Notes on Interview-based Assessment Planning, Data Integration, and Ethics in School Psychology
Overview: Interview-based assessment project in a school psychology context
Purpose: Examine how families participate in documenting a child’s functioning in a specific academic area (e.g., reading, math, writing).
Focus areas: Choose one academic domain; gather data from multiple sources to inform a comprehensive report.
Key data sources:
Group testing results (parents provide school reports) such as:
Georgia Milestones assessment (Georgia)
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Iowa) or similar group tests used by some schools
STARR, STAR Math, STAR Reading (progress-monitoring data)
Work samples: math worksheets or tests (if math is focus) or corresponding samples for other domains
Interviews: parental interview (often face-to-face or via Zoom) and child interview (separate sessions)
Consent forms and approvals: consent from parents; child assent; de-identification (use initials); consent form posted for access
Submission: all material (report, work samples, consent) to a Dropbox repository; electronic signatures permitted for consent
Practical considerations:
Ensure family can provide group testing results and work samples
Do not use the child’s full name in the report; use initials for confidentiality
Consent: may be electronic if the family prefers; inform about the scope and description of the project in the consent form
Do not recruit a child who has an IEP for the assessments described (to avoid interfering with school testing); assess only via interviews and samples, not formal testing for eligibility
Do not interview a relative or someone who has previously worked with the child in a professional capacity
Scheduling: interviews should be at a time convenient for the parent and child; consider interviewing the parent first and then the child in separate sessions to avoid confusion
Timeline and logistics:
Template for the report will be provided; date references in class materials may be outdated; the formal due date should be confirmed (example: November, but verify the current deadline)
A set of questions and a structured interview outline will be provided; you may add your own age-appropriate questions
Data organization: present information by domains (academic, behavioral, emotional, social, family, health, and other) to structure the write-up
Reporting approach:
Use a prepared template for the write-up; avoid first-person references; organize content by domain using information gathered from both parent and child
In work samples, describe each sample, identify the relevant Georgia standard(s) assessed by the sample (the instructor will provide the link to the standards)
Compare results from interviews, work samples, and group testing; note consistencies and discrepancies; discuss strengths and weaknesses
Form hypotheses about possible underlying factors for weaknesses; consider data convergence and conflicts (e.g., child says math is favorite but performance is weak) and possible explanations
Include a section analyzing and integrating data across domains to form a coherent interpretation
Domain coverage for interviews (essential):
Academic domain (focus area-specific issues)
Behavioral
Emotional
Social
Family
Health
Other (open to relevant themes not captured by the above)
Interview guidance and question development:
Prepare questions in advance, but be flexible; you can pull from the provided list or develop your own questions
Use age-appropriate language; avoid yes/no questions when possible and use open-ended prompts (e.g., "Tell me about…", "What are your strengths and weaknesses in math?", "What helps you learn best?")
For the child, you may ask about favorite subject, subjects they dislike, and reasons why to gain a sense of engagement and perception
Interview and data collection specifics:
Interview the parent to gather background, accommodations, home/environment context, and perceptions of the child’s functioning
Interview the child to gather self-perceptions of their strengths, weaknesses, and daily functioning in school
Collect 2 work samples minimum (not 10); ensure samples are representative of the targeted domain
Review the group testing results and discuss how they align with interview and work sample data
Reporting template and structure:
Use the provided report template; input demographics with initials; include an “exceptionality” field (e.g., NA for general education, or specify a condition if applicable)
Indicate which domain you are focusing on (academic, math, etc.)
In the write-up, present data in domain-based sections rather than jumping across domains; integrate parent and child interview data within each domain
Describe each work sample and specify which Georgia Standard(s) are being addressed; include the standard link (provided by instructor)
Include a section comparing Georgia Milestones/other group test results with the interview/work sample data; note strengths and weaknesses
Form a concluding section with: overall strengths, areas of weakness, and hypotheses about possible explanations; discuss any inconsistencies between data sources and potential reasons
After data collection, ensure grammar and clarity; prepare a concise, legally defensible report
Consent, assent, and confidentiality details:
Child assent is recommended when appropriate; even if a parent provides consent, the child should be willing to participate
Do not include the child’s name in the report; use initials or pseudonym
Consent forms describe the project and what to expect; must be posted/collected; electronic signatures allowed
FERPA implications: parents have rights to inspect and challenge records; information must be accurate; personal notes kept separate from official student records
After age 18, the student may consent if provided with appropriate capacity; prior to 18, parental consent is required
Access to student records should be limited to individuals with a legitimate need to know; records should be stored securely and kept in accordance with district policy
If records are transferred to another district or school, ensure proper consent where required; intra-district transfers may occur within system without new parent consent; out-of-district transfers require parent notification/consent
Ethical and legal framework: NASP, APA, and state standards
Core ethical principles emphasize: do no harm; confidentiality; professional competence; honesty and integrity; professional relationships and responsibilities; and the obligation to schools, families, communities, and the profession
Test security: keep test materials secure; avoid exposing content; do not leave instruments unattended in public or non-secure spaces; ensure test administration conditions match standardized procedures; do not coach or alter results through external sources (e.g., coaching by parents) as this is unethical
Professional Competence: ensure you are trained and practiced with the instrument; do not administer tests beyond your training; engage in ongoing professional development; respect diverse backgrounds and adapt communication as needed
Honesty and Integrity: maintain boundaries; avoid practicing beyond the scope of training; be transparent about limitations and data interpretation
Professional Relationships and Responsibilities: uphold obligations to students, families, schools, and the community; maintain respectful and collaborative relationships with stakeholders
Records and confidentiality: ensure proper documentation and secure storage of data; disclosure only to individuals with a legitimate need to know; use approved data-sharing channels
Foundational models and practices (NASP practice model): provide direct and indirect services; data-based decision making; consultation and collaboration; intervention/instructional support; mental health services; school-wide practices; family-school collaboration; diversity and development; organizational systems; supervision and professional development
NASP practice model: ten domains and implications for service delivery
Interventions and instruction for academic skills
Interventions and mental health services for social and life skills
School-wide practices to promote learning
Preventive and responsive services (e.g., crisis intervention, bullying prevention)
Family, school, and community collaboration
Data-based decision making and problem solving (permeates all areas)
Consultation and collaboration
Diversity in development and learning
Organizational processes that support effective service delivery (e.g., evaluation, climate, resources, finance, professional communication, supervision)
Foundational basis: ethical and legal practices and research/program evaluation; trained practitioners with supervision and ongoing professional development
Federal legislation timeline (key milestones and implications for assessment practices)
1954: Brown v. Board of Education – desegregation; equal protection under the law; foundation for equal access to education (impact on disability rights via equal protection reasoning)
1965: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) – focus on inequality and resources for underprivileged students; amended in 1966 to expand grants; early emphasis on disability-related supports
1970: Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) – provided funding to improve programs for students with disabilities; lacked clear guidance on fund usage
1973: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act – prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in programs receiving federal funding; accommodations and non-discrimination; basis for early accommodation planning (e.g., 504 plans)
1975: Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) – introduced FAPE, LRE, parental rights, due process; established requirements for evaluation and IEPs
1986: Amendments to PL 94-142 (Public Law 99-457) – extended services to infants and toddlers; early intervention services; IFSP; preschool services for ages 3-5; family-centered services
1990: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) – reauthorization of EHA; expanded to ages 3-21; added autism and TBI as recognized disabilities; required transition planning by age 16 (later adjusted in subsequent reauthorizations); emphasis on inclusive education and more structured IEPs
1990: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – civil rights protection for individuals with disabilities in employment, public services, transportation, and public accommodations; broader protections beyond schools
1997: IDEA reauthorization – inclusion of students with disabilities in state assessments; IEP teams could determine alternative assessments; transition planning moved to earlier ages (around 14); clarified disciplinary procedures for students with disabilities (manifestation determination)
2001: No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) – accountability framework for schools; could involve state-determined testing and reporting; Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) metrics; emphasis on results and accountability; parent option to transfer to a higher-performing school in certain circumstances
2004: IDEA reauthorization (Part B for school-age, Part C for infants/toddlers) – formalized MTSS/RTI approach as an alternative to the discrepancy model; focus on scientifically based interventions; emphasis on highly qualified teachers; maintained FAPE and LRE; expanded emphasis on assessments being fair and non-discriminatory; strengthened parental rights
2004: Introduction of MTSS (Multi-Tiered System of Support) and RTI as models for identifying and supporting learning disabilities through data-driven progress monitoring
2007+: Many states, including Georgia, implemented state-specific MTSS frameworks; frameworks vary by district but align with MTSS concepts
2015: Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) – replaced NCLB; focus on protecting disadvantaged and high-need students; maintained accountability and standard-based testing but with more state control and flexibility; emphasis on challenging curricula and outcomes; implemented in 2017
Practical implications of legislation for assessment practice
Assessments must be fair and nondiscriminatory; testing in the student’s native language when possible; use of a multidisciplinary team for evaluations when needed
IEP teams determine eligibility and appropriate accommodations or alternate assessments; MTSS/RTI informs instruction and progress monitoring
Transition planning requirements; inclusion and least restrictive environment considerations; parental rights and due process protections remain central
Federal and state funding implications influence how schools deliver services and what resources are available for evaluations and supports
Ethical and practical implications in practice
Do no harm: ensure assessments and procedures support the child’s well-being and education, not harm or stigmatize
Confidentiality: guard student information; use secure storage; limit disclosures to individuals with a legitimate need to know; maintain test security (do not reveal test content; avoid publicly disclosing items)
Competence and boundaries: work within training; pursue supervision; avoid using instruments you are not trained to administer; ensure cultural and linguistic fairness
Record-keeping and parental rights: provide access to records; correct inaccuracies; obtain informed consent; provide consent in parents’ native language; manage authorization for transfers and releases of information
In practice, school psychology roles include balancing rights and responsibilities of families, schools, and the profession; the practice model guides how to deliver both direct services and indirect support
Key takeaways for your exam preparation
Be able to describe the process of recruiting a family, obtaining consent, and gathering data across multiple sources to inform an assessment focused on a single academic domain
Understand the ethical and legal foundations of school-based assessment, including confidentiality, consent, test security, competence, and appropriate use of data
Recognize the connection between domain-based data (interviews, work samples, and testing results) and the Georgia standards; know how to describe and integrate these data in a write-up
Be familiar with the NASP practice model domains and how they guide service delivery in school settings
Recall the major federal laws (ESEA, EHA, Section 504, IDEA, ADA, NCLB, ESSA) and their core concepts (FAPE, LRE, due process, transitions, non-discrimination, accountability)
Be prepared to discuss the implications of MTSS/RTI for assessment and eligibility decisions, and how they relate to the discrepancy model and alternative approaches
Important reminder for the exam: you may be asked to explain how to organize a report, how to present data by domain, and how to discuss inconsistencies between data sources. You should also be able to articulate ethical considerations (confidentiality, test security, and informed consent) and describe the evolution of major education laws and their implications for assessment practice.
Direct prompts you might encounter:
How would you structure a parent interview to cover academic, behavioral, emotional, social, family, health, and other domains?
What steps would you take to anonymize data and protect confidentiality in a write-up?
How do you link work samples to Georgia Standards, and why is this linkage important for interpretation?
What are the key ethical principles from NASP/APA that govern school psychology practice, and how do they translate into daily assessment activities?
Describe the NASP practice model domains and how they inform service delivery in schools.
Outline the major federal laws governing disability and education, with emphasis on FAPE, LRE, due process, MTSS/RTI, and accountability under ESSA.
Key terms and references to remember
Georgia Milestones, Iowa Basic Skills, STARR, STAR assessments
MTSS: Multi-Tiered System of Support; RTI: Response to Intervention
FAPE: Free Appropriate Public Education
LRE: Least Restrictive Environment
IEP: Individualized Education Program
504 Plan under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Parts A, B, C, etc.)
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act
ESSA: Every Student Succeeds Act
FERPA: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
NASP: National Association of School Psychologists
APA: American Psychological Association
PD: Professional Development
Basal and ceiling rules (for testing procedures)
Native language considerations in testing
Manifestation determination (IDEA 1997 provision)
Demonstrating standard procedures and psychometric properties (validity, reliability)
Test security and ethical test administration practices
Consent and assent processes; interpretive writing for families; native language language support
Confidentiality and records transfer procedures within and between districts
Data-based decision making: connecting data sources to form evidence-based conclusions
Documentation: preparing a legally defensible, easily understood report for families and educators