Developmental and adaptive functioning of very young children with solid tumors and brain tumors.

PURPOSE: Infancy/toddlerhood is a period of rapid development. All infants/toddlers (0-36 months-of-age) undergoing cancer-directed treatment at one hospital are offered developmental assessments and related services. Yet, literature comparing development of infants/toddlers with brain tumors to those with non-CNS solid tumors is sparse. DESIGN AND METHODS: Developmental assessment data were abstracted from electronic health records of infants/toddlers undergoing treatment for a brain tumor (n = 36; mean age = 21.83 ± 9.96 months) or a solid tumor (n = 40; mean age = 17.35 ± 8.50). Z-scores compared obtained data with age expectations. Chi-square analyses assessed whether a greater proportion of participants scored within the clinical range than normative expectations. Multivariate analysis of variance and chi-square analyses compared developmental outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Compared with age expectations, the overall group demonstrated significantly less well-developed skills. Infants/toddlers with solid tumors demonstrated clinical deficits at rates higher than expected for most domains; the rate of impairment for the solid tumor group did not differ significantly from that of the brain tumor group across most subtests. CONCLUSIONS: Like young patients with brain tumors, the developmental functioning of infants/toddlers with solid tumors should be studied across time to determine the trajectory of functioning for these young patients and to inform future developmental intervention studies. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Infants/toddlers with a malignant solid tumor may be at increased risk for delayed development. These very young patients would likely benefit from developmental assessment, early intervention services during and after treatment, and ongoing monitoring of development across time.

A bibliometric and content analysis of Best Practices in School Psychology.

Best Practices in School Psychology is one of the most influential books in school psychology history. Originally published in 1985 by Thomas and Grimes, it was the first book offered by the National Association of School Psychologists. Its six editions have been revised every 5-8 years. Utilizing Publish or Perish as well as cross-referenced tables of contents from Best Practices, a bibliometric analysis of its 589 chapters and 37 appendices was completed. Results yielded 15,812 citations in Google Scholar-most citations (6,448) stem from its fourth edition, published in 2002. One chapter by Good et al. (2002) was cited more than 400 times, and five other chapters were cited more than 300 times. In all, 42 chapters were cited more than 100 times. Content analysis revealed that most chapters primarily addressed domains reflecting data-based decision making and interventions. The 79 most cited chapters generated almost two-thirds of all citations, and at least one-third of the citations to each of the 10 most cited chapters emerged from student projects, such as theses and dissertations. The editors, authors, and reviewers of Best Practices have produced a massive number of chapters across six editions, and although these publications were initially intended to guide practicing school psychologists, they have had a substantial impact on scholarship, including student projects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Women's representation on journal editorial boards in school psychology across 55 years.

This study evaluated the inclusion and representation of women serving on school psychology journal editorial boards from 1965 to 2020. A total of 3,267 names were collected from six journals at 5-year increments and coded for gender using a four-step process. Across 55 years, women constituted 38% of editorial boards across these journals. When considering their levels of service, they constituted 10% of editors, 42% of associate editors, and 39% of board members. Women demonstrated a consistent increase in participation across all levels, with an overall change from 3.4% to 54.8%. In 2020, five out of six journals included more than 50% women on their editorial boards. However, underrepresentation of women is still apparent as recent reports showed women compose 87% of school psychologists, 63% of school psychology faculty, and 85% of school psychology doctoral recipients. Low numbers of women as editors as well as differences in women's participation across journals suggest a need for further evaluation of potential bias and gender-related barriers related to service in school psychology journals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Determining journal article citation classics in school psychology: An updated bibliometric analysis using Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science.

Bibliometric analyses have been the primary form of examining and evaluating literature within a field of study. By focusing on citation count and source, researchers have been able to identify journal articles considered to be high impact in reach and relevance, branding them "citation classics" in a field. As time progresses, technology, methods, and metrics for conducting these analyses have improved, and although there have been several studies designed to identify citation classics and patterns of citations supporting them in school psychology literature, none have done so in an updated, comprehensive manner. To address these limitations, the current study aims to replicate and extend these works in three major ways: (a) including 11 primary school psychology journals in the search, (b) using three of the largest reference databases, and (c) collapsing results across these databases to accurately identify the most highly cited articles. The search yielded evidence of more than 12,000 articles accruing more than 500,000 citations. The 100 most highly cited articles were identified, and the majority were classified as explicative (n = 63) and quantitative (n = 70). Themes of bullying, burnout, and teacher-child relationships were the prominent focus. School psychology's citation classics tended to feature quantitative research and examine the relations between constructs, and several revealed a new category of citations classics: the methodological and statistical article.