This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Gonzalez, J. E. Articles by Shwery, C. S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Teacher Resistance to School-Based Consultation with School Psychologists

A Survey of Teacher Perceptions

Center for At-Risk Children's Services at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln

J. Ron Nelson

Center for At-Risk Children's Services at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Terry B. Gutkin

Department of Counseling at San Francisco State University

Craig S. Shwery

University of Alabama College of Education

This study investigated teacher resistance to real-world school-based consultation services delivered by school psychologists. In 2 analyses, the predictive power of both proximal and distal variables was examined with regard to the reported use of consultation over the course of the 1998—1999 school year by elementary school teachers. In the primaryfindings,factor analysis of survey items yielded 8 proximal variable factors: School Psychologist Characteristics, Principal Support for Consultation, Personal Teaching Efficacy, Teacher—School Psychologist Similarity, Classroom Management/Discipline Efficacy, Adequacy of Time Availability for Consulting, Opportunity to Reciprocate, and Teacher Consultation Insight. However, stepwise regression of actual reported teacher consultations on the factors revealed they were not significant. In the secondary analysis of distal variables, using stepwise regression, the number of hours the school psychologist is in the building was the only variable to make a significant, albeit small, contribution to the prediction of number of actual reported consultations. Several important methodological and conceptual differences between the present study and the literature on consultation are identified. Implications, study limitations, and future research directions are discussed.

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Vol. 12, No. 1, 30-37 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/10634266040120010401


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?