Psychology
in
the Schools
Volume 32,
October
1995
EXPANDING ROLES OR EVOLVING IDENTITY?
DOCTORAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS IN
SCHOOL VS. NONSCHOOL PRACTICE
SETTINGS
RICK
JAY
SHORT
The Pennsylvania State University
SUSAN
L.
ROSENTHAL
Division
of
Adolescent Medicine
Children’s Hospital Medical Center
University
of
Cincinnati School
of
Medicine
The purpose
of
this study was to investigate variables related to the professional identity
and career path
of
school-based vs. non-school-based doctoral-level school psycholo-
gists.
Two
hundred seventy-three psychologists trained as school psychologists com-
pleted a questionnaire developed to investigate their training, experience, and percep-
tions. Respondents differed little by employment setting (school-based vs. non-school-
based) in reports of their training
or
experiences. However, significant differences
were found among groups in two areas: ratings
of
relative importance
of
characteristics
of
employment setting, and perceived identity as a school psychologist.
For much of its history, school psychology has defined itself in terms of its practice
setting: the schools. Accordingly, most studies of the role and characteristics of school
psychologists have focused almost exclusively on those psychologists employed by schools
(e.g., Meacham
&
Peckham,
1978;
Smith,
1984).
This emphasis has possibly occurred
because early school practitioners identified themselves as school psychologists but
typically were trained in other psychology specializations
or
even other disciplines (Fagan,
1986;
Meacham
&
Peckham,
1978).
The only way
to
define school psychology in the
absence of
a
core school psychology training and identity was to include all, and only,
school-based practitioners as school psychologists.
However, this setting-based definition of school psychology may no longer reflect
the specialty accurately. Since
1970,
almost all school-based practitioners have been
trained in organized school psychology preparation programs, providing a core cadre
and identity for the field (Fagan,
1986;
Smith,
1984).
Although such training would seem
to conform most closely to school-based practice, writers in school psychology have
recently described and advocated roles and functions
of
school psychologists in non-
school-based,
or
nontraditional, practice (D’Amato
&
Dean,
1989;
Pfeiffer
&
Dean,
1988).
At the doctoral level, many practitioners opt for employment outside the schools and
may never engage in school-based practice. Thus, the field may be changing from one
of diversely prepared practitioners working in
a
standard setting to one of relatively
uniformly trained and identified (at least in terms of specialization) professionals
employed in diverse settings.
At least two interpretations might be placed on this development. Practice by school
psychologists in nonschool settings may represent an evolution of school psychology
Copies
of
the questionnaire used in the study are available upon request from the authors. An earlier
version
of
this paper was presented at the annual convention
of
the American Psychological Association.
This manuscript was developed while the
first
author was employed by the Pennsylvania State University;
his affiliation now is with the American Psychological Association.
Correspondence and requests
for
reprints should be addressed to Rick Jay Short, The American
Psychological Association,
750
First Street,
N.E..
Washington, DC
20002-4242.
296