Validity, reliability, and feasibility of the Brief School Needs Inventory: Evaluating educational risk for students with chronic health conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Researchers have increasingly emphasized the need to include routine educational and cognitive screening in the care plan for youth with chronic health conditions. Prior to now, a screener did not exist to asses risk/need in education in the pediatric setting; thus, this research aimed to examine the validity, reliability, and feasibility of the newly developed Brief School Needs Inventory (BSNI), which stratifies a patients level of educational risk/need in the context of a health condition. METHODS: The authors developed and pilot-tested two versions of an education risk screener utilizing a mixed-methods design, which included an expert panel review process and assessments for validity, reliability, and feasibility. RESULTS: Ninety-eight school-age survivors of an oncologic disease were assessed for educational risk. Participants were assigned to two groups and administered either the initial (n = 48) or revised (n = 50) version of the screener. The final version of the screener, the BSNI, predicted educational risk in congruence with school liaisons perceived risk assessment with 94% accuracy. Liaisons also reported confidence in the results of 98% of cases for the BSNI. Similarly, expert panel results for the BSNI indicated a high degree of interrater agreement and content validity. CONCLUSIONS: The BSNI was found to be a valid and reliable screener for predicting educational risk for youth with oncologic conditions; future studies will examine use of the screener within other pediatric chronic populations.

Communication is key: the utility of a revised neuropsychological report format.

OBJECTIVE: The neuropsychological report is a critical tool for communicating evaluation results to multiple audiences who have varying knowledge about neuropsychology and often have limited ability to review long, complex reports. Considerable time is spent writing these reports and challenges persist related to readability, length/complexity, and billable clinical time (which may be capped by third-party payors or families' ability to pay). METHODS: This quality improvement effort systematically evaluated the redesign of pediatric neuropsychological reports in an outpatient clinic serving primarily medical populations. RESULTS: Revised reports were shorter, with improved readability, structure, and effectiveness in communicating results and recommendations. Improved clinical efficiency was also observed. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that adaptation to efficient, readable, and effective reports is possible within the practice of neuropsychology. Findings encourage replication in other settings. Through collaboration with key stakeholders, providers can identify their populations' and audience's unique needs and set report targets accordingly. To encourage that practice, we summarize our general process, provide a set of guidelines that can be adapted across multiple settings, and include an appended sample report.