View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Recommendation Section of Psychoeducational Reports: A Barrier or Opportunity to Promote Inclusion in Early Education and Care?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Recommendation Section of Psychoeducational Reports: A Barrier or Opportunity to Promote Inclusion in Early Education and Care?
Language: English
Authors: Agnete Vaags (ORCID 0009-0007-2314-6706), Marit Uthus (ORCID 0000-0003-1263-1486)
Source: Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 2025 25(3):631-643.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Descriptors: Psychoeducational Methods, Inclusion, Early Childhood Education, Reports, Special Education, Barriers, Preschool Children, Skill Development, Ability, Performance Based Assessment, Holistic Approach
DOI: 10.1111/1471-3802.12749
ISSN: 1471-3802
Abstract: Psychoeducational reports prepared by the Educational Psychological Service are foundational for special educational support in Norway, ensuring equitable opportunities for development, learning and participation among children with special educational needs in mainstream Early Childhood Education and Care settings. This qualitative study examines the characteristics of recommended goals and support measures in these reports, and how they promote or inhibit inclusion. Through a holistic approach, the study explores individual and social contextual considerations within the recommendation sections of seven reports for children aged 3-5 years. Employing reflexive thematic analysis, our findings suggest that while certain measures promote children's participation in inclusive communities, there is a predominant focus on the individual child. This emphasis often centres on skill acquisition and ability development through performance-based goals and compensatory measures. However, while most recommendations are individually oriented, certain measures appear generalised and broadly applicable to most children, highlighting the challenges of addressing each child's unique needs in their specific context. The study's implications underscore the necessity for a holistic approach in the field of special education, both at the policy and legislative levels. Such an approach is essential for enabling psychoeducational reports to promote inclusion in early childhood education and care settings.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1476543
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFz6fBqoXXBIuOzYw4l6MlbAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGshQFgdZV2Ccg_GwAIBEICBm8AswmO4-c2JYw1DiS2Xu9QvHSEqEuvqWnGqZrzR0IzdI7-h8pm1PQo7jchYFDesjP3z9JvI2bj5gxg9mAHyG2tQkXttam7eJLavKawGNLxl_dhpjzlfGr-fbcQMWfrTwHIVTkKAymsZg-tZXtM74pqYDOykI3qaRKg4U7pBK0mqxgOoijt7sbvTMCqA3q7Y8tHTNis1Swf23QjS
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186527090;0lc01jul.25;2025Jul12.02:53;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186527090-1">Recommendation section of psychoeducational reports: A barrier or opportunity to promote inclusion in early education and care? </title> <p>Psychoeducational reports prepared by the Educational Psychological Service are foundational for special educational support in Norway, ensuring equitable opportunities for development, learning and participation among children with special educational needs in mainstream Early Childhood Education and Care settings. This qualitative study examines the characteristics of recommended goals and support measures in these reports, and how they promote or inhibit inclusion. Through a holistic approach, the study explores individual and social contextual considerations within the recommendation sections of seven reports for children aged 3–5 years. Employing reflexive thematic analysis, our findings suggest that while certain measures promote children's participation in inclusive communities, there is a predominant focus on the individual child. This emphasis often centres on skill acquisition and ability development through performance‐based goals and compensatory measures. However, while most recommendations are individually oriented, certain measures appear generalised and broadly applicable to most children, highlighting the challenges of addressing each child's unique needs in their specific context. The study's implications underscore the necessity for a holistic approach in the field of special education, both at the policy and legislative levels. Such an approach is essential for enabling psychoeducational reports to promote inclusion in early childhood education and care settings.</p> <p>Keywords: expert assessments; holistic approach; kindergarten; participation; special educational assistance; support measures</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> This study suggests that the recommendation section of psychoeducational reports may serve as a barrier for inclusive education for young children with special educational needs in early childhood education and care settings.</item> <p></p> <item> The analysis reveals that recommended goals for special educational assistance primarily prioritise individual and performance‐based outcome, emphasising children's acquisition of skills and abilities. This narrow focus is evident by limited attention given to other aspects, such as the children's well‐being, their sense of belonging and the addressing of barriers and adjustments within the children's specific contexts.</item> <p></p> <item> While most goals and measures are individually oriented, they also appear general and broadly applicable for most children across any social context, highlighting the complexity of tailoring recommendations to meet each child's unique needs within their specific social context.</item> <p></p> <item> The study's implications underscore the necessity of adopting a holistic approach that integrates both individual and social contextual considerations in addressing children's special educational needs. Such an approach can enhance psychoeducational reports opportunities to promote inclusion for children requiring special educational assistance in early childhood education and care settings.</item> </ulist> <p>Key points</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics of the recommendation section in psychoeducational reports for children receiving special educational assistance (SEA) in Norwegian Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings. Psychoeducational reports, also referred to as <emph>expert assessments</emph> (Franck, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref1">14</reflink>]; Joner et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref2">18</reflink>]; Kolnes et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]), form the basis of SEA provided to children both in ECEC and school settings (Calderón‐Almendros et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref4">10</reflink>]; Szulevics & Arnfred, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref5">41</reflink>]). These reports are thus crucial for realising inclusion for children assessed with special educational needs (SEN) (Franck, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref6">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref7">47</reflink>]) marked a significant milestone in setting the policy agenda for inclusion worldwide (Vislie, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref8">50</reflink>]) and making it a global priority. While ECEC institutions were initially only mentioned as preparatory for school in the Salamanca Statement, there is now a strong international commitment to achieving inclusion for all children, including those below compulsory school age (Bray, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>]). However, the basis of this commitment and the understanding of what <emph>inclusion</emph> means varies (Bray, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>]; Keles et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref11">19</reflink>]; Nilholm, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref12">28</reflink>]), and implementing inclusion in both school (Nilholm, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref13">28</reflink>]) and ECEC settings has proven challenging (Barton & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>]). A frequently highlighted barrier to inclusion is a persistent individual‐centred approach to children's SEN within the field of special education (Nordahl, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref15">29</reflink>]; Reindal, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref16">39</reflink>]; Vislie, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref17">50</reflink>]). If children's deficiencies are understood and addressed solely on an individual level (e.g. in biological or medical terms), barriers and shortcomings in the social context might be overlooked or neglected. This oversight can undermine the necessity of ongoing efforts to create environments adapted to children's diversity (Reindal, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref18">39</reflink>]). Consequently, the social contextual approach to SEN is recognised as crucial for realising the ideal of inclusion. Even though much remains to be done before the social contextual approach is reflected in special educational practice, several researchers caution against completely rejecting the individual approach. As Skidmore argues, 'both the individual and the social contextual approach [...] share common limitations of reductionism' (1996, 33). Thus, the phenomenon of SEN should be understood and accommodated both to ensure children's development and learning on an individual level and by eliminating barriers and shortcomings in the social context (Reindal, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref19">38</reflink>]; Skidmore, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref20">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although inclusion is not a formal guideline for Educational Psychological Service (EPS) advisors preparing psychoeducational reports in the Norwegian context, EPS is committed to inclusion due to both educational policies and legislation. According to §33 of the Kindergarten Act (Ministry of Education and Research, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>]), EPS advisors are mandated to provide guidance to ECECs at both individual and social contextual levels. Furthermore, the Ministry of Education and Research ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref22">25</reflink>]) states that EPS is responsible for identifying and minimising barriers to participation. Nevertheless, EPS advisors are often criticised for being individual‐ and deficiency‐oriented, thereby perpetuating barriers to inclusion (Nordahl, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref23">29</reflink>]), a criticism that extends to the framework of psychoeducational reports (Calderón‐Almendros et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref24">10</reflink>]; Franck, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]; Moen et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref26">27</reflink>]; Tveitnes, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref27">46</reflink>]). Despite this, Moen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]), in line with Skidmore ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref29">40</reflink>]), argues that the distinction between individual and social contextual approaches is artificial, obscuring the complexity that often characterises the issues these advisors encounter in their work (Moen, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref30">26</reflink>]). Research indicates that EPS advisors experience difficulties in navigating both individual and social contextual approaches (Cameron et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref31">11</reflink>]; Kolnes et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref32">20</reflink>]; Tveit et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref33">45</reflink>]). This highlights the potential benefit of a holistic approach for EPS advisors, assisting their preparation of psychoeducational reports that support inclusive practices for children with SEN within ECEC settings.</p> <p>Considering the limited research on special educational documents within the context of ECEC (Palla, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref34">34</reflink>]), particularly focusing on holistic approaches (Moen, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref35">26</reflink>]), and the lack of literature or research on the recommendation sections of psychoeducational reports (Szulevics & Arnfred, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]), this study aims to contribute to the field by exploring the following research question:</p> <p>What characterises recommended goals and measures in psychoeducational reports for children receiving special educational assistance in Early Childhood Education and Care settings, in terms of both individual and social contextual considerations?</p> <p>The study was inspired by the assumption that there is a close link between the concept of inclusion in education and a holistic approach to both SEN and special educational support (Uthus & Qvortrup, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref37">49</reflink>]). It is based on a holistic understanding that the ambition of inclusion challenges all professionals in the education system to balance considerations of a child's individual SEN with the child's need to belong in the social context. By gaining new insights into holistic approaches to SEN within the framework of psychoeducational reports, the study sheds light on how SEA can promote or inhibit inclusion for children assessed with SEN in ECEC. In the following sections we elaborate on a holistic approach and inclusion for children with SEN in ECEC, the Norwegian ECEC context and previous research on psychoeducational reports and EPS' work with these reports.</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-3">A holistic approach to children with special educational needs and inclusion in ECEC</hd> <p>It is now widely recognised that access to inclusive environments benefits all children, as inclusion fosters learning and development (Barton & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref38">4</reflink>]). All children have the right to fully participate in an inclusive community, with their best interest a primary concern (United Nations, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref39">48</reflink>]). In the traditional individual model that long prevailed in the field of special education, the focus on SEN centred on the individual child, aiming to remediate deficiencies and impairments and thereby rectify the individual child's weaknesses (Dunst, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]). With the ideological and political shift towards inclusion, the understanding of SEN has evolved beyond purely individual factors to encompass the broader social context and the failure to accommodate children's diversity (Vislie, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref41">50</reflink>]). This social model contrasts with the traditional individual model (Allen, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref42">2</reflink>]), directing attention to the social context and advocating for dismantling barriers through environmental adjustments (Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref43">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>While comparing the individual with the social contextual approach is useful, caution is advised against dichotomising these two approaches, as both share the common limitations of reductionism (Skidmore, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref44">40</reflink>]). By referencing a Norwegian case set within a school, Uthus and Qvortrup ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref45">49</reflink>]) show how a narrow ideological value of inclusion, understood solely in terms of a social contextual approach, undermined children's legal entitlement to special educational support at an individual level, paradoxically thwarting its own aim. This suggests that even with environmental barriers dismantled, children may still face limitations arising from their own biological or medical origins (Terzi, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref46">42</reflink>]). With prior research indicating that EPS advisors experience difficulties in navigating individual and social contextual approaches (Cameron et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref47">11</reflink>]; Kolnes et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref48">20</reflink>]; Moen et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref49">27</reflink>]; Tveit et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref50">45</reflink>]), Norwich's phrase 'a dilemma of difference' seems as a particularly appropriate description of the situation. If inclusion involves identifying and rectifying children's shortcomings on an individual level, it carries the paradoxical risk of stigmatising and excluding children. Conversely, if inclusion is focused on maintaining a sense of normality and treating all children the same, it risks not providing diverse children with equal opportunities for individual growth and development in the community. Such a dilemma can never be solved once and for all; the differentiation and inclusivity of the system must be continuously monitored and managed (Norwich, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref51">32</reflink>], 492).</p> <p>With the intention of avoiding reductionism and marginalisation of children with SEN, various holistic models have emerged, each advancing the field (Reindal, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref52">37</reflink>]; Skidmore, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref53">40</reflink>]; Uthus & Qvortrup, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref54">49</reflink>]; Vislie, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref55">50</reflink>]). According to a holistic approach, it is assumed that inclusion is not to be universal or the same for each child (Dalkilic & Vadeboncoeur, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref56">12</reflink>]), but instead, an ongoing process, especially for children who may be at risk of exclusion (Ainscow, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref57">1</reflink>]). Within ECECs, inclusion takes various forms and is considered a context‐based relational process, involving participants including the child, professionals, the environment and the relationship among them (Dalkilic & Vadeboncoeur, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref58">12</reflink>]). Children's participation in inclusive environments involves both participation and engagement, with the latter requiring adaptations and accommodations to enable full involvement, extending beyond mere attendance (Imms & Granlund, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref59">16</reflink>]). In essence, the child should be present in all aspects—physically, socially and psychologically (Qvortrup & Qvortrup, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref60">36</reflink>]). Therefore, participation must be negotiated with and between individuals to ensure all children engage in activities similar to their peers, requiring accommodation and acceptance by others (Imms & Granlund, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref61">16</reflink>]). However, children with SEN are often vulnerable to exclusion (Kyriazopoulou et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref62">22</reflink>]), participating and engaging less in play and other activities than their peers, highlighting the critical importance of prevention through early intervention (Kuutti et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref63">21</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-4">The Norwegian ECEC context</hd> <p>ECEC is an important part of children's upbringing in Norway. In 2023, a total of 93.8% of children between the ages of 1 and 5 attended ECEC. In the same year, 9733 children received SEA, representing 3.6% of all children in Norway. There has been a slight yet steady increase in the proportion of children receiving such support over the past 5 years. Additionally, there are 5478 children with functional impairments in ECEC (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref64">31</reflink>]). Language and communication difficulties, as well as social challenges, are the most prevalent characteristics among children who receive SEA in Norwegian ECEC settings (Wendelborg et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref65">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Central to the core values of ECEC is the emphasis on individual needs, encompassing care, security, sense of belonging and respect, while fostering active participation and contribution to the community (Ministry of Education and Research, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref66">25</reflink>]). The Kindergarten Act establishes trust and respect as foundational for ECEC approaches, recognising the intrinsic value of childhood and promoting joy and well‐being through play and learning in a stimulating and secure environment (Ministry of Education and Research, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref67">23</reflink>]). The Framework Plan, which outlines how the Kindergarten Act should be implemented, delineates process‐oriented goals for children's experiences and learning. It prioritises engagement in experiences, exploration, play and experimentation (Ministry of Education and Research, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref68">24</reflink>]). This approach favours the development of knowledge, skills and attitudes over specific outcomes, encouraging professionals' individual and social contextual considerations to expand children's interests, provide diverse experiences, and tailor challenges to each child's characteristics and skills without specific and predefined performance expectations (2017).</p> <p>All children have access to ECEC, and the Kindergarten Act (Ministry of Education and Research, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref69">23</reflink>]) guarantees priority admission (§18) and legally appropriate and adapted provisions (§37) for those identified with various impairments. This means ECEC settings must adapt their general pedagogical practices to suit each child's needs and circumstances, including those requiring additional support for varying durations (Ministry of Education and Research, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref70">23</reflink>]; Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref71">30</reflink>]). Furthermore, children are entitled to SEA if needed. The purpose of SEA is to provide early help and support in the development and learning of skills such as language and social abilities (Ministry of Education and Research, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref72">23</reflink>], §31). Municipal EPS advisors are mandated to assess and determine whether a child is entitled to SEA (§34). These advisors are required to evaluate if the child has developmental delays and learning difficulties, identify specific and potential special needs, set realistic developmental and learning goals for the child, and determine appropriate support measures to facilitate the child's development and learning (Ministry of Education and Research, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref73">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-5">EPS advisors and the framework of psychoeducational reports</hd> <p>To address the requirements of the Kindergarten Act (Ministry of Education and Research, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref74">23</reflink>]) and ensure the child's legal entitlements, the Act mandates the EPS to provide guidance to ECECs at both individual and social contextual levels. This includes assisting the ECEC settings with competence and organizational development to adapt provisions for children with SEN, as well as preparing psychoeducational reports for individual children (§33). These reports typically consist of an evaluation to determine if the child requires SEA and recommendations of necessary support with, for example, realistic goals and measures for the child's development and learning, informing the municipality's individual decision on special educational support (§§34–35). Hence, these reports form the basis of SEA provided to children with special educational needs in ECEC. As previously mentioned, although inclusion is not specified as the overall purpose of the reports or SEA, EPS advisors are strongly committed to inclusion in their day‐to‐day practices, guided by overarching national guidelines.</p> <p>Historically, EPS has been mandated to focus on individual children, offering guidance to ECEC professionals and parents. However, in recent years, there has been a shift towards prioritising prevention and systemic intervention (Moen et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref75">27</reflink>]). While it is known that EPS advisors face challenges in navigating both individual and social contextual approaches (Cameron et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref76">11</reflink>]; Kolnes et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref77">20</reflink>]; Moen et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref78">27</reflink>]; Tveit et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref79">45</reflink>]), the reasons for these challenges are less clear. They may include time and resource limitations, high referral rates, heavy workloads and institutional preferences (from both school and ECEC settings) for individual‐focused interventions over broader environmental concerns (Moen et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref80">27</reflink>]). While EPS advisors invest significant time in preparing reports (Kolnes et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref81">20</reflink>]; Moen et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref82">27</reflink>]; Szulevics & Arnfred, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref83">41</reflink>]), the process is often viewed as one of writing, rather than one of collaboration where knowledge is developed together by the involved parties (Kolnes et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref84">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the societal shift towards inclusion and the availability of social and inclusive models, psychoeducational reports for children in mainstream educational settings have largely remained unchanged, maintaining an individual approach that focuses on the child's challenges and deficiencies (Tveitnes, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref85">46</reflink>]). While some considerations of the child's context have been observed in reports from ECEC settings (Franck, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref86">14</reflink>]), overall research suggests a persistent tendency to attribute deficiencies solely to the child, disregarding broader social contextual factors (Calderón‐Almendros et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref87">10</reflink>]; Franck, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref88">14</reflink>]; Moen et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref89">27</reflink>]; Tveitnes, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref90">46</reflink>]). Furthermore, there are indications that the reports often lack specificity tailored to the individual child and their needs, instead providing generalised recommendations for children in need of special educational support (Joner et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref91">18</reflink>]; Szulevics & Arnfred, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref92">41</reflink>]; Tveitnes, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref93">46</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-6">METHODOLOGY</hd> <p>This study is part of a larger case study examining how SEA can promote (or inhibit) inclusion for children assessed with SEN in Norwegian ECECs. The current sub‐study is a qualitative document analysis of psychoeducational reports, aiming to foreground the recommendation section of psychoeducational reports for children receiving SEA in ECEC. Our specific interest lies in the goals and measures outlined in these reports, which serve as the primary focus of our research.</p> <p>We employ Braun and Clarke's ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref94">7</reflink>]) Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) as the methodology for our analysis to facilitate a nuanced understanding of goals and measures outlined in these reports. RTA consists of six phases involving data engagement, coding and theme development (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref95">7</reflink>]). We have chosen a hermeneutic approach to understand and derive meaning from the data. This approach involves dialogical conversations between us as researchers, the psychoeducational reports and the theoretical framework, where we contribute to the construction of meaning (Prior, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref96">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>RTA can take different approaches depending on the research question and theoretical assumptions, while also acknowledging the researcher's subjectivity as an analytical resource (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref97">7</reflink>]). As former special educators, our close connection to the field and familiarity with psychoeducational reports inform our engagement with data, theory and interpretation (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref98">6</reflink>]). This highlights the importance of maintaining reflexivity throughout the analysis (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref99">7</reflink>]). In our work with RTA, it is crucial for us to acknowledge and reflect on our own perspectives (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref100">8</reflink>]). We believe that adopting a holistic approach to SEN and SEA, which considers both individual and social contextual aspects, is essential. Such an approach aims to address each child's unique requirements while identifying and mitigating potential barriers within their social context. We consider it pivotal for realising inclusion and fostering inclusive communities for children assessed with SEN in ECEC. Consequently, we framed our study within a holistic research approach to SEN and SEA, formulating our research question and theoretical assumptions accordingly. Given our awareness of previous research indicating that EPS often fail to assess potential shortcomings in the social context in the assessment section of these reports (Franck, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref101">14</reflink>]), we felt it important to approach the recommendation sections with openness and a questioning attitude, both of which are essential for developing new understandings (Gadamer, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref102">15</reflink>]). Our commitment to avoiding reductionism, in line with Skidmore ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref103">40</reflink>]), is grounded in our professional knowledge and experiences, shaping our interpretative lens (Gadamer, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref104">15</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-7">Participants and materials</hd> <p>To initiate access to the field, the first author reached out to the ECEC authorities in three municipalities in Norway. Subsequently, leaders and special educators from diverse ECECs were invited to digital meetings. Following this, the special educators contacted parents of children receiving SEA in these ECECs to gauge their interest in participating. Seven families confirmed their involvement in the project.</p> <p>The dataset comprises psychoeducational reports for six boys and one girl, all between three and 5 years of age. This includes a total of seven psychoeducational reports, labelled PR1 through PR7 in this publication. All children in this study have been assessed by the EPS and are entitled to both SEA and individually adapted provisions due to difficulties arising from their medical or biological conditions. These children experience varying degrees of functional variation related to language, communication, hearing and/or social interactions. A few of the children are awaiting assessments for neurodivergence, specifically for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or/and attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).</p> <p>The psychoeducational reports in this study were prepared by EPS advisers from three different municipalities where the children attended ECEC and are considered pre‐existing documents essential in daily ECEC practices for individual children and not originally designed for research purposes. EPS advisors typically possess professional backgrounds encompassing special education, psychology and social work (Moen et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref105">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-8">Ethical considerations</hd> <p>Psychoeducational reports are confidential and not available to the public, as they contain personal information. In this study, the children are referred to simply as 'the child' or 'they' to protect their identities. Gender, age and other details are considered irrelevant to the research question and are not further elaborated upon in this publication. Parents provided written consent allowing access to their child's psychoeducational report. To ensure anonymity, all personal details have been omitted, and all identifying information was redacted during transcription. Because there are strict regulations and ethical responsibilities regarding the storage and citation of such materials in research (NREC, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref106">33</reflink>]), certain parts of the material are not being used or published to safeguard the children's right to protection. The project has been ethical approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD).</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-9">Analysis</hd> <p>Familiarisation marks the initial phase of RTA, fostering immersion in the data set in order to be aware of intriguing elements and patterns (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref107">7</reflink>]). This phase was a crucial start of our analysis process to gain familiarity with the content while working with pre‐existing documents. Engaging in this process of deep immersion was crucial for identifying particularly interesting elements and possible patterns across the data set. During this initial reading, we were surprised to find a predominant unilateral emphasis on the individual child's challenges and their acquisition of skills and abilities. Despite our awareness of previous research revealing an individual emphasis on children's challenges and shortcomings in psychoeducational reports, we still found the extent of this emphasis unexpectedly explicit during this initial phase. This discovery challenged us in our subsequent analytical work. Reflecting collectively on our own preconceptions, we recognised the importance of a thorough inductive approach moving forward to ensure a valid analysis.</p> <p>During the coding phase which followed, a systematic inductive approach was crucial. Here, we developed empirical codes and applied them to specific segments of each data item/recommendation section. Our goal was to capture specific and relevant meanings related to the research question. Each recommendation section was coded individually before moving on to the next, as suggested by RTA (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref108">7</reflink>]). In this initial coding phase, we followed a strictly inductive approach, identifying and labelling empirical codes that were deemed interesting and potentially relevant, in terms of both individual and social contextual considerations. The codes identified in this initial phase encompassed guidelines on how recommended measures should be carried out, such as: <emph>groups</emph>, <emph>structure</emph> and <emph>shielding</emph>. Many codes highlighted the ECEC professionals' responsibilities in facilitating the children's acquisition of skills and abilities, such as <emph>strengthen</emph>, <emph>develop</emph> and <emph>practice</emph> diverse skills. Simultaneously, we extracted codes from varying formulations of the goals the children were expected to achieve, including terms such as <emph>master</emph>, <emph>develop</emph> and <emph>establish</emph>, in relation to their skills and abilities. This systematic coding phase provided us with a more nuanced understanding of the recommended measures, revealing patterns that supported the children's <emph>participation</emph>, <emph>communication</emph> and <emph>interactions with peers</emph>.</p> <p>Still later, we employed both data‐driven and inductive approaches, alongside researcher‐ or theory‐driven and deductive approaches. RTA offers flexibility by not requiring strict adherence to its phases (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref109">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref110">8</reflink>]). The six phases can blend with one another and are not intended to be followed rigidly (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref111">6</reflink>]). In this way, our coding process proceeded through multiple rounds, integrating both inductive and deductive approaches to ensure comprehensive in‐depth analysis and prevent oversight of central patterns in the data. During the coding phase, our code labels evolved as we systematically engaged with the dataset, navigating between individual and social contextual considerations. Both semantic (explicit codes) and latent codes were extracted, as encouraged in RTA (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref112">7</reflink>]). The latent codes and patterns were not explicit in the data but were developed by us based on our holistic approach, as we identified areas we found lacking in the reports, including: <emph>lack of emphasis on potential adjustments or dismantling barriers in the environment</emph>, <emph>narrow focus on skill development</emph> (<emph>becoming</emph>) and <emph>limited attention given to other aspects of the children</emph>, <emph>such as</emph>: <emph>well‐being and participation</emph> ('<emph>being</emph>'). This was made possible due to our holistic research approach to SEA combined with RTA, which facilitates the identification of patterns and insights that may not be immediately apparent (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref113">7</reflink>]). This comprehensive coding approach facilitated a deeper exploration of data beyond surface meaning, enabling us to uncover more nuances and a deeper understanding of the recommended goals and measures in the psychoeducational reports.</p> <p>We individually analysed the data set through several rounds and engaged in multiple discussions with each other to review our analysis. Subsequently, we shared and discussed the analysis and interpretations with research colleagues within the field of special education, to further ensure reflexivity. The codes from the final coding phase were rearranged multiple times before being organised and conceptualised into themes. Shared reflections throughout the research process were crucial and contributed to what we believe is a valid conceptualisation and creation of patterns and themes in this study.</p> <p>During our analysis, we developed three themes that illuminate the characteristics of recommended goals and support measures in psychoeducational reports, encompassing both individual and social contextual considerations. To maintain transparency, we detail the appearance of each theme in the following sections. Subsequently, we offer a comprehensive discussion on how these recommendations may promote or inhibit inclusion for children receiving SEA in Norwegian ECEC settings. Finally, we provide concluding remarks and discuss the implications of our analysis. All empirical excerpts and extracts have been translated from Norwegian by the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-10">Goals and measures emphasising the child's acquisition of skills and abilities</hd> <p>This theme includes all objectives and measures aimed at helping the children achieve the established goals. There are significant variations in the number and formulation of recommended goals among the reports, ranging from 0 to 24. While some reports list numerous goals for individual children, others include none, potentially affecting the content and direction of the SEA provided to these children.</p> <p>The recommended goals in this study all focus on the children's development and learning across various developmental areas. A few recommendations prioritise process‐oriented goals, rather than mandating specific skill mastery by the child. In these cases, professionals are expected to:</p> <p>Enhance the child's language comprehension and word production through visual support. (PR4)</p> <p>Enhance the child's linguistic awareness. (PR7)</p> <p>Several goals concentrate on the child developing abilities and skills, implying that acquiring skills is a process, and therefore expecting children to:</p> <p>Develop skills in dressing. (PR2)</p> <p>Develop other basic skills. (PR4)</p> <p>However, most goals are articulated as skill‐based objectives, emphasising the child as responsible for mastering specific abilities and skills. Some of the children are expected to:</p> <p>Master the repetition of actions that make others laugh, thereby attracting positive attention. (PR1)</p> <p>Master fine motor skills, being able to draw lines and circles through imitation. (PR2)</p> <p>Master appropriate eye contact. (PR2)</p> <p>Master the ability to take initiative in play. (PR1)</p> <p>Most support measures are intended to aid the child in achieving established objectives. Professionals are responsible for contributing to the child learning and developing in various ways and are tasked with: 'actively working towards', 'ensuring', 'enhancing', 'facilitating', 'developing', 'supporting', 'systematically practicing and training', 'guiding', 'strengthening' and in many other ways 'contributing' to the child acquiring skills and developing abilities. One recommendation specifies that:</p> <p>To ensure that the child has the best possible conditions for achieving the goals outlined and for automating and generalising various skills, it is essential that everyone in the ECEC works towards these goals. (PR5)</p> <p>This suggests that the reports place a strong emphasis on the children acquiring skills and developing abilities. Considering that this concerns young children with SEN, it seems paradoxical to task these specific children with goals reminiscent of specific and predefined performance expectations rather than process‐oriented goals, as the Norwegian guidelines suggest for all children.</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-11">Vague and general support measures applicable to most children</hd> <p>Recommendations for children to participate in both larger and smaller groups are consistently present in all documents within this study, stated such as follows:</p> <p>It is reasonable to believe that small groups will be beneficial for the child in terms of noise, concentration, and attention to maintain focus on activities. (PR3)</p> <p>While most of these recommendations are justified as being beneficial for the child, there is a lack of specific guidance on when, how, and in which contexts these group activities should be implemented to the child's benefit.</p> <p>Most reports advocate for a clear structure, yet offer limited explanations for what this might mean in practice:</p> <p>It is crucial for the ECEC to establish a clear structure in working with the child. (PR1)</p> <p>A clear structure with recognisable activities repeated daily is advised. (PR2, PR3)</p> <p>Maintaining a clear structure throughout the day is emphasised. (PR4)</p> <p>Other support measures are formulated like process‐oriented goals, offering limited details on how the support should be carried out, stated such as: 'Strengthen the child's language comprehension and production'. (PR7). There are also numerous recommendations to 'support' the child in various social contexts, yet no specific information is provided regarding the nature of this support, stated such as:</p> <p>The child requires support in situations where rigidity hinders them in various activities. (PR6)</p> <p>The child needs support in understanding their own feelings and emotions. (PR5)</p> <p>Some of the reports recommend measures that can be considered general and applicable for most children in ECEC. Professionals are recommended to:</p> <p>Read simple books and discuss the content with the child. (PR1, PR2, PR3)</p> <p>Use various games. (PR2)</p> <p>Solve simple puzzles. (PR3)</p> <p>Furthermore, there are several recommendations to utilise pre‐produced programs, materials, or specific methods. Professionals are expected to:</p> <p>Utilise Green thoughts, Happy children or similar resources to facilitate conversations about emotions and reaction patterns. (PR1)</p> <p>Regularly use the 'Portage' material to systematically work on developing skills across all areas of development. (PR2)</p> <p>Additionally, reports within the same municipality often recommend similar measures for different children, sometimes using identical language, potentially indicative of a copy‐and‐paste approach.</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-12">Measures emphasising the child's play, participation and social context</hd> <p>Traces of social contextual considerations are found in the recommendations concerning those children with the most obvious individual special educational needs, stemming from biological and medical origins. For instance, visual daily schedules and sequence strips with images are commonly recommended for adapting the surroundings for children with auditory impairment, ensuring security, overview and predictability. Additionally, there are several recommendations highlighting the importance of creating an auditory environment conducive to these children's needs. Professionals are recommended to:</p> <p>Be particularly aware of factors that can reduce background noise and position the child in a way that allows them to see others' faces to better perceive speech. (PR5)</p> <p>To make the listening environment optimal for the child, it is important to consider the acoustics in the rooms where they spend the most time. (PR7)</p> <p>Some measures emphasise Alternative and Augmentative Communication as a communication tool for all children, specifying that:</p> <p>Alternative and Augmentative Communication will be an essential part of the child's communication and must be a tool that is accessible, useful, and predictable for the child. It should also be a communication support that other children in the group participate in and learn, enabling them to communicate together. (PR5, PR6)</p> <p>Some measures for children awaiting assessment/mapping for neurodivergence are related to play and social interactions are indicative of a view of play as a tool for learning, emphasising the child's acquisition of specific skills during play. Moreover, other measures recommend that professionals guide the child's play in various ways:</p> <p>Describe, together with the child, what you see and how the play is unfolding. (PR2)</p> <p>Provide verbal support to interpret expectations in play. What is expected? What do the other children say/do? Provide verbal suggestions on what the child can do to engage with other children. (PR1)</p> <p>A few recommendations highlight the importance of professionals actively engaging in play with the child, guiding interactions with peers and bolstering the child's status within the group. One specifies that:</p> <p>For the child to benefit from and have the opportunity to create good relationships in play with other children, it is necessary to facilitate play and activities in smaller groups where interactions can be shielded from noise and other distractions. (PR5)</p> <p>There are several recommendations for rest and shielding for individual children with one measure specifying that:</p> <p>It is important to provide necessary accommodations for rest and other breaks throughout the day, so the child can fully engage in and benefit from the activities in their daily ECEC routine and realise their developmental potential. It is conceivable that the child expends a lot of energy on communication and interaction throughout the day, potentially making them more tired than other children in the ECEC. (PR5)</p> <p>These measures aim to facilitate sufficient rest and security for the child and encourage their active participation, engagement and communication within the ECEC community. Additionally, they enhance the children's opportunities for building relationships with peers.</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-13">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>By exploring the characteristics of recommended goals and support measures within psychoeducational reports, in terms of both individual and social contextual considerations, we now discuss and elaborate on how they align with the aspirations of inclusion for children receiving SEA in Norwegian ECEC.</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-14">Individual approaches in recommended goals and measures – For better or worse</hd> <p>As the Kindergarten Act mandates that the EPS should assess whether the child is in need for SEA and, if so, establish realistic goals for the child's development and learning (Ministry of Education and Research, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref114">23</reflink>]), individual approaches play a crucial role in how EPS defines goals and measures in psychoeducational reports. In line with Terzi ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref115">42</reflink>]), this mandate is linked to inclusion in terms of preventing children from encountering limitations due to biological or medical origins (Terzi, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref116">42</reflink>]). As such, it is critical that we ask what evidence of individual considerations potentially constituting such a prevention can be found in the recommendation sections in this study. Considering that children referred to in the reports had functional impairments related to language, communication, hearing, social interactions and/or potential neurodivergence, it is crucial that responsibility is placed on professionals to enhance the child's <emph>language comprehension and word production through visual support</emph> (hearing impairment), <emph>linguistic awareness</emph> (language impairment) and <emph>basic social skills</emph> (impairments according to social interactions). Conversely, if children <emph>do not</emph> receive this type of SEA, they are obviously not given equal access to either development and learning or participation in the community. The point is that the one (language communication, and social skills and abilities) is crucial for the other (sense of belonging in the community), and if enhancing goals and measures were only considered with respect to the community (social context), the child would still face the same barriers due to their biological or medical conditions. Similarly, process‐oriented goals, such as <emph>ensuring that the child has the best possible conditions</emph> (for achieving such skills) and <emph>making all professionals in ECEC accountable</emph> exemplify how the focus can be directed towards the child's skills on an individual level while also involving conditions in the social context. This illustrates the challenges EPS face when trying to navigate individual and social contextual approaches (Cameron et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref117">11</reflink>]; Kolnes et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref118">20</reflink>]; Moen et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref119">27</reflink>]; Tveit et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref120">45</reflink>]). Since these two approaches are theoretical and don't precisely represent real‐world practices, it might be useful to employ different terms in relation to the ambition of inclusion for children receiving SEA. This could make it clearer that both approaches are present and intertwined in ongoing processes. As argued by Uthus and Qvortrup ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref121">49</reflink>], 5), the key for EPS advisors 'lies in striking a balance between identifying and responding to children's differences while emphasising normality and equal treatment at the same time, echoing Norwich's "dilemma of difference" (2010)'.</p> <p>However, when examining individual approaches in goals and measures as they are presented in this study, it is important to consider the young age of the children involved. When children aged 3–5 years exhibit signs of struggling with the expectations and demands of mainstream provisions, individual considerations are crucial for their developing, learning and participating on an equal basis with other children. Nonetheless, the question arises of where to draw the line, and how to state with certainty that the challenges are due to conditions in the child rather than the social context. Should the threshold for making such determinations be higher, the younger the child is, since their <emph>being</emph> should be their main priority, and their <emph>becoming</emph> (development) is still ongoing and influenced by various factors? The results of this study indicate a need for a higher threshold; the predominant emphasis on the child's acquisition of skills and abilities suggests that the children were largely reduced to measurable conditions, which may not fully capture the complexities of their development and the contextual factors impacting it (Keles et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref122">19</reflink>]). A deficiency perspective of the child, suggesting that the child needs to be rectified (Dunst, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref123">13</reflink>]) not only threatens inclusion (Franck, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref124">14</reflink>]; Tveitnes, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref125">46</reflink>]), but makes the child responsible for bridging the gap between their own capabilities and environmental expectations. Not only were other crucial needs of the children overlooked in the recommendations in this study, but broader goals like equity and well‐being also received less attention, a finding corroborated by another study (Szulevics & Arnfred, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref126">41</reflink>]). At times, it was challenging to discern that the reports addressed whole, unique individuals, and most critically, that they pertained to the very youngest in this regard.</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-15">Are universal measures adequate for addressing the unique child's special educational needs?</hd> <p>The trend to include universal measures is well confirmed in previous research on the recommendation section of psychoeducational reports (Joner et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref127">18</reflink>]; Szulevics & Arnfred, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref128">41</reflink>]; Tveitnes, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref129">46</reflink>]). Despite the predominant individual emphasis in the recommendations in this study, there were areas which were characterised by universal measures, in terms of 'different diagnoses—similar goals—similar measures'. For example, all advocate for establishing a clear structure (also in terms of smaller group size) within the ECECs, a measure also identified as common in a prior study of psychoeducational reports (Szulevics & Arnfred, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref130">41</reflink>]). Because limited justification was provided for emphasising a clear structure and smaller groups, we must question whether there is a universal need for such reinforcement across all ECECs involved. Firstly, such universal measures might undermine the uniqueness of the individual child and their SEN (individual approach). Instead of vaguely stating that <emph>the child needs support in understanding their own emotions</emph>, the report might instead describe one unique situation in which the child is in need for such support. This, again, could include suggestions for helping the child understand how their own emotions arise in interaction with others and thus how they needs can be addressed within the same interaction. Without this, an individual approach might be reductionist, making the child solely responsible for not only the social emotional challenges they face, but also their solutions. Secondly, universal measures obscure how the social context might reinforce, remedy or even prevent the child from having special educational needs. Bringing to mind Franck's study ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref131">14</reflink>]), EPS advisors often refer to the social context in general terms without relating it to the unique child and their needs. While the measure of <emph>clear structure and group size</emph>, as found in this study, can be recognised in what Franck ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref132">14</reflink>], 824) calls the social context 'separated from the child', the recommendations of <emph>support in situations where rigidity hinders them in various activities</emph> and <emph>support in sharing focus with other children</emph> include the social context, but only in terms of 'situating the child in it' (<reflink idref="bib827" id="ref133">827</reflink>). Furthermore, activities favourable to all children, like reading books, playing games, solving puzzles and using pre‐produced artefacts at best 'accentuate the social context', however, still not in a way that reflects either the individual child and their unique SEN or how the activity might contribute to the child being able to take part in the community. We did not find goals and support measures which referred to 'critical assessments of the social context' in the reports in this study, which aligns with the study by Franck ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref134">14</reflink>]). Again, the results underscore not only the complexity of the social contextual approach in the EPS advisor's preparation of recommendations in psychoeducational reports, but also how this approach cannot be separated from the individual approach. Both are continuously interwoven and thus always in play.</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-16">Are measures reflecting social contextual considerations always inclusive?</hd> <p>Certain measures identified in this study recognise the importance of the child's participation in the ECEC community, aligning with inclusive perspectives of children, particularly those vulnerable to marginalisation or exclusion (Ainscow, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref135">1</reflink>]). Paradoxically, however, the most prominent indications of social contextual considerations were found in the recommendations concerning children with impairments stemming from <emph>obvious</emph> individual origins. This applies to, for instance, using alternative and augmentative communication to ensure security, overview and predictability for children experiencing challenges with, among other things, language development, and ensuring good lighting and acoustics in common areas for children with hearing impairments. As such, we are compelled to ask whether these considerations are unique to the individual child in their unique context or if they apply universally to everyone with the same biological or medical impairment and in every potential context. If it is the latter case, these considerations might focus on the impairment rather than the individual child's unique needs. Special educational practice based on the principle of 'similar diagnoses—similar challenges—similar goals—similar measures' is widely criticised precisely because it lacks individualisation according to each specific child and their unique learning needs (Dalkilic & Vadeboncoeur, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref136">12</reflink>]), as well as their talents and resources as prerequisites for development.</p> <p>Nevertheless, we did find traces of optimism with a notable emphasis on facilitating the child's active participation, engagement, and interactions with peers in various ways, something which can significantly contribute to the social and psychological dimensions of inclusion (Qvortrup & Qvortrup, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref137">36</reflink>]) and the overall well‐being of these children (Kyriazopoulou et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref138">22</reflink>]). For example, certain measures highlight individual considerations, such as ensuring sufficient rest to enhance participation for potentially neurodivergent children (those awaiting mapping and assessment) and those with hearing impairment. This is crucial because a fully engaged child feels accepted by others and accepts them in return, representing the ultimate outcome of participation (Imms & Granlund, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref139">16</reflink>]). Additionally, certain support measures provide opportunities for the child to play and build relationships with peers, something important to all children (Kuutti et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref140">21</reflink>]). However, it should be mentioned that there was limited emphasis on the child's engagement in play or the intrinsic value of play, with play often being viewed as a tool for learning. This is concerning, considering children with various impairments tend to engage in play less frequently than their peers and without adequate support, these children may be further excluded from their peer group (Kuutti et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref141">21</reflink>]). This underscores how the social contextual dimension of inclusion is shaped in an ongoing process by all participants involved and their relationships (Dalkilic & Vadeboncoeur, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref142">12</reflink>]; Uthus & Qvortrup, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref143">49</reflink>]), reflecting inclusion not as a universal state, or the same for every child, but rather a unique dynamic and ongoing process (Ainscow, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref144">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-17">CONCLUDING REMARKS</hd> <p>Given the ambition of inclusion, it is crucial to incorporate individual considerations stemming from children's biological, physical, or medical origins, as well as social contextual considerations, to prevent reductionism and the marginalisation of children with impairments (Reindal, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref145">37</reflink>]; Skidmore, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref146">40</reflink>]). The emphasis on individual, skill‐based and performance‐oriented goals identified in this study appears contradictory to such a holistic approach, and thus also violates the nature of the Norwegian ECEC as involving play, care and formative growth. Additionally, it contradicts the notion of child‐centred learning and 'progression' emphasised in the Framework Plan for Norwegian ECEC (Ministry of Education and Research, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref147">25</reflink>]). Despite the recognition within the mainstream educational provision that children's learning is built upon their talents, resources, interests and previous mastery experience, even the youngest children referred for assessment of SEN are at risk of being assigned specific and predefined performance‐based goals primarily for areas where they face challenges. This paradox underscores the complexities inherent in reconciling the individual approach of psychoeducational reports with the inclusive principles of ECEC.</p> <p>While the results of this study confirm a predominant emphasis on the children's skill acquisition and ability development, this must be seen in light of the fact that the primary purpose of the source document is its use in assessing whether an individual child has a need for SEA, as outlined in section 34 of the Kindergarten Act (Ministry of Education and Research, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref148">23</reflink>]). This implies that psychoeducational reports must always be individually orientated. Similarly, SEA aims to provide children with early support in terms of development, learning and equitable participation (Ministry of Education and Research, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref149">25</reflink>]), which also clarifies how an individual orientation is not necessary a barrier to, but can be a prerequisite for inclusion. Despite this, we were surprised that the recommendations did not acknowledge the unique child's talents, resources, and mastery experiences as critical in such an individual approach. Moreover, in inclusive (early childhood) education, participation is seen as both a process and an outcome, presumed to enhance the child's quality of life, sense of self and learning for all children (Imms et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref150">17</reflink>]). Higher levels of participation suggest better acquisition of knowledge and skills (Bartolo et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref151">3</reflink>]), surpassing any achievement or performance‐related goals (Kyriazopoulou et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref152">22</reflink>]). This indicates that promoting children's active participation in their community will benefit their development, learning and well‐being.</p> <p>Finally, it should be noted that insufficiently individualised recommendations in psychoeducational reports, potentially indicative of a copy‐and‐paste approach, may stem not from a lack of appreciation for individual orientation, but rather from EPS advisors' experiences with a heavy workload, high referral rates and resource constraints (Moen et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref153">27</reflink>]). If the EPS lacks sufficient resources to spend time in ECEC settings and thereby lay the groundwork for conveying information about the unique child, with their unique needs within their unique context, there is an obvious risk that the recommendations may diminish the significance of these qualities (Szulevics & Arnfred, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref154">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, our results underscore the necessity of a clearer framework for psychoeducational reports in terms of inclusion and the importance of balancing individual and social contextual considerations. Currently, in the Norwegian context, the Kindergarten Act points to an individual approach (Ministry of Education and Research, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref155">23</reflink>]), while other policies and legal guidelines for professionals in ECEC and EPS emphasise a clear social contextual orientation. When goals and support measures noted in this study seem to reinforce an individual approach to the child's deficits, criticising EPS for maintaining this perspective may be unwarranted, as EPS advisors adhere to their mandated guidelines.</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-18">The study's limitations</hd> <p>This small qualitative study, while strengthened by the diversity of municipalities from which the psychoeducational reports were obtained, does consist of a limited number of documents. This limitation may constrain our possibility to fully capture the rich diversity of contexts and variations inherent in the field, restricting the process of identifying patterns (Bowen, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref156">5</reflink>]). As a result, the study's conclusions should not be generalised. Documents such as psychoeducational reports offer valuable insights into specific contexts, times and purposes, underscoring the importance of contextual understanding (Tjora, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref157">44</reflink>]). However, it is important to recognise that these documents may not fully encapsulate the comprehensive insights and understandings of the EPS advisors who authored them, nor do they necessarily reflect the full scope of SEA provided to the children involved.</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-19">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors report there are no conflicting interests to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-20">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical considerations.</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-21">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>Internal funding from Queen Mauds University College (QMUC).</p> <hd id="AN0186527090-22">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>All parents have signed an informed consent giving access to their children's psychoeducational reports. The project is ethical approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD).</p> <ref id="AN0186527090-23"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref57" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ainscow, M. (2005) Understanding the development of inclusive education system. Electric Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 3 (3), 5 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref42" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, J. (2010) Questions of inclusion in Scotland and Europe. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25 (2), 199 – 208. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856251003658710</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref151" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bartolo, P.A., Kyriazopoulou, M., Björck‐Åkesson, E. & Giné, C. (2019) An adapted ecosystem model for inclusive early childhood education: a qualitative cross European study. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 9 (1), 3 – 15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2019.1637311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref14" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barton, E.E. & Smith, B.J. (2015) Advancing high‐quality preschool inclusion: a discussion and recommendations for the field. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 35 (2), 69 – 78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121415583048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref156" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bowen, G.A. (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9 (2), 27 – 40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref98" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2021) One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18 (3), 328 – 352. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref94" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2022) Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref100" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2024) Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in palliative medicine: a review of published research and introduction to the reflexive thematic analysis reporting guidelines (RTARG). Palliative Medicine, 38 (6), 608 – 616. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163241234800</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bray, J.R. (2020) Inclusion in early childhood education and care: a literature review of best practice. Australian Department of Education, Skills and Employment.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calderón‐Almendros, I., Moreno‐Parra, J.J. & Vila‐Merino, E.S. (2022) Education, power, and segregation. The psychoeducational report as an obstacle to inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1‐14, 2424 – 2437. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2022.2108512</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cameron, D.L., Kovac, V.B. & Tveit, A.D. (2011) En undersøkelse om PP‐tjenestens arbeid med barnehagen. https://<ulink href="http://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kd/vedlegg/barnehager/rapporter‐og‐planer/rapport%5fppt%5fog%5fbarnehagen.pdf">www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kd/vedlegg/barnehager/rapporter‐og‐planer/rapport%5fppt%5fog%5fbarnehagen.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dalkilic, M. & Vadeboncoeur, J.A. (2016) Regulating the child in early childhood education: the paradox of inclusion. Global Studies of Childhood, 6 (1), 17 – 30. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/2043610615619982</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunst, C.J. (2000) Revisiting "rethinking early intervention". Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20 (2), 95 – 104. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/027112140002000205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Franck, K. (2021) The educational context in expert assessments. A study of special documents of children in ECEC institutions. European Journal of Special Education, 37 (5), 819 – 833. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1954346</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gadamer, H.‐G. (1989) Truth and method. Continuum : Crossroad.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Imms, C. & Granlund, M. (2014) Participation: are we there yet.... Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 61 (5), 291 – 292. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1440‐1630.12166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Imms, C., Granlund, M., Wilson, P.H., Steenbergen, B., Rosenbaum, P.L. & Gordon, A.M. (2016) Participation, both a means and an end: a conceptual analysis of processes and outcomes in childhood disability. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 59 (1), 16 – 25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joner, M.D., Reikerås, E. & Alvestad, M. (2022) Children with language difficulties: identification and adapted language provision in early childhood and care, and subsequent assessment by the educational psychological service. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 30 (5), 758 – 772. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.2046829</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keles, S., ten Braak, D. & Munthe, E. (2022) Inclusion of students with special education needs in Nordic countries: a systematic scoping review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 68, 431 – 446. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2148277</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolnes, J., Øverland, K. & Midthassel, U.V. (2020) A system‐based approach to expert assessment work‐exploring experiences among professionals in the Norwegian educational psychological service and schools. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65 (5), 783 – 801. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1754904</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuutti, T., Sajaniemi, N., Björn, P.M., Heiskanen, N. & Reunamo, J. (2021) Participation, involvement and peer relationships in children with special educational needs in early childhood education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 37 (4), 587 – 602. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1920214</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyriazopoulou, M., Bartolo, P.A., Björck‐Akesson, E., Gine, C. & Bellour, F. (2017) Inclusive early childhood education new insights and tools – contributions from a European study. Odense : European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar//handle/123456789/29108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education and Research. (2005) The kindergarten act LOV‐2005‐06‐17‐64. In LOV‐2005‐06‐17‐64, 17, 64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education and Research. (2016) White Paper 19 (2015–2016) Time for play and learning – Better content in kindergarten.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education and Research. (2017) Framework Plan for the content and tasks of kindergartens.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moen, T. (2018) Individ‐ og systemrettet arbeid for PPT – er det behov for en alternativ begrepsbruk og forståelse? Spesialpedagogikk, 83 (4), 6 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moen, T., Rismark, M., Samuelsen, A.S. & Sølvberg, A.M. (2018) The Norwegian educational psychological service: a systematic review of research from the period 2000–2015. Nordic Studies in Education, 38 (2), 101 – 117. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891‐5949‐2018‐02‐02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nilholm, C. (2021) Research about inclusive education in 2020 – how can we improve our theories in order to change practice? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36 (3), 358 – 370. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2020.1754547</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nordahl, T. (2018) Inkluderende fellesskap for barn og unge ‐ ekspertgruppen for barn og unge med behov for særskilt tilrettelegging. Bergen : Fagbokforlaget.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2017) Veilederen Spesialpedagogisk hjelp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2024) "Facts about kindergartens 2023." The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. https://<ulink href="http://www.udir.no/tall‐og‐forskning/statistikk/statistikk‐barnehage/analyser/2024/fakta‐om‐barnehager‐2023/">www.udir.no/tall‐og‐forskning/statistikk/statistikk‐barnehage/analyser/2024/fakta‐om‐barnehager‐2023/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norwich, B. (2002) Education, inclusion and individual differences: Recognising and resolving dilemmas. British Journal of Educational Studies, 50 (4), 482 – 502. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8527.t01‐1‐00215</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NREC. (2022) Guidelines for research ethics in the social Sciencies and the humanities. Oslo, Norway : National Research Ethics Committees. https://<ulink href="http://www.forskningsetikk.no/retningslinjer/hum‐sam/forskningsetiske‐retningslinjer‐for‐samfunnsvitenskap‐og‐humaniora/">www.forskningsetikk.no/retningslinjer/hum‐sam/forskningsetiske‐retningslinjer‐for‐samfunnsvitenskap‐og‐humaniora/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palla, L. (2019) Characteristics of Nordic research on special education in preschool: a review with special focus on Swedish conditions. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23 (4), 436 – 453. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1441337</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prior, L. (2008) Repositioning documents in social research. Sociology, 42 (5), 821 – 836. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038508094564</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qvortrup, A. & Qvortrup, L. (2018) Inclusions: dimensions of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Educcation, 22 (7), 803 – 817. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1412506</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reindal, S.M. (2008) A social relational model of disability: a theoretical framework for special needs education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23 (2), 135 – 146. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250801947812</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reindal, S.M. (2009) Disability, capability, and special education: towards a capability‐based theory. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24 (2), 155 – 168. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250902793610</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reindal, S.M. (2015) Discussing inclusive education: an inquiry into different interpretations and a search for ethical aspects of inclusion using the capabilities approach. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31 (1), 1 – 12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1087123</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skidmore, D. (1996) Towards an integrated theoretical framework for research into special educational needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 11 (1), 33 – 47. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0885625960110103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Szulevics, T. & Arnfred, J.B. (2023) A structured learning environment: the generic nature of recommendations in psychoeducational reports. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–18, 3253 – 3270. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2023.2258371</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Terzi, L. (2004) The social model of disability: a philosophical critique. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 21 (2), 141 – 157. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0264‐3758.2004.00269.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, C. (2004) Rescuing a social relational understanding of disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 6 (1), 22 – 36. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410409512637</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tjora, A. (2019) Qualitative research as stepwise‐deductive induction. England, UK : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tveit, A.D., Kovač, V.B. & Cameron, D.L. (2012) 'Ja takk, begge deler' PPTs individ‐ og systemrettede arbeid i barnehagen. Spesialpedagogikk, 4, 43 – 56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tveitnes, M.S. (2018) Sakkyndighet med mål og mening. En analyse av sakkyndighetskunnskapens institusjonaliserte kjennetegn; et grunnlag for refleksjon og endring." Ph.D. dissertation, Fakultet for utdanningsvitenskap og humaniora, University of Stavanger. https://uis.brage.unit.no/uis‐xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2499868/Marianne_Sandvik_Tveitnes.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. (1994) The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Salamanca, Spain : Adopted by the world conference on special needs education: access and quality.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations. (2006) Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. https://<ulink href="http://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments‐mechanisms/instruments/convention‐rights‐persons‐disabilities">www.ohchr.org/en/instruments‐mechanisms/instruments/convention‐rights‐persons‐disabilities</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uthus, M. & Qvortrup, A. (2024) Lessons learned from Norway: a values‐based formulation of inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1 – 15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2024.2354603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vislie, L. (2003) From integration to inclusion: focusing global trends and changes in the western European societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18 (1), 17 – 35. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0885625082000042294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wendelborg, C., Caspersen, J., Kittelsaa, A.M., Svendsen, S., Haugset, A.S., Kongsvik, T. et al. (2015) Barnehagetilbudet til barn med særlige behov. NTNU Samfunnsforskning : Undersøkelse av tilbudet til barn med særlige behov under opplæringspliktig alder. https://<ulink href="http://www.udir.no/barnehagetilbudet‐til‐barn‐med‐sarlige‐behov">www.udir.no/barnehagetilbudet‐til‐barn‐med‐sarlige‐behov</ulink></bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Agnete Vaags and Marit Uthus</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib827" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref157"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1476543
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Recommendation Section of Psychoeducational Reports: A Barrier or Opportunity to Promote Inclusion in Early Education and Care?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Agnete+Vaags%22">Agnete Vaags</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2314-6706">0009-0007-2314-6706</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marit+Uthus%22">Marit Uthus</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1263-1486">0000-0003-1263-1486</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Research+in+Special+Educational+Needs%22"><i>Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs</i></searchLink>. 2025 25(3):631-643.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychoeducational+Methods%22">Psychoeducational Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reports%22">Reports</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education%22">Special Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ability%22">Ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance+Based+Assessment%22">Performance Based Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Holistic+Approach%22">Holistic Approach</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/1471-3802.12749
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1471-3802
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Psychoeducational reports prepared by the Educational Psychological Service are foundational for special educational support in Norway, ensuring equitable opportunities for development, learning and participation among children with special educational needs in mainstream Early Childhood Education and Care settings. This qualitative study examines the characteristics of recommended goals and support measures in these reports, and how they promote or inhibit inclusion. Through a holistic approach, the study explores individual and social contextual considerations within the recommendation sections of seven reports for children aged 3-5 years. Employing reflexive thematic analysis, our findings suggest that while certain measures promote children's participation in inclusive communities, there is a predominant focus on the individual child. This emphasis often centres on skill acquisition and ability development through performance-based goals and compensatory measures. However, while most recommendations are individually oriented, certain measures appear generalised and broadly applicable to most children, highlighting the challenges of addressing each child's unique needs in their specific context. The study's implications underscore the necessity for a holistic approach in the field of special education, both at the policy and legislative levels. Such an approach is essential for enabling psychoeducational reports to promote inclusion in early childhood education and care settings.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1476543
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1476543
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/1471-3802.12749
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 631
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Psychoeducational Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reports
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance Based Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Holistic Approach
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Recommendation Section of Psychoeducational Reports: A Barrier or Opportunity to Promote Inclusion in Early Education and Care?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Agnete Vaags
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marit Uthus
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1471-3802
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 25
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs
              Type: main
ResultId 1