View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

An Updated Analysis of Author Affiliation across Four School Psychology Journals: Is Practitioner Research Increasing?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An Updated Analysis of Author Affiliation across Four School Psychology Journals: Is Practitioner Research Increasing?
Language: English
Authors: Aspiranti, Kathleen B. (ORCID 0000-0003-3523-1338), McCleary, Daniel F., Ratliff, Stephen R.
Source: Psychology in the Schools. Feb 2018 55(2):165-175.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Information Analyses
Descriptors: School Psychology, Periodicals, Evidence Based Practice, Journal Articles, Classification, Authors, Regression (Statistics), Educational Research
DOI: 10.1002/pits.22097
ISSN: 0033-3085
Abstract: This study analyzed articles published in four school psychology journals ("Journal of School Psychology," "Psychology in the Schools," "School Psychology Quarterly," and "School Psychology Review") between the years 2009 and 2015. Articles were classified based on whether they were narrative or empirical, and affiliation of each author was classified as either practitioner or university. Results were compared to those of a previous study that similarly classified articles from 2000 to 2008. Across the years, the total number of authors increased; however, the proportion of practitioners compared to university affiliates decreased from 9% to 6%. In particular, a regression analysis revealed a large increase in the number of university secondary authors. Discussion focuses on examining the impact that practitioners' involvement in research has on implementing evidence-based practices within the schools.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1165813
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGwuAtZ74NtSNSdCREpWKg3AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGsVZVxco-AoDpaPvgIBEICBmyA6q2Mpr4nCk0ccdE2maIHSymf2oCFoA1u2V3cxAsZuSaoyw-gDwkVySAyMvlZXTMQf57f8LcUZK1rS6T_wjceNLpSKJR8xJD6uhfYOzmAutvxcSzakBrv9WfLIVIHclaX4VVVhyH9XcEfJv3oWD0BJ8sGAPWrTO1UKnH8ROKBi0nuTAgIjpfHJ-wrWGxbA70STN0wq79Z411-2
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0127188794;pis01feb.18;2018Jan10.09:07;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0127188794-1">An updated analysis of author affiliation across four school psychology journals: Is practitioner research increasing? </title> <p>Abstract: This study analyzed articles published in four school psychology journals (<italic>Journal of School Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology Quarterly</italic>, and <italic>School Psychology Review</italic>) between the years 2009 and 2015. Articles were classified based on whether they were narrative or empirical, and affiliation of each author was classified as either practitioner or university. Results were compared to those of a previous study that similarly classified articles from 2000 to 2008. Across the years, the total number of authors increased; however, the proportion of practitioners compared to university affiliates decreased from 9% to 6%. In particular, a regression analysis revealed a large increase in the number of university secondary authors. Discussion focuses on examining the impact that practitioners’ involvement in research has on implementing evidence‐based practices within the schools.</p> <p>authorship; practitioner; scholarship</p> <hd id="AN0127188794-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>School psychology journals show evidence of growing influence, as indicated by the increase of 2‐year impact factors (Floyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>] ). Nonetheless, a qualitative gap between the research being produced and the practitioners within the field continues to persist (Bliss, Skinner, Hautau, & Carroll, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>] ; Carroll, Skinner, McCleary, Hautau von Mizener, & Bliss, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>] ; Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref4">9</reflink>] ; Kehle & Bray, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref5">20</reflink>] ; Little, Akin‐Little, & Lloyd, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref6">24</reflink>] ). One reason for the gap may be that interventions that practitioners implement are often tested in a controlled research environment and fail to adapt to the school setting (Chafouleas & Riley‐Tillman, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>] ; Ringeisen, Henderson, & Hoagwood, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref8">31</reflink>] ). Such interventions are not readily generalizable to the classroom. When asked what the major barriers to intervention implementation are, 54% of intervention developers said the school lacked funds to implement the desired intervention and 33% of intervention developers said there was not enough time in the school day to implement interventions (Forman, Olin, Hoagwood, Crowe, & Saka, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref9">15</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Some strategies have been proposed to increase the generalizability of research within the field (Burns, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>] ; Dawson et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref11">11</reflink>] ; Payne, Gottfredson, & Gottfredson, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref12">29</reflink>] ). Researchers have suggested increasing the use of action research and qualitative inquiry methods to make research‐based interventions more applicable to the field (Dawson et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref13">11</reflink>] ). Others recommend providing a comprehensive understanding of the theory behind an intervention to provide practitioners the tools to adjust the intervention to suit their context (Burns, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref14">5</reflink>] ). However, improving the quality of the research does not help practitioners overcome the barriers met within the school system. It is also important to account for environmental factors within the school. For example, support from school principals and administrators are vital to the success of intervention implementation, fidelity, and success (Codding, Hagermoser Sanetti, & DiGennaro Reed, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref15">8</reflink>] ; Crone, Hawken, & Horner, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref16">10</reflink>] ; Forman, Lubin, & Tripptree, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>] ; Payne et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref18">29</reflink>] ).</p> <p>In other fields such as research on autism spectrum disorders, guidelines have been proposed to help bridge the research‐to‐practice gap. Dingfelder and Mandell ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref19">12</reflink>] ) suggest a diffusion of innovation model and offer a number of suggestions at each phase of the model to aid in bridging the research‐to‐practice gap. For example, practitioners should involve stakeholders (e.g., parents, administrators) and cultural brokers when developing the intervention, report the type of demands implementation and evaluation of the intervention places on those involved, evaluate intervention sustainability, and address barriers to using the intervention on an ongoing basis. Using these strategies will increase the likelihood that evidence‐based practices will be used and that research can be conducted on the implementation, fidelity, and effectiveness of such practices. In 2006, American Psychological Association (APA) defined evidence‐based practice in psychology as “the integration of the best available research and clinical expertise within the context of patient characteristics, culture, and preferences” (p. 273). Guldberg ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>] ) suggested moving toward accepting a variety of methodological approaches that play to the strengths of school practitioners, such as single‐case design and case studies.</p> <p>Despite the barriers to conducting research as a practitioner, practicing school psychologists are in a unique position to provide a great impact to the research base. For example, school‐based practitioners are working with students day to day, implementing interventions, and evaluating data from both the academic and behavioral progress monitoring of students. As part of the school system, practitioners can more readily effect change from within, in part because school personnel are more likely to be influenced by other school‐based professionals than they are by outside researchers (Merrell, Ervin, & Peacock, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref21">27</reflink>] ). School psychologists are trained in research methods, statistics, and data analysis (APA, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>] ; Merrell et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref23">27</reflink>] ; National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref24">28</reflink>] ; Skinner, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref25">32</reflink>] ). Formal research of interventions implemented within the schools and subsequently publishing the research could lead to more effective and robust interventions being implemented within the schools and provide a stronger research base for teachers and fellow school psychologists to choose from. A quick glance at the U.S. Department of Education's Institute for Education Sciences What Works Clearinghouse indicates few interventions are strongly supported by research (<ulink href="http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/">http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/</ulink>).</p> <p>The number of practitioners contributing to research is alarmingly low (Carroll et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>] ). Carroll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>] ) analyzed author affiliation across four major school psychology journals (School Psychology Quarterly [SPQ], School Psychology Review [SPR], Journal of School Psychology [JSP], and Psychology in the Schools [PITS]) from 2000 to 2008. Book reviews and introductions were excluded from their analysis. Carroll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>] ) indicated that of the total journal articles analyzed, 9% of primary authors were practitioners within the field, whereas the remaining 91% of primary authors were university affiliated. This was also true of the total percentage of secondary authors; 10% of secondary authors were practitioners in the field, whereas the remaining 90% were university affiliated. When analyzed by article type the results indicate the same level of practitioner contribution. Only 9% of primary authors of narrative and empirical articles were practitioners. Given that any school‐affiliated position, such as teachers and school counselors, were included in the category of practitioner, the researchers believed that the 9–10% was an overestimate of the number of school psychology practitioners publishing research. The results also indicated that this trend remained low from 2000 to 2008, ranging from 5% to 13%. This is discouraging considering that 83% of school psychologists are considered practitioners (Walcott, Charvat, McNamara, & Hyson, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>] ). Carroll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>] ) suggest that lack of time and adequate training may be deterring practitioners from contributing to research. Another possible explanation given by the researchers is that practitioners in applied settings are not interested in doing research. One recommendation to improve research participation is for graduate programs to enhance research efforts during graduate school (Carroll et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref31">6</reflink>] ; Skinner, McCleary, Skolits, Poncy, & Cates, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref32">33</reflink>] ; Villarreal, Gonzalez, McCormick, Simek, & Yoon, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref33">35</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Therefore, to determine if the number of practitioners contributing to research has increased, the current study analyzed the contributions of authors across article types (empirical, narrative, and total) in four major school psychology peer‐reviewed journals (i.e., SPQ, SPR, JSP, PITS) from 2009 to 2015. This study extends prior research (Carroll et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref34">6</reflink>] ) by expanding the years measured and comparing authorship longitudinally to the present. Additionally, data from the Carroll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>] ) study was compared to this study to examine if practitioner research has increased since 2008. Therefore, our research questions include: (a) how has the ratio of narrative to empirical articles changed since 2008? (b) Is there a change in the number of articles and average number of authors per article over time? (c) Has the number and ratio of practitioner authors increased across time? (d) Is there a change in authorship across the different types of articles across time? This study will provide valuable information as to the direction of practitioner research and provide suggestions for how to involve practitioners in research activities.</p> <hd id="AN0127188794-3">METHOD</hd> <hd id="AN0127188794-4">Sample</hd> <p>Articles published in four major school psychology journals between the years 2009 and 2015 were analyzed. The selected journals were SPQ, SPR, JSP, and PITS because they address general issues important to the study of school psychology and were used by previous studies addressing similar questions (e.g., Bliss et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>] ; Carroll et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref37">6</reflink>] ; Kranzler, Grapin, & Daley, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref38">22</reflink>] ; Liu & Oakland, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref39">25</reflink>] ). Special issue introductions and summaries, journal introductions, book reviews, and test reviews were excluded from analysis. All individuals listed as authors were included in the analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0127188794-5">Data collection procedures</hd> <p>Data for all identified articles were entered into a database and coded by author affiliation and article type. Researchers classified author affiliations as either university or practitioner through information contained in each article, usually found on the title page or within the author description. An Internet search was used for affiliations that were unknown. Individuals working within clinics or organizations affiliated with a university were classified under the university category. Any affiliation outside of a university, including school systems, private clinics, or research institutes, was included in the practitioner category. If an individual indicated more than one affiliation, only the affiliation listed first was coded.</p> <p>Each article was also coded as either narrative or empirical. Empirical articles contained data or figures. Studies that were descriptive, correlational, meta‐analyses, causal‐comparative, or causal were identified as empirical articles. Commentaries, position papers, or opinion pieces were identified as narrative articles. Narrative articles did not include any original data or original analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0127188794-6">Data analysis procedures</hd> <p>Data were analyzed across each year from 2009 to 2015. Each variable was summed across categories and percentages generated. Data collected were compared to the data collected from Carroll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref40">6</reflink>] ) across the years 2000–2008. Pearson's chi‐square tests of independence were used to determine significant differences across author affiliation by article type. Paired‐samples t‐tests were conducted between the data totals from 2009 to 2015 and the data totals from 2002 to 2008 found in the Carroll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>] ) article. Simple linear regressions were also conducted for proportion of empirical versus narrative articles, number of article types and authors, and mean number of authors per article through the years 2000–2015 to examine trends across the two studies.</p> <p>To achieve inter‐rater agreement and prevent rater drift, a second researcher independently coded 22% of the articles (Hallgren, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref42">18</reflink>] ). Inter‐rater agreement was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of agreements and disagreements then multiplying by 100. Inter‐rater agreement was 98.3% for affiliation and 98.8% for article type. A qualitative analysis indicated disagreements were due to human error and no consistent pattern for why raters disagreed.</p> <hd id="AN0127188794-7">RESULTS</hd> <p>A total of 1,181 articles were classified between the years 2009 and 2015. The number and percentage of each article type per year are provided in Table . Data from 2009 to 2015 were compared to data collected from 2002 to 2008 in Carroll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref43">6</reflink>] ). For these analyses, only 7 years of data from the Carroll et al. study are provided to make comparisons between the 7 years of data that were collected in the current study. The number of empirical articles was much higher than the number of narrative articles every year. The total proportion of empirical articles across the years 2009–2015 was 77%, ranging from 66% in 2009 to 87% in 2015. A paired‐samples t‐test was used to compare the total proportion of empirical articles (vs. narrative articles) from the years 2002–2008 to the years 2009–2015. There was a significant difference in the total proportion of empirical articles for the years 2002–2008 (M = .63, SD = .08) and the years 2009–2015 (M = .77, SD = .07); t(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref44">6</reflink>) = −3.67, p = .011. The proportion of empirical articles was significantly higher in the years 2009–2015.</p> <hd id="AN0127188794-8"> Number of articles across years</hd> <ct id="AN0127188794-9"></ct> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="10"><tr><th /><th>2009</th><th>2010</th><th>2011</th><th>2012</th><th>2013</th><th>2014</th><th>2015</th><th>Total 2009–2015</th><th>Total 2002–2008 from Carroll et al. ()</th></tr><tr><td>Number of articles</td><td>172</td><td>163</td><td>175</td><td>165</td><td>167</td><td>175</td><td>164</td><td>1,181</td><td>1,140</td></tr><tr><td>Average number of authors</td><td>3.27</td><td>3.39</td><td>3.42</td><td>3.52</td><td>3.35</td><td>3.58</td><td>3.85</td><td>3.48</td><td>2.98</td></tr><tr><td>Narrative articles</td></tr><tr><td>(N)</td><td>58</td><td>36</td><td>46</td><td>44</td><td>29</td><td>33</td><td>22</td><td>268</td><td>423</td></tr><tr><td>(%)</td><td>34</td><td>22</td><td>26</td><td>27</td><td>17</td><td>19</td><td>13</td><td>23</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Empirical articles</td></tr><tr><td>(N)</td><td>114</td><td>127</td><td>129</td><td>121</td><td>138</td><td>142</td><td>142</td><td>913</td><td>717</td></tr><tr><td>(%)</td><td>66</td><td>78</td><td>74</td><td>73</td><td>83</td><td>81</td><td>87</td><td>77</td><td>63</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The average number of authors per article across the years 2009–2015 was 3.48, ranging from 3.27 in 2009 to 3.85 in 2015. A paired‐samples t‐test was used to compare the average number of authors per article from the years 2002–2008 to the years 2009–2015. There was a significant difference in the total average number of authors per article for the years 2002–2008 (M = 2.98, SD = .31) and the years 2009–2015 (M = 3.48, SD = .19); t(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref45">6</reflink>) = −5.99, p = .001. The average number of authors was significantly higher in the years 2009–2015.</p> <p>The number and percent of university‐affiliated and practitioner authors are displayed in Table . A paired‐samples t‐test showed a significant difference in the total number of practitioner primary authors for the years 2002–2008 (M = 14.29, SD = 4.39) and the years 2009–2015 (M = 8.42, SD = 1.40); t(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref46">6</reflink>) = 3.18, p = .019. The number of practitioner primary authors was significantly higher in the years 2002–2008. Additionally, there is a significant difference between the proportion of practitioner primary authors (vs. university primary authors) from 2002 to 2008 (M = .09, SD = .02) when compared to 2009–2015 (M = .05, SD = .007); t(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref47">6</reflink>) = 4.10, p = .006. The proportion of practitioner to university primary authors was significantly higher in the years 2002–2008. Not only is the number of practitioner primary authors decreasing, so is the proportion of practitioner to university primary authors. There was also a significant difference in the total number of university secondary authors for the years 2002–2008 (M = 283.57, SD = 43.92) and the years 2009–2015 (M = 388.57, SD = 26.45); t(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref48">6</reflink>) = −11.03, p = .000. The number of university secondary authors was significantly higher in the years 2002–2008.</p> <hd id="AN0127188794-10"> Primary and secondary author affiliation across years</hd> <ct id="AN0127188794-11"></ct> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="10"><tr><th /><th>2009</th><th>2010</th><th>2011</th><th>2012</th><th>2013</th><th>2014</th><th>2015</th><th>Total 2009–2015</th><th>Total 2002–2008 from Carroll et al. ()</th></tr><tr><td>Primary author (N)</td><td>172</td><td>163</td><td>175</td><td>165</td><td>167</td><td>175</td><td>164</td><td>1,181</td><td>1,137</td></tr><tr><td>University</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(N)</td><td>161</td><td>155</td><td>168</td><td>156</td><td>158</td><td>168</td><td>156</td><td>1,122</td><td>1,037</td></tr><tr><td>(%)</td><td>94</td><td>95</td><td>96</td><td>95</td><td>95</td><td>96</td><td>95</td><td>95</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>Practitioner</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(N)</td><td>11</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>9</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>59</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>(%)</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary author (N)</td><td>390</td><td>390</td><td>424</td><td>416</td><td>393</td><td>451</td><td>468</td><td>2,932</td><td>2,192</td></tr><tr><td>University</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(N)</td><td>366</td><td>362</td><td>391</td><td>374</td><td>379</td><td>415</td><td>433</td><td>2,720</td><td>1,985</td></tr><tr><td>(%)</td><td>94</td><td>93</td><td>92</td><td>90</td><td>96</td><td>92</td><td>93</td><td>93</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>Practitioner</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(N)</td><td>24</td><td>28</td><td>33</td><td>42</td><td>14</td><td>36</td><td>35</td><td>212</td><td>207</td></tr><tr><td>(%)</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>9</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table displays the number and percentage of primary and secondary authors by author affiliation and article type across the years 2009–2015, as well as the numbers and percentages from years 2002 to 2008 from Carroll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref49">6</reflink>] ). A paired‐samples t‐test showed a significant difference in the proportion of university primary authors of empirical articles for the years 2002–2008 (M = .63, SD = .08) and the years 2009–2015 (M = .77, SD = .07); t(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref50">6</reflink>) = −3.74, p = .01. The proportion of university primary authors of empirical articles was significantly higher in the years 2009–2015. Additionally, there was a significant difference between the number of university primary authors of empirical articles for the years 2002–2008 (M = 93.29, SD = 13.38) and the years 2009–2015 (M = 123.57, SD = 12.04); t(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref51">6</reflink>) = −5.74, p = .001. There were significantly more university primary authors of empirical articles in 2009–2015 than in 2002–2008.</p> <hd id="AN0127188794-12"> Primary and secondary authors by author affiliation and article type across years</hd> <ct id="AN0127188794-13"></ct> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="10"><tr><th /><th>2009</th><th>2010</th><th>2011</th><th>2012</th><th>2013</th><th>2014</th><th>2015</th><th>Total 2009–2015</th><th>Total 2002–2008 from Carroll et al. ()</th></tr><tr><td>Primary author</td></tr><tr><td>University</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Narrative</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(N)</td><td>57</td><td>35</td><td>45</td><td>42</td><td>26</td><td>31</td><td>21</td><td>257</td><td>384</td></tr><tr><td>(%)</td><td>35</td><td>23</td><td>27</td><td>27</td><td>17</td><td>19</td><td>14</td><td>23</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Empirical</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(N)</td><td>104</td><td>120</td><td>123</td><td>114</td><td>132</td><td>137</td><td>135</td><td>865</td><td>653</td></tr><tr><td>(%)</td><td>65</td><td>77</td><td>73</td><td>73</td><td>83</td><td>81</td><td>86</td><td>77</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>Practitioner</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Narrative</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(N)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>11</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>(%)</td><td>9</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>22</td><td>33</td><td>29</td><td>13</td><td>19</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Empirical</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(N)</td><td>10</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>48</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>(%)</td><td>91</td><td>87</td><td>86</td><td>78</td><td>67</td><td>71</td><td>87</td><td>81</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary author</td></tr><tr><td>University</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Narrative</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(N)</td><td>74</td><td>51</td><td>63</td><td>67</td><td>54</td><td>37</td><td>36</td><td>382</td><td>500</td></tr><tr><td>(%)</td><td>20</td><td>14</td><td>16</td><td>18</td><td>14</td><td>9</td><td>8</td><td>14</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Empirical</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(N)</td><td>292</td><td>311</td><td>328</td><td>307</td><td>325</td><td>378</td><td>397</td><td>2,338</td><td>1,487</td></tr><tr><td>(%)</td><td>80</td><td>86</td><td>84</td><td>82</td><td>86</td><td>91</td><td>92</td><td>86</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>Practitioner</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Narrative</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(N)</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>24</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>(%)</td><td>33</td><td>11</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>14</td><td>6</td><td>20</td><td>11</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Empirical</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(N)</td><td>16</td><td>25</td><td>32</td><td>41</td><td>12</td><td>34</td><td>28</td><td>188</td><td>138</td></tr><tr><td>(%)</td><td>67</td><td>89</td><td>97</td><td>98</td><td>86</td><td>94</td><td>80</td><td>89</td><td>67</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A paired‐samples t‐test showed a significant difference in the proportion of university secondary authors of empirical articles for the years 2002–2008 (M = .74, SD = .09) and the years 2009–2015 (M = .86, SD = .04); t(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref52">6</reflink>) = −3.52, p = .012. The proportion of university secondary authors of empirical articles was significantly higher in the years 2009–2015. Additionally, there was a significant difference between the number of university secondary authors of empirical articles for the years 2002–2008 (M = 212.43, SD = 46.57) and the years 2009–2015 (M = 334, SD = 38.82); t(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref53">6</reflink>) = −14.16, p = .000. There were significantly more university secondary authors of empirical articles in 2009–2015 than in 2002–2008.</p> <hd id="AN0127188794-14">Regression analysis</hd> <p>To make longitudinal comparisons across the years 2000–2015, simple linear regressions were conducted to compare data across the current study and the Carroll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref54">6</reflink>] ) study. Linear regression results are displayed in Table . A significant regression equation was found to predict the total number articles by year (F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>, 14) = 11.57, p = .004), with an R<sups>2</sups> of .45. The predicted total number of articles is equal to −2,599.77 + 1.38 (year) authors when time is measured by year. The total number of articles increased 1.38 for every year.</p> <hd id="AN0127188794-15"> Simple linear regressions of authorship and number of articles from 2000 to 2015</hd> <ct id="AN0127188794-16"></ct> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="6"><tr><th /><th>B</th><th>SE B</th><th>β</th><th>T</th><th>p</th></tr><tr><td>Number of articles</td><td>1.38</td><td>.41</td><td>.67</td><td>11.57</td><td>.004</td></tr><tr><td>Average number of authors</td><td>.08</td><td>.01</td><td>.91</td><td>65.05</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Proportion of empirical articles</td><td>.02</td><td>.00</td><td>.80</td><td>24.00</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Number of practitioner primary authors</td><td>−.50</td><td>.19</td><td>−.57</td><td>−2.58</td><td>.022</td></tr><tr><td>Number of university primary authors</td><td>1.95</td><td>.41</td><td>.78</td><td>4.72</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Proportion of practitioner primary authors</td><td>−.004</td><td>.001</td><td>−.73</td><td>−4.00</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Number of practitioner secondary authors</td><td>.64</td><td>.58</td><td>.28</td><td>1.09</td><td>.294</td></tr><tr><td>Number of university secondary authors</td><td>15.27</td><td>1.22</td><td>.96</td><td>12.54</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Proportion of practitioner secondary authors</td><td>−.002</td><td>.002</td><td>−.35</td><td>−1.38</td><td>.189</td></tr><tr><td>Proportion of university primary authors of empirical articles</td><td>.02</td><td>.004</td><td>.79</td><td>4.86</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Proportion of practitioner primary authors of empirical articles</td><td>.01</td><td>.009</td><td>.31</td><td>1.22</td><td>.242</td></tr><tr><td>Proportion of university secondary authors of empirical articles</td><td>.01</td><td>.003</td><td>.68</td><td>3.48</td><td>.004</td></tr><tr><td>Proportion of practitioner secondary authors of empirical articles</td><td>.02</td><td>.008</td><td>.60</td><td>2.79</td><td>.015</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note: *p < .05.</p> <p>The average number of authors increased .08 for every year. A significant regression was found ((F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref56">1</reflink>, 14) = 65.05, p = .000), R<sups>2</sups> = .82) predicting the number of authors per year. A significant regression equation was found to predict the proportion of empirical articles versus narrative articles by year (F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref57">1</reflink>, 14) = 24.00, p = .000), with an R<sups>2</sups> of .63, meaning the proportion of empirical articles increased .02 for every year.</p> <p>Linear regressions were calculated to predict the number of university and practitioner first authors by year. Significant regressions were found predicting the number of practitioner first authors ((F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>, 14) = 6.65, p = .022), R<sups>2</sups> = .32), as well as the number of university first authors ((F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>, 14) = 22.30, p = .000), R<sups>2</sups> = .61). The number of practitioner first authors decreased by .5 every year, and university first authors increased 1.95 for every year. A significant regression was also found to predict the proportion of practitioner first authors (vs. university‐affiliated first authors) by year (F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>, 14) = 15.91, p = .001), with an R<sups>2</sups> of .53. The proportion of practitioner first authors decreased .004 for every year.</p> <p>Simple linear regressions were calculated to predict the number of university and practitioner secondary authors by year. A simple linear regression was calculated to predict the number of university secondary authors by year. A significant regression was found predicting the number of university secondary authors ((F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>, 14) = 157.24, p = .000), R<sups>2</sups> = .92), with the number of university secondary authors increased 15.27 for every year. However, there was not a significant regression found predicting the number of practitioner secondary authors or the proportion of practitioner secondary authors compared to university secondary authors.</p> <p>Linear regressions were calculated to predict the proportion of university and practitioner primary authors of empirical articles (vs. university or practitioner primary authors of narrative articles) by year. A significant regression equation was found (F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>, 14) = 23.58, p = .000), with an R<sups>2</sups> of .63, indicating that the proportion of university primary authors of empirical articles (compared to narrative articles) increased .02 for every year. However, there was not a significant regression found predicting the proportion of practitioner primary authors of empirical authors as compared to practitioner primary authors of narrative articles.</p> <p>Finally, linear regressions were calculated to predict the proportion of university and practitioner secondary authors of empirical articles versus narrative articles. A significant regression was found ((F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>, 14) = 12.08, p = .004), R<sups>2</sups> = .46) for the proportion of university secondary authors of empirical articles versus narrative articles. A significant regression was also found ((F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>, 14) = 7.77, p = .015), R<sups>2</sups> = .36) for the proportion of practitioner secondary authors of empirical articles versus narrative articles.</p> <hd id="AN0127188794-17">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Historically, school psychologists who primarily work outside of a university setting do not contribute to psychology research at a comparative rate as those in university settings (Carroll et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref65">6</reflink>] ). The current study sought to update the analysis of the type of authors publishing in the major school psychology journals and determine if the number of practitioners contributing to research has increased. Data collected from the years 2009 to 2015 were compared to data collected from the years 2000 to 2008 in the Carroll et al. study.</p> <p>Our analysis of journal authorship in four prominent school psychology journals provided several important findings regarding differences between article types and author affiliation. When examining the trends across 2000–2015, the number of articles per year and average number of authors per article increased, as did the number of university authors. The number of practitioner secondary authors increased, but the number of practitioner primary authors decreased. The proportion of practitioner authors compared to university authors decreased across the years. Also, the proportion of university primary and secondary authors of empirical articles increased when compared to narrative articles. To bridge the gap between university and practitioner authors, it becomes increasingly important for practitioners to not only be responsible consumers of research but contributors as well.</p> <p>The average number of authors per article significantly increased across the years 2000–2015, implying an increase in collaboration across years. However, collaboration was more so with other university affiliates rather than with practitioners as the number of practitioner authors decreased or remained stable across the years, even when the number of university authors significantly increased. This is possibly due to an increase in graduate student inclusion on articles and collaboration of faculty with graduate students. If the increase in collaboration among university affiliates is due to student authorship, perhaps students will become more interested in research activities and continue such endeavors as they move into practitioner roles postgraduation.</p> <p>It should be noted that there was a significant increase in the number of practitioner secondary authors across the years 2000–2015, although the increase was much smaller than that of university authors. Therefore it cannot be said that there was no increase in collaboration with practitioners, but there was a larger increase in collaboration with university affiliates. Although there was an increase in the number of practitioner secondary authors in the years 2009–2015 from the years 2002 to 2008, the total number of practitioner authors was still lower in 2009–2015 due to the decrease in practitioner first authors. This finding suggests that practitioners are less likely to be first author on a manuscript and instead collaborate with those from a university as secondary authors.</p> <p>Conducting and disseminating research is part of the typical job description for those who work in academia. University‐based researchers who conduct field‐based, applied, or action research must often partner with local school districts, clinics, or institutes (Skinner, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref66">32</reflink>] ). The importance for collaboration between practitioners and university‐based researchers cannot be overemphasized. When collaborating with those in the field, it is important to allow practitioners the opportunity to not only contribute by identifying areas of need or collecting data, but also assist in the dissemination of results by writing or editing journal articles, thereby receiving authorship credit (American Psychological Association, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref67">3</reflink>] ). School psychology practitioners engage in consultation, problem‐solving, implementation of interventions, and data analysis, all of which are part of their daily job duties. Practitioners as primary authors have an opportunity to carefully frame research questions and methodology, and conduct applied research based within schools or clinics.</p> <p>Single‐case design research is a particularly applicable methodology for practitioners for several reasons (Horner et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref68">19</reflink>] ; Kluhara, Kratochwill, & Pullen, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref69">21</reflink>] ). Practitioners are often involved in a consultative or direct service role providing assistance to one or a few students (i.e., only a single‐case design is relevant to demonstrate the effect of the intervention). Also, practitioners and other school‐based personnel do not need a high level of statistical prowess or special and expensive statistical packages to run analyses, which makes single‐case design more accessible for practitioners, teachers, and school administrators to implement, understand, and make informed educational decisions. Furthermore, schools often have a surplus of data that is already being collected through student progress monitoring during Response to Intervention or Positive Behavior Intervention Supports. A greater emphasis on applied single‐case research during graduate school could help prepare graduates to continue engaging in applied research and publishing the results once they become practitioners. Also, continuing to collaborate with university programs after graduation would greatly increase the research base and applied training opportunities for graduate students who assist with creating materials, data collection, editing, and revising (McCleary, Aspiranti, & Henze, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref70">26</reflink>] ).</p> <p>The proportion of all practitioner authors compared to university authors decreased to 6.6% in 2009–2015 from 9% in 2002–2008. This is rather disheartening considering the continual push for bridging the research to practice gap and the continued reminder of the importance of applied research (Bliss et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>] ; Carroll et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref72">6</reflink>] ; Riley‐Tillman, Chafouleas, Eckert, & Kelleher, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref73">30</reflink>] ; Ringeisen et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref74">31</reflink>] ; Villarreal et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref75">35</reflink>] ; Villarreal, Castro, Umana, & Sullivan, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref76">34</reflink>] ). The change in proportion is due to both the decrease in practitioner authors and the large increase in university authors. There are several potential reasons why the proportion of practitioners authoring journal articles is decreasing. For example, although school psychologists employed in schools and clinics implement interventions and can be an integral part of research within the schools, this is rarely a part of their specific job description. Therefore, the use of time and resources for research purposes may not be considered valuable to administrators. As schools become more focused on intervention integrity, accountability, and the fidelity of implementing response to intervention, administrators may see the increased need for data‐based applied research and thus provide the time and resources for research activities (Skinner et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref77">33</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Another barrier to practitioner research is the lack of journal database access for those outside of university settings. Although individuals can pay for access to journals and open‐access journals are becoming more and more common, it is still costly to pay for the right to view articles. Without journal access, it is extremely difficult to write quality literature reviews for manuscripts or provide background research for data‐based interventions. If schools do not have access to research journals, they will have difficulty choosing the best interventions that are backed by research. In our opinion, one of the greatest barriers practitioners confront is the lack of access to research databases.</p> <p>Current school psychology programs stress using evidence‐based practices with particular emphasis on prevention and intervention across a range of subjects (NASP, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref78">28</reflink>] ; Ysseldyke et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref79">37</reflink>] ). Within training programs, school psychologists are taught to create, provide, and evaluate interventions for effectiveness and should therefore be able to promote these skills when in applied settings. Traditional research methods learned within training programs such as true experimental design often cannot be implemented within a classroom setting due to the natural variability and inconsistency found in classrooms. Therefore, if training within school psychology programs had greater emphasis on providing more instruction and experience doing action research, graduates of these programs will have the requisite knowledge to implement and evaluate evidence‐based interventions. Increased emphasis in training programs to integrate research into consultation, assessment, interventions, and other duties of a school psychologist could encourage early career practitioners to continue the research‐based practices learned within graduate programs as they move into practitioner roles. Including single‐case design methodologies is one way programs can encourage graduates to continue research, as these methodologies are well suited for use within a practitioner role (Freeman & Sugai, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref80">16</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Although the current study provides several insights into authorship trends across the past 15 years in school psychology, several limitations can be noted. As with similar studies analyzing journal content, this study is descriptive in nature and cannot infer causations about publication patterns. In addition, this study replicated the Carroll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref81">6</reflink>] ) study and therefore only examined four major school psychology journals. Other school psychology journals (School Psychology Forum, School Psychology International) or related journals (e.g., Reading and Writing, Journal of Special Education, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis) provide additional outlets for intervention or action research studies, and practitioners may choose to publish in alternative publication sources such as state journals or newsletters. An additional limitation is that we did not factor in the different settings found within the university and practitioner affiliations. For example, not all practitioner authors may be school psychologists. Some may be administrators, teachers, or other personnel such as occupational therapists or speech/language pathologists. Similarly, university authors could include faculty, students, administrators, or clinicians working within a university setting.</p> <p>A further limitation is that the affiliation listed may not be the author's current affiliation. Journal articles often take years from conception to publication, and students who have since graduated may be listed under their school affiliation instead of their current affiliation as practitioner. Although APA guidelines indicate the affiliation listed should be where the author conducted the majority of the work on the project (APA, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref82">3</reflink>] ), this guideline may not always be followed. In particular, a former student may publish results from the dissertation while working in a practitioner setting. Although the correct affiliation for this publication would be the university setting as a student, the individual may list their current practitioner position as their affiliation.</p> <p>Future studies could separate out the different roles of each type of affiliation, although this may be difficult as job roles are constantly changing as students become practitioners, practitioners become faculty, and faculty become administrators. In addition, these distinctions are not always readily available. Researchers may also examine if the current trends found in this study are similar across other sectors of psychology such as clinical or counseling psychology. The concept of encouraging practitioners to publish is not unique to school psychology; clinical psychology has also attempted to make conducting research accessible to psychologists who primarily identify as clinicians (Lampropoulos et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref83">23</reflink>] ). Nonetheless, the decreasing number of practitioners in school psychology publishing is troublesome, particularly given the current emphasis on implementing evidence‐based practices within the schools.</p> <ref id="AN0127188794-18"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref22" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>American Psychological Association (APA). (2002). Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs in professional psychology. Washington, DC: Author. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>American Psychological Association (APA). (2006). Evidence based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 271–285. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref67" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>American Psychological Association (APA). (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed., 2nd printing). Washington, DC: Author. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Bliss, S. L., Skinner, C. H., Hautau, B., & Carroll, E. E. (2008). Articles published in four school psychology journals from 2000 to 2005: An analysis of experimental/intervention research. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20318 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref10" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Burns, M. K. (2011). School psychology research: Combining ecological theory and prevention science. School Psychology Review, 40, 132–139. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Carroll, E. E., Skinner, C. H., McCleary, D. F., Hautau von Mizener, B., & Bliss, S. L. (2009). Analysis of author affiliation across four school psychology journals from 2000 to 2008: Where is the practitioner research? Psychology in the Schools, 46, 627–635. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20318 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Chafouleas, S. M., & Riley‐Tillman, T. C. (2005). Accepting the gap: An introduction to the special issue on bridging research and practice. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 455–458. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref15" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Codding, R. S., Hagermoser Sanetti, L., & DiGennaro Reed, F. D. (2014). Best practices in facilitating consultation and collaboration with teachers and administrators. In P. L. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Data based and collaborative decision making (pp. 525–539). Bethesda, MD: NASP. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref4" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 180–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20084 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref16" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Crone, D. A., Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2015). Building positive behavior support systems in schools: Functional behavioral assessment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref11" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Dawson, M., Cummings, J. A., Harrison, P. L., Short, R. J., Gorin, S., & Palomares, R. (2004). The 2002 Multisite Conference on the future of school psychology: Next steps. School Psychology Review, 33, 115–125. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref19" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Dingfelder, H. E., & Mandell, D. S. (2011). Bridging the research‐to‐practice gap in autism intervention: An application of diffusion of innovation theory. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41, 597–609. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref1" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Floyd, R. G., Cooley, K. M., Arnett, J. E., Fagan, T. K., Mercer, S. H., & Hingle, C. (2011). An overview and analysis of journal operations, journal publication patterns, and journal impact in school psychology and related fields. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 617–647.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.11.008 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref17" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Forman, S. G., Lubin, A. R., & Tripptree, A. L. (2014). Best practices in implementing evidence‐based school interventions. In L. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Systems‐level services (pp. 43–55). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref9" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Forman, S. G., Olin, S. S., Hoagwood, K. E., Crowe, M., & Saka, N. (2009). Evidence‐based interventions in schools: Developers’ views of implementation barriers and facilitators. School Mental Health, 1, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-008-9002-5 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref80" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Freeman, S. G., & Sugai, G. (2013). Identifying evidence based practices using single subject research. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 6–12. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref20" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Guldberg, K. (2017). Evidence‐based practice in autism educational research: Can we bridge the research and practice gap? Oxford Review of Education, 43, 149–161. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref42" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter‐rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 23–24. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref68" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single subject research to identify evidence‐based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref5" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Kehle, T. J., & Bray, M. A. (2005). Reducing the gap between research and practice in school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 577–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20093 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref69" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Kluhara, S. A., Kratochwill, T. R., & Pullen, P. C. (2017). Single‐case design intervention research: Applications in special education. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref38" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Kranzler, J. H., Grapin, S. L., & Daley, M. L. (2011). Research productivity and scholarly impact of APA‐accredited school psychology programs: 2005–2009. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 721–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j,jsp.2011.10.0004 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref83" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Lampropoulos, G. K., Goldfried, M. R., Castonguay, L. G., Lambert, M. J., Stiles, W. B., & Nestros, J. N. (2002). What kind of research can we realistically expect from the practitioner? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 1241–1264. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref6" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Little, S. G., Akin‐Little, A., & Lloyd, K. (2011). Content analysis of School Psychology International, 1990–2011: An analysis of trends and compatibility with the NASP Practice Model. School Psychology International, 32, 569–591. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref39" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Liu, S., & Oakland, T. (2016). The emergence of school psychology literature: A scientometric analysis from 1907 through 2014. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 104–121. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref70" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>McCleary, D. F., Aspiranti, K. B., & Henze, E. E. (2017). Preparing in the trenches: How to market yourself for a job in academia. Communique, 45(6), 20–23. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref21" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Merrell, K. W., Ervin, R. A., & Peacock, G. G. (2012). School psychology for the 21st century: Foundations and practices (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref24" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2010). Graduate preparation and credentialing for school psychologists. Bethesda, MD: Author. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref12" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Payne, A. A., Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2006). School predictors of the intensity of implementation of school‐based prevention programs: Results from a national study. Prevention Science, 7, 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-006-0029-2 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref73" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Riley‐Tillman, T. C., Chafouleas, S. M., Eckert, T. L., & Kelleher, C. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice: A framework for building research agendas in school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 459–473. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref8" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Ringeisen, H., Henderson, K., & Hoagwood, K. (2003). Context matters: Schools and the “research to practice gap” in children's mental health. School Psychology Review, 32, 153–168. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" idref="ref25" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Skinner, C. H. (2004). Single‐subject designs for school psychologists. West Hazleton, PA: Haworth Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref32" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>Skinner, C. H., McCleary, D. F., Skolits, G. L., Poncy, B. C., & Cates, G. L. (2013). Emerging opportunities for school psychologists to enhance our remediation procedure evidence base as we apply response to intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 272–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21676 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref76" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>Villarreal, V., Castro, M. J., Umana, I., & Sullivan, J. R. (2017). Characteristics of intervention research in school psychology journals: 2010–2014. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22012 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref33" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>Villarreal, V., Gonzalez, J. E., McCormick, A. S., Simek, A., & Yoon, H. (2013). Articles published in six school psychology journals from 2005–2009: Where's the intervention research? Psychology in the Schools, 50, 500–519. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref29" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Walcott, C. M., Charvat, J., McNamara, K. M., & Hyson, D. M. (2016, February). School psychology at a glance: 2015 member survey results. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, New Orleans, LA. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref79" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Ysseldyke, J., Morrison, D., Burns, M., Ortiz, S., Dawson, P., Rosenfield, S., … Telzrow, C. (2006). School psychology: A blueprint for training and practice III. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kathleen B. Aspiranti; Daniel F. McCleary and Stephen R. Ratliff</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1165813
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: An Updated Analysis of Author Affiliation across Four School Psychology Journals: Is Practitioner Research Increasing?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Aspiranti%2C+Kathleen+B%2E%22">Aspiranti, Kathleen B.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3523-1338">0000-0003-3523-1338</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McCleary%2C+Daniel+F%2E%22">McCleary, Daniel F.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ratliff%2C+Stephen+R%2E%22">Ratliff, Stephen R.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. Feb 2018 55(2):165-175.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Psychology%22">School Psychology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Periodicals%22">Periodicals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Journal+Articles%22">Journal Articles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classification%22">Classification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authors%22">Authors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Regression+%28Statistics%29%22">Regression (Statistics)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.22097
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study analyzed articles published in four school psychology journals ("Journal of School Psychology," "Psychology in the Schools," "School Psychology Quarterly," and "School Psychology Review") between the years 2009 and 2015. Articles were classified based on whether they were narrative or empirical, and affiliation of each author was classified as either practitioner or university. Results were compared to those of a previous study that similarly classified articles from 2000 to 2008. Across the years, the total number of authors increased; however, the proportion of practitioners compared to university affiliates decreased from 9% to 6%. In particular, a regression analysis revealed a large increase in the number of university secondary authors. Discussion focuses on examining the impact that practitioners' involvement in research has on implementing evidence-based practices within the schools.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1165813
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1165813
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.22097
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 165
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: School Psychology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Periodicals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Journal Articles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Authors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Regression (Statistics)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: An Updated Analysis of Author Affiliation across Four School Psychology Journals: Is Practitioner Research Increasing?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Aspiranti, Kathleen B.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McCleary, Daniel F.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ratliff, Stephen R.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 55
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1