| Summary: | This was a descriptive study of the agreements reached by learning
assistants and classroom teachers when identifying a student's problem(s) during
a consultative problem identification interview. The behavioral consultation
research literature suggested that problem identification was a critical component
of the problem solving process (Bergan & Tombari, 1976) however, the reliability
of information gathered during the consultation interviews required further
investigation (White & Edelstein, 1991). This study addressed the issue of
reliability of the problem identification interview in consultation by examining
interrater and interparticipant agreements as to the priority, nature and number
of problems identified during the interview.
Nine learning assistance teachers conducted problem identification
interviews with each of four classroom teachers from their individual schools
regarding students who the teacher identified as difficult to teach. Participants
rated their problem identification interviews with an evaluative rating scale of
interview helpfulness, and levels of problem identification and shared
understanding in their interview dyad. Post consultation interviews with each
participant revealed the levels to which each identified the presenting problems
i n priority by nature and number. Results reported the level to which each
interview dyad (N=36) agreed upon the problem(s) identified. Two raters gave
independent ratings to the level of shared understanding of the problem(s)
identified by the participants as well as to the priority, number and nature of the
problem(s). Participant-rater agreements were determined for the same
variables.
The results reported a moderate level of agreement (Kappa=.66)
between the participants as to the nature of the highest priority problem. A
moderate level of agreement was determined between Rater 2 and the learning
assistance teachers (K=.67) and the classroom teachers (K=.78) regarding the
nature of the highest priority problem as well.
The implication of these findings suggested that the dynamic process of
problem identification is reliable. However, the process may result in lack of
complete agreement between participants until the process results in problem
descriptions which are specific enough to allow problem solution to be
attempted. A replication of this study is needed to further validate these results.
Further research is warranted in order to confirm the level at which problem
identification is completed. === Education, Faculty of === Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department of === Graduate
|
|---|
