March 4, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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