Evidence-Based Interventions

Relevance of Evidence-Based Interventions to School Psychology

Most practitioners and researchers agree there is an urgent need for proven practices that improve educational and psychological outcomes. The primary basis for the EBI movement in school psychology is to translate research into effective practices in the hope that such translation efforts will improve the quality of services for children, including those with and without disabilities, and their families. Through an interest in EBIs, the field of school psychology recognizes a need for prevention and intervention practices that improve learning, social–emotional, and behavioral performance outcomes for students. In brief, the EBI movement is consistent with initiatives to promote student success, effective schools, and family well-being.

Rationale and History of the Evidence-Based Movement in School Psychology

Educational and psychological practices, including those occurring for prevention and intervention purposes, seldom produce intended effects for all individuals under all conditions (Kratochwill & [Page 197]Stoiber, 2002). In addition, there are research-supported effective intervention approaches that tend not to be frequently used in typical educational settings. School psychology practitioners and researchers need valid information to guide the application of prevention and intervention methods to the range of school contexts and populations they serve (i.e., there is a need to translate research and scientific-based approaches to diverse settings and problems as well as to specific field-based contexts).

The EBI movement has roots both in psychology and education. Since British psychologist Hans Eysenck (1952) provocatively questioned the effectiveness of psychotherapy, the notion of whether and how psychologists make clinical decisions based on science has remained a hotly debated issue. To counter a nonscientific or “clinical judgment” approach in school psychology, the training approach commonly referred to as the “scientist–practitioner model” (an equal emphasis on learning clinical practice and research skills in a training program) has been widely embraced. Despite widespread endorsement of a scientist–practitioner model at the graduate school psychology training level, many question the degree to which empirical results actually guide the practice of school psychologists. Although little formal documentation exists on the basis of psychologists' clinical decisions, legitimate concerns have been raised regarding the actual use of research knowledge by practitioners (Nathan, 1998).

...