety, with reports criticized as too long and difficult to understand. King et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) identified a disconnect between school psychologists and teachers, noting that reports were perceived as too long, filled with jargon, and containing vague recommendations that teachers struggled to implement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher perspectives also reveal broader systemic challenges. Lindelauf et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) found that Australian teachers valued psychoeducational reports when they were accessible and relevant to classroom practice. Similarly, in an experiment with elementary teachers, Pelco et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) found that theme-organized, lower-reading-level reports received higher ratings than measure-by-measure formats for understanding students and developing interventions.Szulevicz and Arnfred (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) analyzed recommendations across multiple reports and found evidence of generic, recycled language as well as declining perceived utility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParent perspectives on report accessibility remain understudied despite parents' central role as educational decision-makers. Weddig (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) found that parents struggled to understand and apply information from psychological reports, even those with high levels of education. Rahill (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) documented both parent and teacher dissatisfaction with test-focused reports that prioritized psychometric data over child understanding and practical guidance.The present secondary analysis extends Hite's (2017) preliminary qualitative findings by consolidating overlapping categories and clarifying themes through systematic coding and independent peer review.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDesign and Theoretical Framework\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParents reviewed paired psychological evaluation reports as part of a larger experimental study (Hite, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The current secondary analysis examines parents' written feedback that was provided in the earlier study. A descriptive, semantic thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase guide and a codebook approach was used. This approach is appropriate for brief open-ended survey comments and enabled the researcher to identify patterns across the dataset..\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCoding was primarily deductive—distinguishing responses to traditional versus consumer-focused reports—with additional inductive codes developed from the data. Semantic coding focused on explicit meanings in participants' written feedback.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipants\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e The 38 parents who provided written comments for this analysis were drawn from the larger sample of 153 participants who completed the study. Nearly all had previously obtained a psychological or psychoeducational evaluation for their child. Of the 37 who responded to the school-dispute item, 21 reported significant disputes with schools, including recurrent disagreements, formal complaints, or due process hearings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducational attainment in the sample was high: 20 participants held advanced degrees, 10 held four-year college degrees, 5 held two-year or technical degrees, 2 held high school diplomas or GEDs, and 1 reported less than high school education. In total, 30 of 38 participants held a bachelor's degree or higher. The sample was predominantly White American (n = 32), with smaller representation from Asian (n = 2), Black or African American (n = 1), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (n = 1), and Latino/Latina (n = 1) backgrounds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMaterials\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants reviewed two psychological evaluation reports describing fictional fifth-grade students, one written in a traditional format and one in a consumer-focused format. Both reports were 5–7 pages long and described children with specific learning disabilities and ADHD, both commonly encountered in school settings. Each pair of reports contained identical assessment findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraditional reports (T1 and T2) incorporated features commonly found in practice. These included test-by-test organization, extensive technical terminology without definitions, detailed score presentations with percentiles and confidence intervals, complex sentence structures, and passive voice construction. These reports required college-level to graduate-level reading ability and were classified as \"very difficult.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsumer-focused reports (C1 and C2) contained research-based improvements following Mastoras et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) C.L.E.A.R. framework. Features included theme-based organization integrating findings across measures, plain language with parenthetical definitions for necessary technical terms, behavioral descriptions emphasizing functional implications, active voice and shorter sentences, and summary tables with recommendations prominently placed. Readability metrics placed these consumer-focused reports at a middle-school reading level, classified as \"fairly easy.\" These versions relocated detailed test scores to an appendix, prioritizing narrative interpretation in the main body.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParent Report Evaluation Scale (PRES)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe PRES is a 12-item measure developed for the larger study. It incorporates items adapted from Pelco et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Ten items use 7-point Likert scales assessing the constructs of understanding and utility. Item 11 uses checkboxes to identify helpful report sections. Item 12 provides an open-ended prompt: \"Please offer any additional comments about this report, including what was helpful or what would have been helpful.\" Responses to this final item constitute the data for the present analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData collection occurred through the Qualtrics online survey platform. After providing informed consent and completing demographic questions, participants (N = 249) were randomly assigned to read one pair of reports (T1/C1 or T2/C2) in counterbalanced order. Participants could view both reports while completing the PRES for each. The median completion time was 35 minutes. The study received IRB approval from William James College (Protocol #2017-042). No compensation was provided. From the 249 participants who initiated the study, 153 completed it. Of these, 38 provided qualitative comments analyzed here.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCoding Framework\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eInitial coding categories were established based on the PRES evaluation dimensions (understanding and utility) and report type (traditional vs. consumer-focused). The author added inductive codes as new patterns emerged from the data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResearcher Positionality\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author developed the sample reports used and works as a school psychologist writing psychological reports. This dual role provided relevant insider knowledge but also potential bias toward consumer-focused approaches. Throughout the analysis, the author maintained awareness of how professional identity as a report writer might influence interpretation, with particular attention to parent critiques and suggestions for improvement of consumer-focused formats.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e Analysis followed Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase thematic analysis in a descriptive, semantic mode with a codebook approach. Comments were analyzed by report type (traditional: 33; consumer-focused: 19) to identify patterns within each type and differences between them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePhase 1: Familiarization.\u003c/b\u003e The dataset was read and re-read, with notes on emotional tone, salient features, and differences by report type.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePhase 2: Coding.\u003c/b\u003e Line-by-line semantic coding captured what parents explicitly stated (e.g., jargon barriers, emotional reactions, practical utility, organizational preferences). A working codebook documented labels, definitions, and criteria for inclusion and exclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePhase 3: Theme development.\u003c/b\u003e Related codes were grouped into candidate themes. Given the brevity of responses, themes were presented as descriptive summaries of recurrent topics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePhase 4: Theme review and consolidation.\u003c/b\u003e Candidate themes were checked against coded extracts and the full dataset for coherence and distinctiveness. Overlapping or underdeveloped themes were merged or removed to improve clarity. Negative cases and exceptions were noted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePhase 5: Definition and naming.\u003c/b\u003e Final themes received concise labels and scope statements, and exemplar quotations were selected to illustrate typical and divergent cases.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePhase 6: Report production.\u003c/b\u003e Themes were organized into a comparative narrative (traditional vs. consumer-focused) supported by illustrative quotations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRigor and transparency.\u003c/b\u003e Decisions were documented in an audit trail to support traceability. A psychologist with school and clinically based experiences independently reviewed the coding scheme and theme structure. Multiple rounds of discussion between the author and reviewer led to consolidation and refinement of themes, with discrepancies resolved through return to raw data as needed, consistent with recommended trustworthiness practices in thematic analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of 33 comments on traditional reports identified two themes: (1) \u003cem\u003edifficult to understand\u003c/em\u003e and (2) \u003cem\u003edisempowering\u003c/em\u003e. Analysis of 19 comments on consumer-focused reports yielded two themes: (1) \u003cem\u003eaccessible language\u003c/em\u003e and (2) \u003cem\u003ehelpful organization and content\u003c/em\u003e. Theme prevalence is reported as counts and percentages; individual comments could contribute to multiple themes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraditional Report Themes (n = 33 comments)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheme\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRepresentative Quotes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDifficult to understand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13 (39%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"The section with the test results was nearly impossible to make sense of. I had no idea, even with reading the descriptions of the testing what was actually being measured, and how.\" ; \"I completed four years in a doctoral program in ed psych. I have received many reports like this for my son. They are hard for me to understand. They give me very little concrete information about what my son needs. They tend to give a vague diagnosis, but no practical help. I cannot imagine what parents with a high school degree do with such information.\" ; \"This report is almost unreadable by a layperson unfamiliar with the terminology, and is a challenge even to those who have some familiarity with it. I found that the report took much longer to read and was bogged down by the detail which, had it been written in plainer language, would have been extremely helpful.\" ; \"I had a difficult time comprehending the breakdown of tests, scores, index. The scientific type Jargon followed by different percentages seems clumped together. I felt overwhelmed when reading it and was unsure what things meant.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDisempowering\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7 (21%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Just more of taking away my voice no power to be there for my boy.\" ; \"Second report made me feel extremely uncomfortable, confused and anxious. I did not understand many of the terms used and gave up reading. Seemed like a snooty psychologist wrote it trying to intimidate the reader.\" ; \"This report was a cold, clinical examination of Ruth's educational concerns. I really got the impression that the evaluator had taken Ruth and compared her as a student on a global stage. I as the parent, advocate, mediator or lawyer needs to envision Ruth in the classroom and get as close to her and the problem as possible.\" ; \"This report is more about the tests than the child.\" ; \"All I ever get from school.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e These themes capture both what parents couldn't understand and how that made them feel. The \u003cem\u003edifficult to understand\u003c/em\u003e theme reflected explicit statements about comprehension challenges. Even parents with advanced degrees described reports as \"almost unreadable\" and \"overwhelming.\" Technical terminology and score presentations created barriers that left parents uncertain about what the numbers meant and what their children needed. Comments coded as \u003cem\u003edisempowering\u003c/em\u003e reflected emotional reactions—feelings of being excluded, diminished, or distanced from their child's evaluation. Some parents characterized the reports as \"cold\" and \"clinical,\" saying they prioritized test data over understanding the child as a learner. These themes often co-occurred.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsumer-Focused Report Themes (n = 19 comments)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheme\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRepresentative Quotes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAccessible language\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10 (53%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"I love this report. Examples are clear and easy to understand. There is way less information to decode. I believe this report would be less intimidating for parents.\" ; \"This one was much more straight-forward – what a relief after slogging through the other one!\" ; \"This report is the most 'plain language' one I have seen in 12 years of reading my own child's and many other children's eval reports.\" ; \"So much easier to understand. Layman's term\" ; \"Easier to read and understand for all parents. This version is shorter and uses language parents can understand and explains test results in laymans terms\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHelpful organization and content\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9 (47%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"The first option you provided looked exactly like the report I received. The 2nd option was significantly better for numerous reasons. Topics were categorized in a reasonable way. By breaking up the topics into categories it was much easier to follow.\" ; \"This was a informative report. It expanded on what accommodations would help. Like the talking book. It explained what tests and what the scores reflected clearly. It puts the child back into the report. Where the other report made her sound more like a number/percentage.\" ; \"I liked that all the test scores were grouped together at the end. They were there for support or referral but didn't feel confusing. I did appreciate having the data available. I felt the text was shorter and spoke to a common parent not a professional to another professional\" ; \"It was helpful to include the testing at the end of this one- I got completely bogged down in trying to understand that in the middle of the other one, when the numbers themselves were not as important.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParents' comments about consumer-focused reports emphasized different themes. Instead of describing barriers, parents identified specific features that helped them and expressed relief. These features included: plain language using \"layman's terms,\" categorical organization that made information easy to find, and placement of technical data at the end rather than embedded throughout. Parents explained that these features enabled them to understand the information and apply it to educational decisions. Some noted that the reports felt written for parents rather than for communication between professionals. The \u003cem\u003ehelpful organization and content\u003c/em\u003e theme included frequent mentions of specific structural elements and thematic categorization that made reports easier to follow.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs health literacy theory suggests, when information demands exceed individual capacities, this reflects poor information design, not limited individual ability. Applied to psychological reports, technical writing prevents parents from understanding their children's needs regardless of education level.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccessible reports reduce cognitive burden, allowing parents to focus on children's needs rather than decoding terminology. Parents described feeling relief when reading consumer-focused reports after finding traditional reports difficult to understand.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral parents noted that traditional reports reduced children to numbers and percentages. Consumer-focused reports, in contrast, \"put the child back into the report.\" Even organizational choices can humanize or dehumanize. Theme-based organization integrates findings around functional areas and retains a whole-child focus. Other comments praised features such as placing scores in appendices, enabling parents to find actionable information rather than search through pages of technical data. Parents' observations suggest that report format does more than aid comprehension. It shapes how parents understand their child. When parents cannot construct a coherent picture of their child from fragmented test data, this compromises their ability to advocate for appropriate services.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePractice implications.\u003c/b\u003e School psychologists can implement accessible report writing immediately by following evidence-based writing principles. Research demonstrates that five writing rules substantially improve report readability: (1) write at a middle school reading level, (2) replace technical jargon with plain language or provide definitions, (3) organize content thematically rather than test-by-test, (4) use concrete behavioral examples, and (5) place detailed scores in appendices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSystemic changes are also needed. Graduate programs should teach consumer-focused methods from the start and require readability checks on all assessment reports. Programs should also build parent-feedback opportunities into assessment courses. Communication skills are as important as assessment competence, yet research suggests such training is not widespread (Eriksen \u0026amp; Cormier, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Harvey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Together, these practitioner actions and systemic changes ensure report writing meets both research standards and IDEA requirements for accessible parent communication.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants reviewed standardized reports about fictional children rather than their own, which likely reduced emotional reactions and the perceived importance of decisions. Because follow-up interviewing was not possible, outputs are best interpreted as descriptive summaries appropriate for qualitative research. However, comments were brief and optional. Given the brevity of responses, themes described recurrent patterns rather than deep narratives. Systematic coding, category consolidation, and transparent documentation ensured analytical rigor. Recruitment through advocacy-oriented online channels produced a sample that was predominantly White, highly educated, and experienced with school disputes and therefore findings may not generalize to families with different backgrounds or to multilingual contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFuture Directions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture research should examine parent perspectives using methods that allow deeper exploration, such as semi-structured interviews or focus groups. This research needs more diverse samples, such as families from varied cultural backgrounds, multilingual contexts, different disability types, and broader geographic regions. Studies examining how report format affects family-school relationships could also clarify if and how accessible written material shapes partnerships. Future research should also examine the relationship between consumer-focused report and actual parent participation in educational decision-making in practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eReport format profoundly shaped parent experiences. Parents described how format affected their understanding and their ability to participate meaningfully in educational decisions. Traditional reports created two obstacles: comprehension difficulties and disempowerment. Consumer-focused reports supported engagement through accessible language and thoughtful organization. These findings support training and systems changes that prioritize communication as central to competent school psychology practice. Accessible reports enable parents to participate as informed decision-makers.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e Ethics and Guidelines\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study protocol was reviewed and approved by the William James College Institutional Review Board (Protocol #2017-042). The research was carried out in accordance with the ethical standards of this committee and with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e Informed consent was obtained electronically from all participants prior to participation in the Qualtrics survey. Participation was voluntary and respondents could withdraw at any time without penalty.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for Publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eI, John Hite, grant Springer a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eJohn Hite was solely responsible for design, analysis, interpretation, and manuscript preparation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn AI assistant was used to flag jargon and difficult-to-read phrasing\u0026mdash;guided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Clear Communication Index criteria - which the author then revised manually. The tool was not used for data collection, coding, or analysis. All interpretations and final wording are the author's.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe de-identified qualitative dataset, example reports (traditional and consumer-focused), and the author\u0026rsquo;s original doctoral research (Hite 2017) are openly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) at https://osf.io/eukh2/. Requests for additional information should be directed to the corresponding author at [email protected].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBejn\u0026ouml; H, Sonning A, Backman A, Klintwall L. Improved readability in written neurodevelopmental reports by five writing rules. Scand J Psychol. 2025;66(1):28\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.13058\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/sjop.13058\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77\u0026ndash;101. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEriksen JL, Cormier DC. A piece of the puzzle: Student clinicians' report writing tendencies and the misalignment with recommended practices. Pract Innovations. 2025;10(1):43\u0026ndash;57. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/pri0000251\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/pri0000251\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarmer RL, Goforth AN, Kim SY, Naser SC, Lockwood AB, Affrunti NW. (2021).Status of School Psychology in 2020, Part 2: Professional Practices in the NASP Membership Survey. NASP Res Rep, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(3).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHale C, Brown-Chidsey R. Utility of psychological and psychoeducational evaluation reports: A survey of teachers and school administrators. Psychol Sch. 2023;60(8):2674\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22892\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/pits.22892\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarry B, Allen N, McLaughlin M. Communication versus compliance: African-American parents' involvement in special education. Except Child. 1995;61(4):364\u0026ndash;77.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarvey VS. Improving readability of psychological reports. Prof Psychology: Res Pract. 1997;28(3):271\u0026ndash;4. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.28.3.271\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0735-7028.28.3.271\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarvey VS. Variables affecting the clarity of psychological reports. J Clin Psychol. 2006;62(1):5\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20196\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/jclp.20196\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHite JF. (2017). \u003cem\u003eParent evaluations of traditional and consumer-focused school psychological reports\u003c/em\u003e(Doctoraldissertation,William JamesCollege).ERIC.\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED583208\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED583208\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIndividuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of. 2004,20U.S.C.\u0026sect; 1400etseq. (2004).\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1400\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1400\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeiper S, Rampey B. (2024).Highlightsofthe2023U.S.PIAACresults(NCES2024\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;202).\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ies.ed.gov/use-work/resource-library/report/first-look-ed-tab/highlights-2023-u-s-piaac-results\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ies.ed.gov/use-work/resource-library/report/first-look-ed-tab/highlights-2023-u-s-piaac-results\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKerwer M, Chasiotis A, Stricker J, G\u0026uuml;nther A, Rosman T. Straight from the scientist's mouth\u0026mdash;Plain language summaries promote laypeople's comprehension and knowledge acquisition when reading about individual research findings in psychology. Collabra: Psychol. 2021;7(1).),Article18898.\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.18898\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1525/collabra.18898\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKing S, Ritchie KC, McGonnell M, Green JR. Don't do more, do different: Teachers' perspectives on how school psychologists can support their work. Psychol Sch. 2023;60(9):3169\u0026ndash;87. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22917\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/pits.22917\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindelauf J, Reupert A, Jacobs KE. Teachers' use of psycho-educational reports in mainstream classrooms. J Psychologists Counsellors Schools. 2018;28(1):10\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2018.2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/jgc.2018.2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMastoras SM, Climie EA, McCrimmon AW, Schwean VL. A C.L.E.A.R. approach to report writing: A framework for improving the efficacy of psychoeducational reports. Can J School Psychol. 2011;26(2):127\u0026ndash;47. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0829573511409722\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0829573511409722\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePelco LE, Ward SB, Coleman L, Young L. Teacher ratings of three psychological report styles. Train Educ Prof Psychol. 2009;3(1):19\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.3.1.19\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/1931-3918.3.1.19\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRahill SA. Parent and teacher satisfaction with school-based psychological reports. Psychol Sch. 2018;55(6):693\u0026ndash;706. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22126\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/pits.22126\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRatzan SC, Parker RM. Introduction. InNational Library of Medicine current bibliographies in medicine: Health literacy. National Institutes of Health; 2000.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSzulevicz T, Arnfred J. A structured learning environment: The generic nature of recommendations in psychoeducational reports. Int J Incl Educ. 2024;28(4):567\u0026ndash;84. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2023.2258371\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13603116.2023.2258371\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUma\u0026ntilde;a I, Khosraviyani A, Castro-Villarreal F. Teachers' preferences and perceptions of the psychological report: A systematic review. Psychol Sch. 2020;57(4):502\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22332\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/pits.22332\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeddig RR. Parental interpretation of psychoeducational reports. Psychol Sch. 1984;21(4):477\u0026ndash;81.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"psychological assessment, psychoeducational assessment, psychological reports, psychoeducational reports, special education, health literacy","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7882779/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7882779/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study presents a secondary analysis of qualitative data from Hite (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), examining parent perspectives on psychological evaluation reports. Thirty-eight parents reviewed paired reports about fictional children\u0026mdash;one traditional, one consumer-focused\u0026mdash;and provided written comments. Thematic analysis was conducted on 52 comments (some parents commented on both reports). Traditional reports used technical language and test-by-test organization, while consumer-focused reports employed plain language and theme-based integration. A descriptive, semantic thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's (2006) framework identified four themes. For traditional reports, the key themes were \u003cem\u003edifficult to understand\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003edisempowering\u003c/em\u003e. For consumer-focused reports, themes included \u003cem\u003eaccessible language\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ehelpful organization and content\u003c/em\u003e. Furthermore, parents often described traditional reports as creating barriers to understanding and participation, while in contrast, consumer-focused reports enabled comprehension and engagement. These findings reveal how parents experience different report formats and how report content can either hinder or enable parent participation in educational decision-making. Combined with decades of research on psychological reports, this analysis has direct implications for school psychology training and practice: replace test-by-test organization and technical jargon with theme-based reports in plain language to better serve children and families.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Parent Perspectives on Psychological Evaluation Reports: A Qualitative Analysis","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-30 07:08:11","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7882779/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"286f1d44-3e26-4e71-b965-e1be56b7c663","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 30th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-07T08:40:21+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-30 07:08:11","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7882779","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7882779","identity":"rs-7882779","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}