Questões e modelos de avaliação e intervenção em Psicologia Escolar
o caso da Europa e América do Norte
Palavras-chave:
Avaliação, Diagnóstico, Intervenção, Distúrbios da aprendizagem, Educação especialResumo
As práticas da Psicologia Escolar parecem ser cada vez mais marcadas pelas necessidades de referenciação/diagnóstico de crianças para o subsistema de educação especial, em detrimento do desenho e implementação de intervenções dirigidas aos problemas específicos dos alunos. A aparente insatisfação dos psicólogos escolares com essa tendência, bem como as dificuldades na utilização de modelos categoriais de diagnóstico em contexto escolar, têm dado origem à progressiva implementação de modelos alternativos de avaliação e intervenção, principalmente de modelos Response to Intervention, Curriculum-Based Measurement e Problem Solving. A controvérsia quanto à natureza verdadeiramente alternativa desses modelos parece, no entanto, longe de se esgotar. Neste artigo são discutidas vantagens e limitações dos diferentes modelos, de acordo com a melhor evidência disponível na literatura, e são ainda equacionadas as suas implicações nas práticas da Psicologia Escolar.
Downloads
Referências
Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F. E. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. The Journal of Special Education, 388, 66-79.
Brown-Chidsey, R. (2008). The role of published-norm reference tests in problem-solving based assessment. In R. Brown-Chidsey (Ed.), Assessment for intervention: A problem-solving approach (pp.247-264). New York: Guilford.
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2010). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Burns, M. K., Deno, S. L., & Jimerson, S. R. (2007). Toward a unified Response-to-Intervention model. In R. J. Shane, K. B. Matthew, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The Science and practice of assessment and intervention (Vol. 4, pp.428-440). New York: Springer.
Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2009). Prevalence of evidence-based practices in special education. Journal of Special Education, 43(1), 3-11.
Case, L. P., Speece, D. L., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). The validity of a response-to-instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review, 32, 557-582.
Castillo, J. M., Curtis, M. J., & Gelley, C. (2012). Professional practice school psychology 2010: Part 2, School psychologists’ professional practices and implications for the field. Communiqué, 40, 4-6.
Christ, T. J., Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Conceptual confusion within Response-to-Intervention vernacular: Clarifying meaningful differences. Comuniqué, 34(3), 1-8.
Cole, E., & Siegel, J. A. (1990). Effective consultation in school psychology. Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671-684.
Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116-127.
De Witte, K., Cabus, S., Thyssen, G., Groot, W., & Van Den Brink, H. M. (2013). A critical review of the literature on school dropout. Educational Research Review, 10, 13-28.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Excepcional Children, 52, 219-232.
Deno, S. L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and alternative special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp.1-17). New York: Guilford Press.
Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184-192.
Deno, S. L. (2008). Problem-solving assessment. In R. Brown-Chidsey (Ed.), Assessment for intervention: A problem-solving approach (pp.10-40). New York: Guilford.
Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of LD: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545-552.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: Guilford Press.
Fletcher, J. M., Morris, R. D., & Lyon, G. R. (2003). Classification and definition of learning disabilities: Na integrative perspective. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp.30-56). New York: Guilford.
Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to Intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x
Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 58, 232-243.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(157-171).
Gresham, F. (2007). Evolution of the response-tointervention concept: Empirical foundations and recente developments. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHayden (Eds.), Handbook of response-tointervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp.10-24). New York: Springer.
Gresham, F. M. (2006). Evolution of the response-tointervention concept: Empirical foundations and recente developments. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp.10-24). New York: Springer.
Griffiths, A. M., Parson, L. B., Burns, M. K., VanderHeyden, A., & Tilly, W. D. (2007). Response to intervention. Research for practice. Alexandria: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
Hirschfield, P. J., & Gasper, J. (2011). The relationship between school engagement and delinquency in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(1), 3-22.
Jackson, S., Pretti-Frontczak, K., Harjusola-Webb, S., Grisham-Brown, J., & Romani, J. M. (2009). Response to intervention: Implications for early childhood professionals. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in School, 40(4), 424-434. http://dx. doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0027)
Jimenez, J. E. (2010). Response to Intervention (RTI) Model: A promising alternative for identifying students with learning disabilities? Psicothema, 22(4), 932-934.
Jimenez, J. E., Rodriguez, C., Crespo, P., Gonzalez, D., Artiles, C., & Alfonso, M. (2010). Implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) Model in Spain: Na example of a collaboration between Canarian universities and the department of education of the Canary Islands. Psicothema, 22(4), 935-942.
Jimerson, S. R. (2014). Enhancing science, practice, and policy relevant to school psychology around the world. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 1-6.
Johnson, B. R., & Barton-Bellessa, S. M. (2014). Consequences of school violence: Personal coping and protection measures by school personnel in their personal lives. Deviant Behavior, 35(7), 513-533.
Justice, L. M. (2006). Evidence-based practice, response to intervention, and the prevention of Reading difficulties. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 37(4), 284-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2006/033)
Kauffman, J. M., Lloyd, J. W., Hallahan, D. P., & Astuto, T. A. (1995). Issues in educational placement. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Kauffman, J. M., & Lopes, J. A. (2007). Pode a educação especial deixar de ser especial? Braga: Psiquilíbrios.
Kavale, K., Kauffman, J., Bachmeir, R., & LeFever, G. (2008). Response-to-Intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 135-150.
Kearns, D., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Does cognitively focused instruction improve the academic performance of low-achieving students? Exceptional Children, 79(3), 263-290.
Koutsoftas, A. D., Harmon, M. T., & Gray, S. (2009). The effect of Tier 2 intervention for phonemic awareness in a response-to-intervention model in low-income preschool classrooms. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40(2), 116-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2008/07-0101)
Lopes, J. A. (2010). Conceptualização, avaliação e intervenção nas dificuldades de aprendizagem: A sofisticada arquitectura de um equívoco. Braga: Psiquilíbrios.
Lopes, J. A., Rutherford, R., Cruz, M. C., Mathur, S., & Quinn, M. (2011). Competências sociais: aspectos emocionais, comportamentais e de aprendizagem (2ª ed.). Braga: Psiquilíbrios.
Moats, L., Kukik, S., & Pasternack, R. (2010). Response to Reynolds and Shaywitz: Let’s not go back to the Good Old Days before RTI. RTI Action Network. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/response-to-reynolds-and-shaywitz
Ortiz, S. O. (2004). Nondiscriminatory assessment in schools. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (Vol. 10, pp.669-675). San Diego, C.A: Academic Press.
Peterson, K. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Severe discrepancy models: Which best explains school identification practices for learninf disbilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and context factors. School Psychology Review, 31, 459-476.
Reschly, D. J. (2003). School Psychology. In W. M. Reynolds & E. M. Gloria (Eds.), Hanbook of psychology: educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp.431-453). New York: Wiley.
Reschly, D. J., & Gresham, F. M. (1989). Current neuropsychological diagnosis of learning problems: A leap of faith. In C. R. Reynolds (Ed.), Child neuropsychology: Techniques of diagnosis and treatment (pp.503-519). New York: Plenum.
Reschly, D. J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1995). School psychology paradigm shift. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp.17-32). Washington, D.C: NASP.
Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2009a). Response to Intervention: Prevention and remediation, perhaps. Diagnosis, no. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00075.x
Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2009b). Response to Intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), 130-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016158
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (2003). Assessment: In special and inclusive education (9th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Sanches-Ferreira, M., Silveira-Maia, M., & Alves, S. (2014). The use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, version for Children and Youth (ICF-CY), in Portuguese special education assessment and eligibility procedures: The professionals’ perceptions. European Journal of Special Needs Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.908025
Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Off track: When poor readers become learning disabled. Boulder: Westview Press.
Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Curing our ‘epidemic’ of learning disabilities. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(5), 397-401.
Steege, M. W., & Watson, T. S. (2009). Conducting schoolbased functional behavioral assessments. New York: Guilford.
Swanson, H. L. (2008). Neuroscience and response to instruction (RTI): A complementary role. In E. Fletcher- Janzen, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations of diagnosis and intervention (pp.28-53.). New York: Wiley.
Swanson, H. L., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2013). Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Tharinger, D. J., & Lambert, N. M. (1999). The apllication of developmental psychology to school psychology practice: Informing assessment, intervention, and prevention effects. In C. R. Reynolds, & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), School-based consultation. Theory and practice: The art and science of indirect service delivery (3rd ed., pp.137-166). New York: Wiley.
VanDerHayden, A. M., & Burns, M. (2013). Universal screening may not be for everyone: Using a threshold model as a smarter way to determine risk. School Psychology Review, 42(4), 402-414.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Witt, J. C. (2005). Quantifying the context of assessment: Capturing the effect of base rates on teacher referral and a problem-solving model of identification. School Psychology Review, 34, 161-183.
Vanderwood, M. L., & Burns, M. (2013). Validity and school psychology assessment research: Introduction to the special topic. School Psychology Review, 42(4), 363-366.
Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2010). Thoughts on rethinking response to intervention with secondary students. School Psychology Review, 39(2), 296-299.
Ysseldyke, J. E. (1973). Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching: The search for aptitude-treatment interactions. In L. Mann, & D. Sabatino (Eds.), The first review of special education. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Assessment and decision making for students with learning disabilities: What if this is as good as it gets? Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 28(2), 125-128.
Ysseldyke, J., Algozzine, B., & Epps, S. (1983). A logical and empirical analysis of current practice in classifying students as handicapped. Exceptional Children, 50, 160-165.
Ysseldyke, J., & Marston, D. (1998). Origins of categorical special education services in schools and a rational
for changing them. In D. J. Reschly, W. D. Tilly, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Functional and non categorical identification and intervention in special education (pp.1-14). Des Moines: Iowa State Department of Education.
Ysseldyke, J., Reynolds, M., & Weinberg, R. A. (1984). School psychology: A blueprint for training and practice. Minneapolis, M.N: University of Minnesota
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2023 João LOPES, Leandro da Silva ALMEIDA
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
