Abstract
To engage in a comparison of school psychology research and practice in eastern and western countries, the current study sought to identify key themes that have influenced the field of school psychology in East Asian countries. Forty-six leading school psychology professionals in Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Thailand, and Taiwan provided their perspectives to a six-question survey based on a survey created by McIntosh, Martinez, Ty, and McClain (2013) regarding pivotal ideas and findings related to research and practice in the past 25 years, present, and future that they find particularly exciting. Qualitative thematic analysis, using NVivo software, yielded nine major and 41 minor categories. Across the three time periods (past, present, future), six of the nine major categories (Data-Informed Practices and Their Implementation, Knowledge and Practice of Individual Differences, Theory Development, Technology Development, Development of School Psychology, and Consultation and Collaboration) and seven of the 41 minor categories were present. A comparison between the current study and the McIntosh and colleagues (2013) study suggests that there were many consistencies in major and minor categories. Comparisons between these two studies, along with limitations, future areas for research, and implications for practice, are also discussed.
Keywords
Although the field of school psychology has been present and played a significant role in certain countries such as the United States and England for decades, it is relatively new and in the process of development in other countries (Jimerson, Skokut, Cardenas, Malone, & Stewart, 2008). Results of the Jimerson and colleagues (2008) study indicated that although school psychology was present in 83 countries, only 39 countries had professional associations, 56 had university preparation programs, 19 provided doctoral level preparation, and 29 had licensing or credentialing requirements. For example, this study indicated that the field is present in China and Thailand, and these countries primarily have professionals who are trained to fulfill the responsibilities of school psychologists and university programs that provide this preparation. However, these countries do not have regulations requiring school psychologists to be credentialed or licensed, nor do they have professional associations of school psychology or university programs providing doctoral level school psychology training (Jimerson et al., 2008). One notable exception is Hong Kong, where the history of British influence has resulted in a field of school psychology that is more developed than in other areas of China, with all the above-described indicators being present.
Because of differences in the presence and practice of school psychology across countries and the global implications for the field, it is valuable to examine pivotal ideas and themes of the field. One way in which this can be accomplished is to obtain perspectives from key school psychology scholars in different countries. Past conferences taking place in a variety of countries have united school psychology scholars to obtain multiple perspectives on practice and research. These include the 2012 School Psychology Futures conference (Jarmuz-Smith, Harrison, & Cummings, 2012) and the annual convention of the International School Psychology Association, with the latter addressing multiple themes related to school psychology research and practice, including public policies and the practice of school psychologists, linking creativity and service to the future of school psychology practice, and school psychology in a changing society (International School Psychology Association, 2016). An essential outcome from the 2012 School Psychology Futures conference was to create Futures Development Teams, with the goal of contributing to the progression of the field in the areas of leadership, critical skills, and advocacy, at both a national and international level.
To further engage in a comparison of school psychology across different regions of the world, it was of particular interest in the current study to identify key themes that have influenced the field of school psychology in East Asian countries. More specifically, perspectives of school psychology scholars in Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and Thailand were obtained with respect to research and practice. This study will contribute to previous literature that highlights the development of school psychology in Asian countries and perspectives of school psychology scholars within the United States (e.g., McIntosh, Martinez, Ty, & McClain, 2013).
School Psychology in East Asia and the United States
According to information presented in The Handbook of International School Psychology (e.g., Chung & Shin, 2007; Ishikuma, Shinohara, & Nakao, 2007; Lam, 2007; Zhou, 2007), areas related to the practice of school psychology and dissemination of research in East Asian countries that warrant additional focus include: a) developing novel research programs that address pivotal regional issues, as opposed to translations of materials from other countries (Zhou, 2007), b) expanding school psychology training and practice in East Asia (Ishikuma et al., 2007), and c) increasing understanding of the roles and functions of school psychologists within the overall field of psychology (Chung & Shin, 2007). On the other hand, areas warranting additional focus within the United States include increasing the number of school psychology practitioners and faculty, implementing evidence-based academic interventions, and utilizing response-to-intervention strategies to identify students with special needs (Jimerson & Oakland, 2007).
When considering the presence of school psychology in East Asian countries and how it may compare to the United States and other Western countries, it is also beneficial to highlight the development of school psychology in these countries, with the emphasis being on Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and Thailand. In Japan, after founding the Japan Society of Educational Psychology in 1952, the Japanese Association of Educational Psychology (JAEP) was established in 1959, with these associations becoming an incorporated foundation in 2013. Although the accreditation of school psychologists began in 1997, with JAEP playing a central role, in 1999 JAEP called on the Japan Association of Special Education (JASE), the Japan Association for the Study of Developmental Disabilities (JASDD), the Japan Society of Developmental Psychology (JSDP), and the Japan Academy of Learning Disabilities (JALD), to convene a collaborative discussion group involving these five societies involved in school psychologist accreditation. As a result of these discussions, school psychologist accreditation was made independent from JAEP, with an agreement that it be jointly maintained in equal partnership with the five societies mentioned above, resulting in the establishment of the Japanese Organization of School Psychologists as a jointly operated accreditation body in November 2001. The Japanese Organization of School Psychologists has accredited approximately 6,100 school psychologists and trainees (The Japanese Association of Educational Psychology, 2016; Japanese Organization of School Psychologists, 2016). However, it is important to note that previous research has shown that individuals providing school psychology services were frequently classroom teachers, teachers with psychoeducational roles or related professions, and school counselors, with many school counselors being certified as school psychologists (Ishikuma et al., 2007). Certified school psychologists typically provided psychoeducational services in assessment, consultation, intervention, and coordination.
The field of school psychology emerged in South Korea in the late 1980s (Chung & Shin, 2007); however, it was slow to develop until the Korean School Psychology Association was founded in 2002. Although these authors reported in 2007 that the term ‘school psychology’ was used to describe the specialty and Korean university training programs, there was not an official ‘school psychologist’ job title. Instead, teachers who were called ‘school counselors’ or ‘professional counseling teachers’ provided Korean school psychology services such as assessment, prevention and intervention, consultation, program development and training, and research.
In China, it is critical to differentiate between the development of school psychology in Hong Kong, as compared to the rest of the country. School Psychology, referred to as ‘Educational Psychology’ in Hong Kong, was first introduced in the 1960s, being largely influenced by the British model. There have been significant changes in the practice of educational psychology, with the field forming its own identity separate from the British model. Significant changes included moving from a focus on psychoeducational assessment of students with special needs in the 1960s, to an increased awareness of educational needs and school-based psychological services at the beginning of the 21st century, which contributed to school psychology being a well-established profession (Lam, 2007). Within the past decade, educational psychologists in Hong Kong have focused on prevention and intervention, working with students, teachers, and parents at different levels (individual, group, and system), and providing both direct and indirect services within the school (Lam, 2007).
In other regions of China, the profession of school psychology was developed in 2002, following the publication of Outline of Instructions to Mental Health Education in Primary and Secondary Schools (Zhou, 2007). As of 2007, although the profession of school psychology did not have a strong presence, mental health education teachers provided psychological services in school, including services similar to those provided by school psychologists. These services typically included assessment, interviewing, and observation, consulting with school-staff to address mental health problems, group counseling and other interventions, and recommendations for school crisis intervention (Zhou, 2007).
In Taiwan, the field of school psychology is considered to be in its infancy, largely because of its longstanding integration with guidance and counseling services (Ding, Kuo, & Van Dyke, 2008; Wang & D’Amato, 2013). Although school-based professionals have provided intervention services, assessment, and individual and counseling services within the past decade, their background has typically been in school guidance and school counseling. Furthermore, training in school psychology has been limited in Taiwan, yet existing literature suggests that universities are starting to develop the roles and functions of school psychologists (Wang & D’Amato, 2013). Furthermore, counseling and guidance professionals outside of Taiwanese schools have also provided school-psychology related services, suggesting that these services are not limited to schools, but are also delivered within the community (Wang & D’Amato, 2013).
Similar to Taiwan, school psychology in Thailand is in its early stages. As of 2014, there were no school psychologists practicing in Thai schools, with guidance teachers, who are trained in educational psychology, providing counseling, placement decisions, and evaluation services (Tangdhanakanond & Lee, 2014). In their study examining Thai students’ perceptions of the roles and functions of school psychologists, Tangdhanakanond and Lee found that students primarily saw the roles of school psychologists being in counseling students, intervention, consultation with teachers, and consultation with parents. Students rated the role of assessment as being low, since assessment is frequently perceived as being the responsibility of a psychiatrist, instead of that of a guidance teacher. These results also showed that Thai students’ level of knowledge about school psychology is low, reinforcing the notion that the field is still in its infancy. However, it is important to note that there has been awareness of and a focus on the development of the field, with the Thai education curriculum having included courses related to school psychology services (Tangdhanakanond & Lee, 2014).
The previous overview highlighting the development of school psychology in specific Asian countries emphasizes three key considerations. The first is that, similar to other regions of the world, there is variation in the extent to which school psychology is developed in the above-described countries. The second is that many professionals who provide school psychological services did not receive their degree in school psychology, but have received formal training in other fields. Finally, the field is relatively new in each of these countries and still in the process of development. Although the most up-to-date data regarding the professional standing of school psychology in each of the described countries is the most current available, it is also important to note that changes may have occurred in the intervening decade.
In the United States, school psychology has been present since 1915, with approximately 100–150 school psychologists by 1920, and credentialing, preparation, and licensing standards beginning in the 1920s. The primary roles of school psychologists in the United States have included individual psychoeducational evaluations, direct and indirect services, research and evaluation, supervision and administration, and prevention services (Jimerson & Oakland, 2007). Consequently, because of historical difference in the development of the field, including its year of origin, critical relevant topics in these countries related to both research and practice may differ from those of the United States.
School psychology research and practice in East Asia
The examination of recent published research in East Asian countries is important to highlight recent trends of the field. For example, in the August 2015 issue of The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan, articles were published on the following topics: Psychological development of youth, trends in educational, social, and personality psychology, psychological measurement, universal prevention interventions promoting healthy school climate, crisis intervention, evidence-based accommodations for students with developmental disabilities, and smartphone and internet problems in adolescents. Furthermore, over the past year, current researchers from East Asia published articles in School Psychology International and International Journal of Educational and School Psychology focusing on bullying, the influence of individual factors such as cultural and gender differences, as well as life skills and motivation on behavioral problems, psychological and educational problems in rural youth, roles and functions of school psychologists, impact of video games and technology on adolescents, suicide predictors and prevention strategies, and ecological factors (family, societal) contributing to at-risk behaviors.
In addition, when examining the past 25 years, research published within The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan has focused on topics such as staff training for teachers, training and expertise of school counselors, student truancy, training of school psychologists at the graduate level, social-emotional learning, positive behavioral intervention supports, and school crisis prevention and intervention. Furthermore, research published by East Asia scholars in School Psychology International over the past 25 years has concentrated on a variety of areas, including academic achievement of students, intelligence in children, development of strength-based intervention programs, individual characteristics such as temperament, and social, emotional, and behavioral functioning of students at school. Finally, a recent study examining educational psychology research between 2005 and 2013 in Asia (Kim, Koh, Jo, Nam, & Kim, 2014), found that research typically focused on academic subjects, teaching and learning, affect and motivation, special education, counseling, individual differences, cognitive processes, methodological and professional considerations, and tests and measurement. A further examination of recent areas of research within East Asian countries is provided in the longer version of this article included as a Supplemental Material.
Perspectives on school psychology research in the United States
To further engage in a comparison between these different regions of the world, it is beneficial to reflect upon research in the United States examining perspectives of school psychology scholars. A recent study (McIntosh et al., 2013) examined past, present, and future scientific research in school psychology from the perspectives of influential school psychology experts within the United States. Within this study, 54 members of the Society for the Study of School Psychology (SSSP) responded to a three-item electronic questionnaire, in which they were asked to share their perspectives regarding the following areas: a) the most significant findings of the past 25 years that have influenced school psychology research, b) current research and ideas about which they are most excited, and c) important targets for scientific research over the next 25 years. Qualitative analyses indicated that, along with other identified areas, the following four major categories were consistently identified across these time periods: Data-informed practice and implementation, theory development, changing role and function of school psychologists, advances in research methodology and psychometrics, and biological bases of behavior. McIntosh and colleagues emphasized the potential of these results to help us better understand the field of school psychology and assess areas for future research.
Although McIntosh and colleagues’ (2013) seminal study provided pivotal information to guide future directions of the field of school psychology, it obtained the perspectives of school psychology scholars only from the United States. Furthermore, these authors critically reflected upon how research on international school psychology was not mentioned in the scholars’ collected responses, despite the growing focus of the field at a global level. Because the presence and practice of school psychology varies across regions of the world (e.g., Oakland & Hatzichristou, 2014; Oakland & Jimerson, 2014), obtaining the perspectives of school psychologists from other countries expands upon and provides complementary information to these findings.
Current study
It is with this consideration in mind that one of the current editors of School Psychology International commissioned a study to obtain the perspectives of school psychology professionals in countries outside of the United States. As a result, the primary purpose of this study was to examine the responses of school psychology leaders and active professionals in East Asian countries (i.e., China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand) to questions about advancements in research and practice. These professionals were asked about their perspectives on pivotal ideas and findings related to research and practice in the past 25 years, present, and future that they find particularly exciting. A secondary purpose was to compare the results of this study to those found by McIntosh and colleagues (2013), to further identify and understand preliminary similarities and differences between Eastern and Western countries to contribute to the development of school psychology research and practice at an international level.
Method
Participants
The responses of 46 leading school psychology professionals in Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Thailand were included in the study. Although 55 professionals initially completed the survey, the responses of nine professionals were deleted due to missing information or the focus of their responses being on counseling instead of school psychology. Five professionals (10.9%) were located in Hong Kong, twelve (26.1%) in Japan, twenty-one (45.7%) in South Korea, four (8.7%) in Taiwan, and four (8.7%) in Thailand. In total, 137 participants were contacted either by email and/or phone to participate in the study. Consequently, the final participation rate was 34% (46/137).
The highest completed degree of these professionals was as follows: 2.2% Master’s Degree, 95.7% Doctoral Degree, and 2.2% not identified. Furthermore, 39.1% of these professionals completed their highest degree in Educational/School Psychology, 30.4% in Counseling Psychology, 8.7% in general psychology, 8.7% in Education, 2.2% in Clinical Psychology, and 6.5% in a different but related and unidentified field outside of psychology. Two professionals (4.3%) did not specify the field in which their degree was completed. Finally, their current professional positions are as follows: 89.1% university professor, 2.2% researcher and lecturer, and 4.3% school-based practitioner. Once again, two professionals (4.3%) did not specify their current professional position.
Because training and professional titles vary widely across countries, identified respondents were not required to have the official title ‘School/Educational Psychologist’ or be specifically trained in school psychology. However, they must have been fulfilling the roles and responsibilities of a school psychologist (e.g., through practice, teaching, administration) and have English language proficiency.
Measure
A six-question survey was developed based on the survey from McIntosh and colleagues (2013). Their survey asked three questions about school psychology research. The specific wording of each question was reviewed by the second author, who lives in East Asia and whose first language is not English, to ensure that they were culturally and linguistically appropriate for the population of individuals in the current study. Based on this review, one minor modification was made to the first question, which asked about the single most important idea or research finding over the past 25 years (i.e., use of the word ‘within’ instead of ‘over’). No modifications were made to the other two questions, with the following questions being asked: 1) What has been the single most important idea or research finding––in psychology, education, or related fields––to the science of school psychology within the past 25 years, and why has it been so important, 2) At present, what idea or research finding––in psychology, education, or related fields––are you most excited about, and why are you excited about it, and 3) What do you anticipate will be the most important target for scientific research in school psychology in the next 25 years, and why will it be so important?
Three additional questions were also added to examine school psychology practice: 1) What has been the single most important area of practice––in psychology, education, or related field––to the practice of school psychology within the past 25 years, and why has it been so important, 2) At present, what area of practice––in psychology, education, or related fields––are you most excited about, and why are you excited about it, and 3) What do you anticipate will be the most important target for school psychology practice in the next 25 years, and why will it be so important? The content of these questions was replicated from the research questions, with key words related to research being substituted with those relevant to practice.
Procedure
Up to ten leading school psychology scholars in Japan (six scholars), Mainland China (five scholars), Hong Kong (six scholars), Taiwan (six scholars), South Korea (eight scholars), and Thailand (four scholars) were identified through leading school psychology scholars in the United States, Japan, and South Korea with professional connections in these countries, as well as through a rigorous online search. Those professionals identified through the online search were required to have published research in a peer-reviewed journal and/or be part of the professional school psychology organization in their country.
Each scholar was asked to then identify up to ten active English speaking school psychology professionals (based on availability per country) and provide one sentence about why each of these professionals is considered to be a country leader. All of the school psychology professionals identified by these scholars were all either a university professor or a held a leadership position within their country (e.g., director of teaching, dean of instruction), with a graduate degree in school psychology or a related field (e.g., counseling psychology). Furthermore, these professionals also had research interests and practice experience specific to the field of school psychology. Consequently, because of their extensive training and experience in school psychology or a related field, and because each individual was fulfilling the roles and responsibilities of a school psychologist, all of the professionals identified by the scholars were accepted for participation in the study.
Each of these leaders was then contacted by email to invite them to provide information about cutting research and practice within their country. Not all of the five leading school psychology scholars in these countries were able to participate in the study, nor did they all identify ten active English speaking school psychology professionals. Consequently, additional participants were recruited through the previously described method (rigorous online search and through leading scholars in the United States, Japan, and South Korea).
During the initial contact with the potential participants, they were provided with a letter of initial contact and consent form asking them to complete an online survey (through Qualtrics). At five and eight weeks, the Principal Investigator and/or a Co-Investigator sent each of these participants a follow-up email reminding them of the request and thanking those who have already completed the survey. Because additional reminder emails were at times needed, follow-up emails were also sent at 15 and 18 weeks to some of the identified scholars. This procedure was adapted from the approach recommended by Dillman and colleagues (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2008).
Data analysis
A specific type of qualitative analyses (thematic analysis; Braun & Clark, 2006) was utilized to synthesize and categorize the identified responses using NVivo software. The coding team consisted of two members: A researcher with a doctoral degree in school psychology and an undergraduate assistant at the University of Montana who was trained on how to use NVivo. The researcher with the doctoral degree (first author) played a large role in recruiting and corresponding with the participants, whereas the other coder (undergraduate student) was involved only in data analysis. Consequently, data were analysed from both subjective and objective perspectives.
Responses were then identified and organized into identified patterns through NVivo. Although participants were asked to provide a response that reflected the single most important idea in research and practice within the past 25 years, currently, or in the next 25 years and why it is important, multiple participants identified more than one idea for each response. Consequently, to ensure that each idea was captured, data analysis occurred as follows: a) identify single ideas within each response, b) code these single ideas into minor categories, b) code the minor categories into major categories to organize the data into overall themes, to enable comparison between these themes and those identified by McIntosh and colleagues (2013). Because many of the minor categories that emerged from the data were similar to themes identified by McIntosh and colleagues, those that were similar were categorized into identical major categories to allow for identification of consistent themes and a more direct comparison between the two studies.
More specifically, the single ideas were categorized and labeled as a node in NVivo and were then categorized into minor categories. A node is a specific category or theme that is labeled by the coder, enabling coders to identify and analyse trends or patterns across the responses. A theme is essentially defined as ‘an extended phrase or sentence that identifies what a unit of data is about and what it means’ (Saldana, 2013). According to Boyatzis (1998), a theme can either be identified at the manifest (directly observable in the information), or latent (underlying idea) level. For the purposes of the present study, themes were identified at both of these levels. For example, ‘A definition of school psychology’ was a clear example of a theme at the manifest level, whereas ‘practice of interdisciplinary to work together among different careers’ is an example of ‘collaboration with other fields’ at the latent level. The two coders identified these patterns and then discussed and organized them into re-occurring themes. When the second coder (undergraduate assistant) was unclear about the potential theme, due to a lack of specific information provided in the response or additional background knowledge being needed in interpreting the response, the first and second coder discussed the theme to ensure understanding and consistency in theme identification.
Results
The analysis yielded nine major and 41 minor categories. When examining the major and minor categories per question, the following information emerged: Seven major and 21 minor categories for Question 1, seven major and 19 minor categories for Question 2, seven major and 19 minor categories for Question 3, six major and 22 minor categories for Question 4, seven major and 20 minor categories for Question 5, and seven major and 21 minor categories for Question 6. Analyses also revealed that there were six major categories that emerged across the three time periods (past, present, future) for both research and practice. These included: a) development of school psychology, b) knowledge and practice of individual differences, c) data-informed practices and their implementation, d) consultation and collaboration, e) theory development, and f) technology development. Furthermore, there was an additional major category that was applicable for only the present period for research (advances in research methodology and psychometrics), a major category that was applicable only for the future of both research and practice (biological bases of behavior), and finally, a major category (there is not one single most important idea) was applicable for both the past period for research and present period for practice. Furthermore, there were also many minor categories that were applicable to the past, present, and future periods for both research and practice, such as multicultural issues and practice, individual abilities and learning, student motivation and self-efficacy, evidence-based interventions and practice, school-wide prevention and intervention, behavioral and social emotional assessment and intervention, positive psychology, and technology use in education. Some minor categories were not represented across all three time periods for both research and practice, including definition of school psychology, roles and functions of school psychologists, globalization of school psychology, child advocacy, psychoeducational assessment, home-school collaboration, ecological theory, technology and internet addiction, and brain-based learning and intervention.
Findings are reported below for each question. To be consistent with McIntosh and colleagues’ (2013) article, a brief description of each minor category encompassing the major categories is provided. If the minor category is included across multiple questions, a description of this category is only provided the first time it is mentioned, to avoid redundancy. The description applies to all of the questions that contain this minor category. Furthermore, the percent of nodes (units) in each question for each minor category is also reported. See Table 1 and 2 in Supplemental Material for a summary of the major and minor categories for each question. For specific examples of quotations included in each category, the reader is encouraged to view the longer version of this manuscript provided as a Supplemental Material. Question 1: What has been the single most important idea or research finding-in psychology, education, or related fields- to the science of school psychology within the past 25 years, and why has it been so important?
Major category 1: Data-informed practices and their implementation
This major category included the most nodes (units) for Question 1, with 38% of the nodes being grouped within this category. The largest minor category within this major category was behavioral and social-emotional assessment and intervention, with 15% of nodes in Question 1 falling within this category. This minor category includes comments related to individual behavioral and social-emotional screening and assessment, as well as individual behavioral and social-emotional interventions (e.g., resilience and mindfulness interventions). The second largest minor category was school-wide prevention and intervention, with 13% of the nodes in Question 1 falling within this category. Comments within this minor category were related to a variety of school-wide prevention (e.g., bullying prevention, school crisis prevention, school-wide assessment and psychoeducation) and intervention (e.g., bullying intervention, school crisis response, school-wide social and emotional learning) practices. The third largest minor category was evidence-based interventions and practice, with 6% of the nodes from Question 1 falling within this category. As defined by McIntosh and colleagues (2013), evidence-based interventions and practice ‘refers to research conducted to identify, demonstrate, or validate intervention or practice efficacy, regardless of intervention type’ (p. 272). The two minor categories within this major category with the lowest percent of nodes for Question 1 were response to intervention and psychoeducational assessment (both containing 2% of nodes). Comments within the response to intervention category specifically identified response to intervention and the importance of utilizing three tiered systems in schools. Comments within the psychoeducational assessment category are related to individual academic assessment, as well as general comments referring to student assessment.
Major category 2: Knowledge and practice of individual differences
This major category included the second most identified nodes (units) for Question 1, with 25% of the nodes being grouped within this category. The largest minor category within this major category was , with 11% of nodes in Question 1 falling within this category. This minor category includes a variety of comments related to student abilities and instruction, such as multiple intelligence, student instruction, meeting the needs of special education students, and differences in skill acquisition. The second largest minor category was student motivation and self-efficacy, which contained 6% of the nodes. This category includes comments specifically addressing student motivation and self-efficacy related to behavior and academic performance. The categories with the lowest percent of nodes were career planning and multicultural issues and practice, with each of these categories containing 4% of the nodes from Question 1. Comments within the career planning category encompassed career development, career counseling, and career transition. Comments within the multicultural issues and practice category included those related to multicultural issues and assessment, multicultural competence, and multicultural knowledge and practice.
Major category 3: Theory development
This major category included the third most identified nodes (units) for Question 1, with 12% of the nodes being grouped within this category. For Question 1, all minor categories within this major category contained the same percent of nodes (4%). The first minor category, ecological theory, contained comments related to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and the influence of the home and school system on the child’s development. The second minor category, cognitive theory, included comments related to better understanding memory and learning and general comments about cognitive psychology. The third minor category, positive psychology, included general comments on positive psychology, as well as those related to happiness, human strengths and assets, and protective and risk factors.
Major category 4: Technology development
This major category included the fourth most identified nodes for Question 1, with 10% of the nodes being grouped within this category. The largest minor categories were internet psychology and technology and internet addiction (both having 4% of nodes). Internet psychology contained general comments described as ‘internet psychology’. Technology and internet addiction included comments related to internet, smartphone, and online game addiction. The smallest minor category was technology use in education (2% of nodes), which contained comments related to using a variety of different technological devices and programs within the classroom to assist with student learning.
Major category 5: Development of school psychology
This major category included the fifth most identified nodes for Question 1, with 8% being grouped within this category. All four of the minor categories contained the same percent of nodes (2%) and are described as follows. Definition of school psychology contained general comments specifically indicating interest in a ‘definition of school psychology’ in their country. Roles and functions of school psychologists contained comments related to defining the roles of school psychologists and other professionals doing work in the field, along with their specific functions in different areas (e.g., assessment, counseling, intervention). The minor category differentiating between school psychology and other fields included comments regarding identifying differences between school psychology and other related fields, with a particular focus being on clinical child psychology. Finally, the category globalization of school psychology contained general comments specifically indicating an interest in ‘globalization of school psychology’, along with specific comments related to the role of school psychology in obtaining global peace and accepting differences.
Major category 6: Consultation and collaboration
This major category only included 2% of the nodes from Question 1. The only minor category identified for this question was ‘home-school collaboration’, which contained all of the nodes (2%) within this major category. Comments included within this category were related to providing parent and teacher support and bridging the gap between both environments to better support students.
Major category 7: There is not one single most important idea
This was the final major category in Question 1 and only included 2% of the nodes from this question. For comments within this category, respondents did not identify a specific theme or most important idea. Question 2: At present, what area of practice-in psychology, education, or related fields- are you most excited about, and why are you excited about it?
Major category 1: Data-informed practices and their implementation
Similar to question 1, this major category included the most nodes (units) for Question 2, with 38% of the nodes being grouped within this category. The largest minor category within this major category was school-wide prevention and intervention, with 23% of nodes in Question 2 falling within this category. The second largest minor category was behavioral and social-emotional assessment and intervention, with 13% of the nodes in Question 2 falling within this category. The third largest minor category was evidence-based interventions and practice, with 2% of the nodes from Question 1 falling within this category.
Major category 2: Knowledge and practice of individual differences
Similar to Question 1, this major category included the second most nodes (units) for Question 2, with 33% of the nodes being grouped within this category. The largest minor category within this major category was individual abilities and learning, with 15% of nodes in Question 2 falling within this category. The second largest minor categories were multicultural issues and practice and psychological well-being, with 6% of the nodes in Question 2 falling within each of these categories. Comments within the psychological well-being category were related to attachment and individual differences related to mental health, including positive student adjustment. The minor categories with the fewest nodes for this major category were child advocacy (2% of nodes), happenstance variables (2% of nodes), and student motivation and self-efficacy (2% of nodes). Child advocacy and happenstance variables both included a general comment written as ‘child advocacy’ and ‘happenstance variables’.
Major category 3: Consultation and collaboration
This major category included the third most nodes (units) for Question 2, with 12% of the nodes being grouped within this category. All three minor categories within this major category had the same percent of nodes (4% of nodes in Question 2). The first minor category, psychoeducation, included comments related to general psychoeducation and strategies surrounding the medical model in education. The second minor category, parent-child relationships, included comments related to parent attachment and how parent-child relationships affect child outcomes. Finally, the third minor category, consulting and collaborating with teachers and parents, contained comments related to understanding, supporting, and collaborating with families and teachers.
Major category 4: Technology development
This major category included the fourth most nodes (units) for Question 2, with 6% of the nodes being grouped within this category. All three minor categories within this major category (technology use in education, internet psychology, and technology and internet addiction) had the same percent of nodes (2% of nodes in Question 2).
Major category 5: Theory development
This major category included the fifth most nodes (units) for Question 2, with 4% of the nodes being grouped within this category. The only minor category within this major category was Positive Psychology (4% of nodes).
Major category 6: Development of school psychology
This major category included the same percent of nodes for Question 2 as the major category on theory development, with 4% of nodes being contained within this category. There were two minor categories within this major category. The first minor category, development of country specific school psychology or education measures, included 2% of the nodes. Comments within this category were related to the formal development of country-specific measurement tools and education measures. The second category, differentiating between school psychology and other fields, also contained 2% of the nodes.
Major category 7: Advances in research methodology and psychometrics
This major category included the least amount of nodes for Question 2, with 2% of the nodes being contained within this category. The only minor category contained within this major category was Measurement of Assessment Tools (2% of nodes). Question 3: What do you anticipate will be the most important target for scientific research in school psychology in the next 25 years, and why will it be so important?
Major category 1: Knowledge and practice of individual differences
Unlike Question 1 and 2, this major category included the most nodes (units) for Question 3, with 42% of the nodes being grouped within this category. The largest minor category within this major category was individual abilities and learning, with 20% of nodes in Question 3 falling within this category. The second largest minor category was multicultural issues and practice, with 12% of the nodes in Question 2 falling within this category. The third largest minor category was career planning, with 6% of the nodes being contained within this category. The minor categories with the fewest nodes for this major category were student motivation and self-efficacy and psychological well-being (both containing 2% of nodes).
Major category 2: Data-informed practices and their implementation
This major category included the second most nodes (units) for Question 3, with 29% of the nodes being grouped within this category. The largest minor category within this major category was school-wide prevention and intervention, with 13% of nodes in Question 3 falling within this category. Both the behavioral and social-emotional assessment and intervention and evidence-based interventions and practice minor categories contained 8% of the nodes.
Major category 3: Technology development
This major category included the third most nodes (units) for Question 3, with 8% of the nodes being grouped within this category. The minor category technology use in education had the most nodes (6%), with the minor category developmental issues resulting from technology use having the least amount of nodes for this category (2%).
Major category 4: Consultation and collaboration
This category also contained 8% of the nodes from Question 3. The largest minor category was consulting and collaborating with teachers and parents (4% of nodes), with two other minor categories, home-school collaboration and consulting and collaborating with other professionals/fields each containing 2% of the nodes. The minor category collaboration and consulting and collaborating with other professionals/fields included comments related to interdisciplinary work with other related fields and psychologists.
Major category 5: Theory development
This category contained 6% of the nodes from Question 3. The largest minor category was positive psychology (4% of nodes) and the second largest was integrated theories (2% of nodes). The integrated theories minor category includes comments specifically addressing the integrated approach.
Major category 6: Development of school psychology
This major category contained the same percent of nodes as category 5 (6% from Question 3). Each of the minor categories within this major category contained 2% of the nodes. The minor categories were as follows: Roles and functions of school psychologists, definition of school psychology, and development of country-specific school psychology and education measures.
Major category 7: Biological bases of behavior
This major category contained the least amount of the nodes (2%) for Question 3 and consisted of one minor category, brain-based learning and intervention. This minor category contained comments related to the importance of conducting scientific research and engaging in interventions related to the brain and its functions. Question 4: What has been the single most important area of practice- in psychology, education, or related field- to the practice of school psychology within the past 25 years, and why has it been so important?
Major category 1: Data-informed practices and their implementation
This major category, along with knowledge and practice of individual differences, contained the greatest percent of nodes from Question 4 (33%). The minor category school-wide prevention and intervention contained the most nodes (17%), with behavioral and social-emotional assessment and intervention being the second largest minor category (11%), and psychoeducational assessment being the third largest (5%).
Major category 2: Knowledge and practice of individual differences
Similar to data-informed practices and their implementation, this major category contained 33% of the nodes from Question 4. Within this major category, the minor category individual abilities and learning contained the most nodes (11% of nodes in Question 4), with multicultural issues and practice being the second largest minor category (7%), and psychological well-being and career planning both being the third largest categories (each contained 5% of nodes). A new minor category, at-risk student behaviors, contained 3% of the nodes for Question 4. This category included comments related to addictive behaviors, school truancy, and counseling for at-risk students. The minor category with the fewest percent of nodes for this major category was student motivation and self-efficacy (2% of nodes).
Major category 3: Consultation and collaboration
This major category contained the third largest percent of nodes for Question 4 (11% of nodes). The three largest minor categories were home-school collaboration, consulting and collaborating with teachers and parents, and psychoeducation, with each of these categories containing 3% of the nodes. The minor category with the smallest percent of nodes was consulting and collaborating with other professionals/fields (2% of nodes).
Major category 4: Development of school psychology
This major category contained 10% of the nodes from Question 4. Each of the five minor categories within this major category contained the same percent of nodes (2% of nodes). The minor categories were as follows: Changes in school psychology laws and policies, definition of school psychology, development and understanding of special education, differentiating between school psychology and other fields, and roles and functions of school psychologists.
Major category 5: Theory development
This major category contained 9% of the nodes from Question 4. The minor category Integrated Theories contained 5% of the nodes, and the minor category Positive Psychology contained 4% of the nodes.
Major category 6: Technology development
This major category contained 4% of the nodes from Question 4, with each of the two minor categories (technology use in education and internet psychology) containing 2% of the nodes. Question 5: At present, what area of practice-in psychology, education, or related fields- are you most excited about, and why are you excited about it?
Major category 1: Knowledge and practice of individual differences
This major category contained the largest percent of the nodes from Question 5 (33% of nodes). The minor category with the greatest percent of nodes was multicultural issues and practice (9%). Three minor categories, individual abilities and learning, student motivation and self-efficacy, and psychological well-being, each contained 7% of the nodes. Finally, career planning contained 3% of the nodes.
Major category 2: Data-informed practices and their implementation
This major category contained the second largest amount of nodes within Question 5 (27% of nodes). The minor category school-wide prevention and intervention contained the most nodes (12%), with the minor category behavioral and social-emotional assessment and intervention containing 9% of the nodes. The minor categories evidence-based interventions and practice, psychoeducational assessment, and response to intervention, each contained 2% of the nodes from Question 5.
Major category 3: Consultation and collaboration
This major category contained 18% of the nodes within Question 5. The minor category consulting and collaborating with teachers and parents contained 14% of the nodes, whereas the minor categories home-school collaboration and consulting and collaborating with other professionals/fields each contained 2% of the nodes.
Major category 4: Theory development
This major category contained 7% of the nodes from Question 5. The minor category integrated theories contained the most nodes (5%), with the minor category positive psychology containing 2% of the nodes.
Major category 5: Development of school psychology
This major category contained 7% of the nodes from Question 5. The minor category development of country specific school psychology and education measures contained 5% of the nodes, and the minor category differentiating between school psychology and other fields contained 2% of the nodes.
Major category 6: Technology development
This major category contained 4% of the nodes from Question 5, with each of the two minor categories (technology use in education and internet psychology) containing 2% of the nodes.
Major category 7: There is not one single most important idea
This major category contained 2% of the nodes from Question 5. Similar to Question 1, respondents did not identify a specific theme or most important idea. Question 6: What do you anticipate will be the most important target for school psychology practice in the next 25 years, and why will it be so important?
Major category 1: Knowledge and practice of individual differences
This major category contained the most nodes for Question 6 (36% of nodes). The minor category with the greatest percent of nodes was individual abilities and learning (24%). The minor categories psychological well-being and career planning each contained 3% of the nodes, and the remaining three categories (multicultural issues and practice, student motivation and self-efficacy, and at-risk student behaviors) each contained 2% of the nodes.
Major category 2: Data-Informed practices and their implementation
This major category contained 34% of the nodes from Question 6. Within this major category, the minor category school-wide prevention and intervention contained the most nodes (17%). Furthermore, each of the two minor categories behavioral and social-emotional assessment and intervention and evidence-based interventions and practice contained 7% of the nodes. Finally, the minor category psychoeducational assessment contained 3% of the nodes.
Major category 3: Consultation and collaboration
This major category contained 13% of the nodes from Question 6. The minor category Consulting and Collaborating with Teachers and Parents contained the largest percent of nodes (5%), and the minor categories Parent-Child Relationships and Student-Teacher Relationships each contained 3% of the nodes for Question 6. Finally, the minor category Consulting and Collaborating with Other Professionals/Fields contained 2% of the nodes. Comments within the minor category Student-Teacher Relationships emphasized the importance of this relationship, including effective communication.
Major category 4: Development of school psychology
This major category contained 7% of the nodes within Question 6. The minor category globalization of school psychology contained the most nodes (3%) and the minor categories differentiating between school psychology and other fields and roles and functions of school psychologists each contained 2% of the nodes from Question 6.
Major category 5: Technology development
This major category contained 5% of the nodes in Question 6. The minor category technology use in education contained 3% of the nodes, and the minor category technology and internet addiction contained 2% of the nodes.
Major category 6: Theory development
This minor category contained 2% of the nodes for Question 6, with the only minor category being positive psychology.
Major category 7: Biological basis of behavior
This minor category contained 2% of the nodes for Question 6, with the only minor category being brain-based learning and intervention.
Discussion
The current study, which was influenced by McIntosh and colleagues’ (2013) study that examined perspectives of school psychology scholars within the United States, sought to obtain the perspectives of school psychology professsionals in East Asia. Respondents were asked about their perspectives on the past, current, and future state of research and practice in East Asia. Qualitative statistics and percentages were used to categorize and describe identified themes across respondents. These responses were categorized into major and minor categories. Findings from this study indicate clear themes in past, current, and future research and practice in the field of school psychology in East Asia.
Similarities and differences in categories within and across questions
There were a variety of consistencies in major and minor categories across the past, present, and future time periods for both research and practice. Across these time periods, six of the nine major categories (data-informed practices and their implementation, knowledge and practice of individual differences, theory development, technology development, development of school psychology, and consultation and collaboration) and seven of the 41 minor categories (behavioral and social-emotional assessment and intervention, school-wide prevention and intervention, multicultural issues and practice, individual abilities and learning, student motivation and self-efficacy, positive psychology, and technology use in education) were present. Furthermore, two additional minor categories were present across all but one question (evidence-based interventions and practice and career planning).
Across the time periods, either the major category data-informed practices and their implementation, or the major category knowledge and practice of individual differences, contained the largest percent of nodes. Data-informed practices and their implementation was the largest major category for Questions 1 and 2. Knowledge and practice of individual differences was the largest major category for Questions 3, 5, and 6. Both of these major categories had an equivalent percent of nodes for Question 4.
Within these major categories, it is important to note that minor categories with the greatest percent of nodes frequently included behavioral and social-emotional assessment and intervention and school-wide prevention and intervention. Topics identified within these minor categories included bullying and violence prevention and intervention, social-emotional interventions, crisis intervention, which are all similar to those identified in published research by researchers in East Asia across the past year and 25 years (as per articles in School Psychology International, International Journal of Educational and School Psychology, and The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan). Furthermore, although they were not the largest minor categories, multiple themes related to student motivation, cultural differences, and individual abilities and learning were also identified in the current study, which is also consistent with the topics of articles covered in school psychology literature. Finally, other major categories identified here, such as theory development (e.g., ecological and cognitive theory), advances in research methodology and psychometrics (e.g., measurement of assessment tools), and technology development (e.g., technology and internet addiction) are all critical topics covered in the literature.
In addition to these similarities, there were also some minor differences between participant responses to research and practice questions. First, although there were similar major categories identified for both research and practice, some major categories within the practice questions contained additional minor categories. For example, in addition to the four minor categories identified for knowledge and practice of individual difference when examining past research, two new minor categories were identified for past practice (i.e., psychological well-being and at-risk student behavior). This pattern was also found for the major category consultation and collaboration. Although one minor category (home-school collaboration) was identified for past research in consultation and collaboration, three additional minor categories were identified for past practice in this area (e.g., consulting and collaborating with teachers and parents, psychoeducation, consulting and collaborating with other professionals/fields).
On the other hand, other major categories such as data-informed practice and their implementation had a similar overall percentage of nodes across all three research and practice questions, with certain questions having additional minor categories for research (Question 1–– past research) and others having additional minor categories for practice (Question 5––present practice). Finally, there was a major and minor theme identified related to advances in research methodology and psychometrics for research, but not for practice.
Comparisons with McIntosh and colleagues’ (2013) study
A comparison between the current study and the McIntosh and colleagues (2013) study suggests that there were many consistencies in major and minor categories. With respect to major categories, both studies included the following categories: Data-informed practices and their implementation, theory development, biological basis of behavior, and advances in research methodology and statistics. Furthermore, there was an additional major category that encompassed similar information related to the development of school psychology and the roles and functions of school psychologists across the two studies. When examining minor categories, both studies included evidence-based interventions and practice, response to intervention, behavioral assessment, ecological theory, positive psychology, and cognitive theory/abilities. Furthermore, both studies included minor categories that were related to prevention and intervention.
It is also important to note that the current study included a variety of responses related to themes that McIntosh and colleagues (2013) identified as being absent in their study. These included bullying, school violence, cultural and linguistic diversity, and the globalization of school psychology. McIntosh and colleagues noted in their article that these topics are frequently covered in the media, also emphasizing the importance of the emphasis of school psychology practice at an international level. Furthermore, McIntosh and colleagues also observed that participants in their study were less likely to cite their own area of research as the most important findings to the field. Although participants in the current study did not directly indicate that their own research was the most important finding, they sometimes referred to their research as being an important area in which they are currently interested, but also referred to and quoted the research of other scholars. When quoting the research of other scholars, research conducted by scholars both within (e.g., China and Thailand) and outside of East Asia (e.g., United States) was cited.
There may be a variety of reasons for these similarities and differences in responses across the studies. Because of the history of the presence of school psychology within the United States and its influence on the development of school psychology in other countries, it makes sense that themes identified as being critical to the past, present, and future development of the field would be consistent in both Western and Eastern regions of the world. On the other hand, because the field of school psychology is less established in East Asian countries than in the United States, with some countries such as Taiwan and Thailand being in the beginning stages of development, it is logical that certain issues would differ for both research and practice. Furthermore, it is probable that commonly identified issues in research and practice are issues that are frequently referred to in the media. In many Asian countries, such as Japan and Korea, technology and internet addiction has become an important topic due to the increased reliance on technology and its effect on children. These identified similarities and differences in school psychology perspectives in research and practice between the United States and East Asia have important implications for the future development of the field.
When making these comparisons, it is also important to note differences between participants in both studies. Unlike participants in the McIntosh and colleagues (2013) study, who were more senior research faculty and members of Society for the Study of School Psychology (SSSP), participants in the current study generally consisted of university faculty as a whole or professionals who held a leadership position in their country. Consequently, although it is possible that the participants in the McIntosh study had greater expertise in research, the goal of the current study was to include participants who were able to provide their perspectives on both research and practice. Furthermore, although the fact that some participants in the current study may have less research expertise (e.g., junior faculty, faculty who conduct less research, participants whose primary role is a leadership position) may be seen as a limitation, it is also important to reflect upon the context in which participants from the current study are responding. As previously discussed, school psychology is a new field in some of these countries, particularly when comparing its presence and history to that of the United States. For example, school psychology in Taiwan and Thailand is still in its infancy (Tangdhanakanond & Lee, 2014; Wang & D’Amato, 2013). Therefore, when responding to questions about research and practice within the past 25 years, for example, the research highlighted from these countries may have occurred within the past ten years, as opposed to 25 years ago. Consequently, although some of the participants may be more junior and have less experience than the senior participants in McIntosh’s study, this sample fits with the context of the current study.
Limitations and future research
Despite the novelty of the information presented in the current study and the critical comparison with a similar study conducted in the United States, it is not without its limitations. One limitation is the sample size. Although the first three authors of the study each made multiple attempts to contact individuals across the five countries, recruiting participants through email and getting them to complete an online survey can be challenging. When the first author, who is located in the United States, determined by correspondence with multiple participants that some of her emails were sent to their ‘junk folder’, both the second and third authors, who are located in East Asia, took greater responsibility for contacting and responding to the participants. Along these same lines, due to the small number of participant responses from certain countries (e.g., China (Hong Kong), Taiwan, and Thailand) and larger number of responses in other countries (e.g., Japan and South Korea), themes were categorized across countries, instead of within countries. Furthermore, along these same lines, the minor categories within questions were not always consistent. This was likely due to the small sample size and also the fact that professionals from multiple countries were surveyed, which may have led to a variety of perspectives and themes being identified across some minor categories and in turn influenced by differences in school psychology across these countries. Future research should strive to obtain a larger sample of respondents within each of these countries, so that country-specific themes can be identified across time periods.
Another related limitation is similar to that noted by McIntosh and colleagues (2013). It is important to note that the sample of participants for the current study does not represent the perspectives of all school psychology scholars or professionals within East Asia. This is particularly important to note due to the small sample size. Consequently, although initial comparisons and speculations can be made, it is important not to draw large inferences based on the results of this study. However, it is interesting to note that many studies published in research over the past year and past 25 years are similar to those themes identified in this study. Future research may wish to conduct a more systematic meta-analysis on school psychology research conducted in the past and present, in conjunction with obtaining perspectives from school psychology scholars on the past, present, and future of the field.
Furthermore, additional limitations of this study are also similar to those identified by McIntosh and colleagues (2013). Because responses were obtained online, some rich information may have been missed about their perspectives that would have more easily and thoroughly obtained during in-person interviews. However, because the study was conducted in different countries and the authors were also located in different regions of the world, in-person interviews were not feasible for all participants. Finally, although various measures were taken to ensure the reliability of the responses, additional reliability checks would have been beneficial.
Implications for the field of school psychology
Information from these findings can be used to inform further development of research and practice within these countries, including essential aspects of the field that require continued growth. In East Asian countries, the profession of school psychology is in the early stages of being established. Unlike the United States, there is not a legal mandate for school psychologists who practice in the schools. For example, no school psychology graduates have secured a position labeled as ‘school psychologist’, because there is no such job title in South Korea (Chung & Shin, 2007). However, in many East Asian countries, awareness of the importance of school psychological services has increased in response to the needs of educators for assistance in providing assessment, counseling, intervention, and consultation services in education settings. Therefore, there have been recent studies examining potential roles and functions of school psychologists in some East Asian countries (e.g., Tangdhanakanond & Lee, 2014). However, relatively little research on the delivery of psychological services to children in schools has been conducted regarding the perspectives of East Asian school psychologists. Consequently, this study has provided an opportunity to explore how school psychological services as perceived by East Asian scholars varies according to different cultural contexts. A clearer understanding of perspectives of East Asian school psychologists regarding school psychological services would help define the nature of their services, promote the roles and functions of psychological specialties, and establish required professional competencies in each East Asian country. As a result, this would provide valuable information in developing more effective school psychological services in these countries.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
