I am currently working on a short book intended to introduce the general
public to interesting topics in mathematical cognition. In preparation for
writing it, I returned to the literature on how to write nonfiction. Several
excellent books discuss the principles of the “classic style” of writing (see reference
at the end of this post). Their authors emphasize that good writing is simple
writing. They recommend avoiding lofty, abstract, and grandiose words and
replacing them with simple, clear ones. They also advise avoiding long,
cumbersome sentences and preferring short, straightforward ones. Another
recommendation is to reread what we have written and delete every unnecessary
word and sentence. When we do this, we often discover that we can dispense with
nearly half of what we originally wrote.
I was reminded of these recommendations because they also appear in a
chapter written by Professor
Joel Schneider, a longtime favorite of this blog and one of the
developers of the CHC model, together with Renee Tobin. The chapter discusses how to write
reader-friendly assessment reports. It is difficult to write such a chapter
without sounding preachy, and I think the authors largely succeeded, in no
small part because of the enthusiasm with which they write.
Joel Schneider
Here are several of the chapter’s main ideas, in addition to the
recommendations concerning a simple, classic writing style that I described
above:
Soon after it is written, a report may become either a meaningless
sequence of words in a forgotten folder or an event that brings about
meaningful change in the life of a child and the child’s family. How can we
make a report a life-changing event?
A meaningful report is written for its readers, not for its author. Its
purpose is to communicate the main findings, not to include every detail the
psychologist noticed. The report is not the place to raise hypotheses or
discuss the psychologist’s deliberations. It is not a laboratory report. It is
not intended to demonstrate the psychologist’s clinical skills or extensive
theoretical knowledge.
The writing should focus on the conclusions, not on explaining how we
arrived at them. We should not qualify every conclusion or go into excessive
detail. We should focus on the principal findings that are true of the person
being assessed most of the time and leave the scores for the appendix.
When using concepts such as “working memory,” which not every reader
will understand, it is helpful to explain them briefly and illustrate how they
affect the child’s everyday life. In addition, we should try to describe the
child rather than the tests. For example, instead of writing, “Jacob has
difficulty with working memory, as reflected in a score of 70 on the Digit Span
test, which is below average,” it would be better to write: “Jacob was able to
repeat information that I read aloud to him, but when he had to reorganize the
information, he found this difficult. Similarly, in the classroom he can take
dictation, but he has difficulty summarizing what the teacher says and writing
it in his own words.”
To be honest, I am not sure that I manage to write this way myself. It
certainly takes effort to translate our professional concepts into everyday
language. It seems to me that the ability to do so indicates that the writer
understands the concepts in depth.
The report should convey empathy towards the child and portray the child
as a whole person. It should describe the child’s strengths and personality
separately from the problem.
The background section should include only information that is important
for understanding the child’s situation, and it should explain why that
information matters. For example, if the child began speaking late, the report
should not merely state this fact but should also explain how such a difficulty
may affect language development and the acquisition of reading and writing.
During the feedback session, it is helpful to talk with the child, the
parents, and the school staff about the ways in which the main findings
resonate with their experience. In the spirit of a narrative approach, we might
ask whether they notice the same phenomena that we observed. When do these
phenomena occur more frequently, and when do they occur less frequently? What
increases or decreases their frequency? What helps the child overcome them, and
what makes this more difficult?
When making recommendations, it is helpful to ask our clients what has
helped them in the past and what they are realistically able to undertake. We
should avoid providing a long, unrealistic list of recommendations.
These are only some of the points discussed in the chapter. Would you
like to learn more? Here are the chapter details:
Schneider, W. J., & Tobin, R. M. (2024). Sophisticated simplicity:
Writing reader-friendly assessment reports. In Clinical Guide to Effective
Psychological Assessment and Report Writing: Integrating Research into Practice
(pp. 1–11). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67184-5_1
Strunk, W. (2020). The Elements of Style. Open Road Media.
Zinsser, W. (2013). On Writing Well. Harper Paperbacks.
Comments
Post a Comment