Using Advancing Technologies in the Practice of School Psychology

  • Dan Florell


Technology, broadly defined, is applying scientific knowledge to practical tasks. Technology use is rapidly increasing in a variety of work settings, including the areas of education and psychology (Czaja, Charness, Fisk, Nair, Rogers, & Sharit, 2006). Starting with the rapid adoption of personal computers in the 1980s, advanced technologies (e.g., computers) have made a significant impact on the practice of school psychology. The early use of computers allowed school psychologists to more efficiently complete assessment reports and reduced the need to laboriously rewrite common sections of reports. The early experience of those who adopted personal computers in the 1980s encapsulates the promise of advanced technologies for education and more specifically for school psychology.


Cell Phone Word Processing Assistive Technology Instant Messaging Voice Over Internet Protocol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aimsweb. (2007). Aimsweb progress monitoring and response to intervention system. Retrieved February 12, 2007 from
  2. Campbell, P. H., Milbourne, S., Dugan, L. M., & Wilcox, M. J. (2006). A review of evidence on practices for teaching young children to use assistive technology devices. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26(1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlson, J. F., & Harvey, V. S. (2004). Using computer-related technology for assessment activities: Ethical and professional practice issues for school psychologists. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(5), 645–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carroll, J. (2004, May). Not your parent’s telephone. CA Magazine, 12–17.Google Scholar
  5. Chau, P. Y. K. (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 185–204.Google Scholar
  6. Cong, Y., & Du, H. (2007). Welcome to the world of web 2.0. CPA Journal, 77(5), 6–10.Google Scholar
  7. Connolly, J.M. (2007, April). Tech turns to web 2.0. B to B, 92, 24–27.Google Scholar
  8. Council for exceptional children. (2004). The new IDEA: CEC’s summary of significant issues. Retrieved December 6, 2004, from
  9. Cummings, J. A. (2002). A school psychological perspective on the consulting psychology education and training principles. Consulting Psychology Journal, 54(4), 252–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Nair, S. N., Rogers, W. A., & Sharit, J. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 333–352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawson, D., Cummings, J. A., Harrison, P. L., Short, R. J., Gorin, S., & Palomares, R. (2004). The 2002 multisite conference on the future of school psychology: Next steps. School Psychology Review, 33(1), 115–125.Google Scholar
  13. Harcourt assessment. (2007). Behavioral observation of students in schools (BOSS). Retrieved March 6, 2007 from
  14. Harris, M. L., & Gibson, S. G. (2006). Distance education vs. face-to-face classes: Individual differences, course preferences, and enrollment. Psychological Reports, 98, 756–764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harvey, V. S., & Carlson, J. F. (2003). Ethical and professional issues with computer-related technology. School Psychology Review, 32(1), 92–107.Google Scholar
  16. Hinkle, K. T. (2003). Internet An analytical tool for student and program evaluation. Trainer’s forum: Periodical of the trainers of school psychologists, 22(4), 1–4.Google Scholar
  17. Hinkle, K. T. (2005). Perceptions of school psychology trainers and students on the use of an electronic data base for practicum and internship documentation and supervision. Trainer’s forum: Periodical of the trainers of school psychologists, 24(4), 12–16.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, V. L. (2003). Technology and special education: Bridging the most recent digital divide. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 479685)Google Scholar
  19. Jacob, S., & Hartshorne, T. S. (2003). Ethics and law for school psychologists (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Kanz, J. E. (2001). Issues in the provision of online supervision. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(4), 415–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. King, T. W. (1999). Assistive technology: Essential human factors. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  22. Kruger, L. J., Maital, S., Macklem, G., Weksel, T., & Caldwell, R. (2002). The internet and school psychology practice. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(1), 95–111.Google Scholar
  23. Lane, S. J., & Mistrett, S. G. (1996). Play and assistive technology issues for infants and young children with disabilities: A preliminary examination. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11(2), 96–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Macklem, G. L., Kalinsky, R., & Corcoran, R. (2000, July 17). International consultation, professional development and the Internet: School psychology practice and the future. Paper presented at the XXIII Annual Colloquim of the International School Psychology Association, Durham, New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  25. McMinn, M. R., Buchanan, T., Ellens, B. M., & Ryan, M. K. (1999). Technology, professional practice, and ethics: Survey findings and implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30(2), 165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Melenhorst, A., Rogers, W. A., & Bouwhuis, D. G. (2006). Older adults’ motivated choice for technological innovation: Evidence for benefit-driven selectivity. Psychology and Aging, 21(1), 190–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mohamed, A. (2006, September). The voip revolution. Computer Weekly, p. 32.Google Scholar
  28. Murphy, M. J. (2003). Computer technology for office-based psychological practice: Applications and factors affecting adoption. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 40(1/2), 10–19.Google Scholar
  29. National Associate of School Psychologists. (1997). Standards for the provision of school psychological services. School Psychology Review, 26(4), 677–692.Google Scholar
  30. National Association of School Psychologists. (2000). Professional conduct manual. Bethesda, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  31. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2001, November 26). Advanced encryption standards (Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 197). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  32. Nuance. (2007). Dragon Naturally Speaking 9 Preferred. Retrieved February 21, 2007 from
  33. Pearson Assessment. (2007). BASC-2 Portable Observation Program. Retrieved March 6, 2007 from http://ags.­
  34. Power, T. J. (2006). School psychology review: 2006–2010. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 3–10.Google Scholar
  35. Principles of good practice in distance education and their application to professional education and training in psychology. (2002). Report of the task force on distance education and training in professional psychology. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  36. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rosen, L. D., & Weil, M. M. (1996). Psychologists and technology: A look at the future. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27(6), 635–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosik, C. H., & Brown, R. K. (2001). Professional use for the internet: Legal and ethical issues in a member care environment. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29(2), 106–120.Google Scholar
  39. Rule, S., Salzberg, C., Higbee, T., Menlove, R., & Smith, J. (2006). Technology-mediated consultation to assist rural students: A case study. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(2), 3–7.Google Scholar
  40. SAS. (2007). Business Intelligence and Analytic Software – SAS. Retrieved March 7, 2007 from
  41. Shapiro, D., & Schulman, C. E. (1996). Ethical and legal issues in e-mail therapy. Ethics and Behavior, 6(2), 107–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Snyder, D. (2000). Computer-assisted judgement: Defining strengths and liabilities. Psychological Assessment, 12, 52–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. SPSS Inc. (2007). SPSS Home Page. Retrieved March 7, 2007 from
  44. University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning. (2007). Official DIBELS Home Page. Retrieved February 12, 2007 from
  45. Vishwanath, A., & Goldhaber, G. M. (2003). An examination of the factors contributing to adoption decisions among late-diffused technology products. New Media & Society, 5(4), 547–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Williams, H. S., & Kingham, M. (2003). Infusion of technology into the curriculum. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(3), 178–184.Google Scholar
  47. Wilson, G. L., Michaels, C. A., & Margolis, H. (2005). Form versus function: Using technology to develop individualized education programs for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(2), 37–46.Google Scholar
  48. Wood, J. A. V., Miller, T. W., & Hargrove, D. S. (2005). Clinical supervision in rural settings: A telehealth model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(2), 173–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ysseldyke, J., Burns, M., Dawson, P., Kelley, B., Morrison, D., Ortiz, S., et al. (2006). School psychology: A blueprint for training and practice III. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  50. Ysseldyke, J. E., Dawson, P., Lehr, C., Reschly, D., Reynolds, M., & Telzrow, C. (1997). School psychology: A blueprint for training and practice II. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  51. Ysseldyke, J. E., Reynolds, M. C., & Weinberg, R. A. (1984). School psychology: A blueprint for training and practice. Minneapolis, MN: National School Psychology Inservice Training Network.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eastern Kentucky UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations