TIME UTILIZATION STUDY
OF
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS IN
AN
URBAN SETTING’
SUSAN
BROWN
EITEL AND
JOHN
J.
LAMBERTH
Trenton.
NJ
Public
Schools
IRWIN A. HYMAN
Temple Universiry
The staff at a medium-sized urban school district cooperated
in
a time sampling study
to determine actual role functioning as recorded by trained observers. The results
generally confirm the findings
of
self-report studies showing
30-40%
of psychologists’
time spent in assessment. While the generalizability
of
these data is limited, the major
purpose of the study was to demonstrate efficacious methodology and to serve as a
heuristic model
for
further research.
While the issue of the role of the school psychologist continues to plague the
literature, little data-based information is available concerning the actual time school
psychologists spend on various functions. The need for this information is related to a
number
of
issues, including accountability
in
an era of diminishing financial resources,
the narrowing assessment role forced by implementation of PL
94-142,
and the in-
creasing need to justify more broad-based functioning. A number of studies have focused
on perceptions of school psychologists’ roles, vis-a-vis consultation (Kirschner,
197
1
;
Landau
&
Gerkin,
1979;
Meyers, Martin,
&
Hyman,
1977),
diagnosis and assessment
(Kaplan, Clancy,
&
Chrin,
1977),
and research and program evaluation (Maher,
1982).
In addition to the problems of actual role functioning, school psychologists often face
issues related to productivity. The primary concern usually focuses on the number
of
cases completed within a specified time period.
Sandoval and Lambert
(1977)
point out that, “the problem with frequency counts of
work activities is that, while it may indicate
if
the psychologist is doing something
or
nothing, it provides no information about the quality of the work performed. Further, it
does not inform the psychologist as to which of his many activities are paying off and
which are not. Nevertheless, because work load statistics and ratings are quick and easy
to collect, they continue to be used” (p.
173).
While the present investigators agree that
there is a need for more adequate evaluation of outcome, research
on
process variables
also needs to be improved.
The literature provides little information on the actual daily activities of school psy-
chologists. Martin, Duffey, and Fischman
(1973)
conducted a study that consisted of
measuring the actual amount of time two school psychology interns spent in assessment:
28.3%
was spent in consultation, with in-service activities accounting
for
13.8%
of
their
total time. This compares with a more recent study by Lacayo, Morris, and Sherwood
(1981),
in
which
335
school psychologists were surveyed nationally. The results
of
their
survey showed that psychologists reported spending
47%
of
their time in assessment ac-
tivities and
26%
of their time in consultation with school staff
or
parents; only
2%
of their
time was spent providing in-service programs. Winikur and Daniels
(1982)
compared
data over a four-year period from self-reports of New Jersey school psychologists.
Respondents estimated percentage of time spent in each of seven categories. While this
study is somewhat limited by sampling problems, it did demonstrate that the majority
of
Requests for reprints should be sent to Irwin
A.
Hyman,
255
Ritter Hall South, Dept. of School
‘The investigators are indebted to Eugene
J.
Gadson, Director of the Department of Special Pupil Ser-
Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
19122.
vices, Trenton Public Schools,
for
his support
in
conducting this study.
329