The aim of this study was to investigate multiprofessional collaboration as well as collaboration between professionals and challenging students and their parents in which the focus for these collaborations was on handling the challenging students’ academic and social behavior. A grounded theory study of collaboration between a prereferral resource team and teachers, principals, challenging students, and their parents was conducted. Qualitative interview and focus group methods were used. The findings presented a grounded theory of collaborative synchronizing in relation to challenging students around two ideal types, human resource synchronizing and human resource desynchronizing.
BanfieldP.KayR. (2008). Introduction to human resource management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2.
Bennett-EmslieG. M.McIntoshJ. (1995). Promoting collaboration in the primary care team—the role of the practice meeting. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 9, 251-256.
3.
BlumerH. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
BrownM. B.BolenL. M. (2008). The school-based health center as a resource for prevention and health promotion. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 28-38.
CharmazK. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. In HolsteinJ. A.GubriumJ. F. (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 397-412). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
7.
CharmazK. (2009). Shifting the grounds: Constructivist grounded theory methods. In MorseJ. M.SternP. N.CorbinJ.BowersB.CharmazK.ClarkeA. E. (Eds.), Developing grounded theory: The second generation (pp. 127-154). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
8.
CharonJ. M. (2007). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
CookG.GerrishK.ClarkeC. (2001). Decision-making in teams: Issues arising from two UK evaluations. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 15, 141-151.
10.
DeauxK.PhilogèneG. (Eds.). (2001). Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
11.
DrameE. R.FratturaE. (2011). A charter school’s journey toward serving all learners: A case study. Urban Education, 46, 55-75.
12.
ErevellesN. (2006). Deconstructing differences: Doing disability studies in multicultural educational contexts. In DanforthS.GabelS. (Eds.), Vital questions facing disability studies in education (pp. 363-378). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
13.
FarrellP. T.HowesA. J.JimersonS. R.DaviesS. M. (2009). Promoting inclusive practice in schools: A challenging role for school psychologists. In GutkinT. B.ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (4th ed., pp. 821-839). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
14.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (2008). Social cognition: From brain to culture. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
15.
ForsythD. R. (2006). Group dynamics (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson.
16.
GallG.PaganoM. E.DesmondM. S.PerrinJ. M.MurphyJ. M. (2000). Utility of psychosocial screening in a school-based health center. Journal of School Health, 70, 292-299.
17.
GlaserB. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. San Francisco, CA: Sociology Press.
18.
GlaserB. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory. San Francisco, CA: Sociology Press.
19.
GlaserB. G. (2003). The grounded theory perspective II: Description’s remodeling of grounded theory methodology. San Francisco, CA: Sociology Press.
20.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
21.
GregoryA.RipskiM. B. (2008). Adolescent trust in teachers: Implications for behavior in the high school classroom. School Psychology Review, 37, 337-353.
22.
GutkinT. B. (2009). Ecological school psychology: A personal opinion and a plea for change. In GutkinT. B.ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (4th ed., pp. 463-496). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
23.
HamreB. K.PiantaR. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure?Child Development, 76, 949-967.
24.
HamreB. K.PiantaR. C. (2006). Student–Teacher relationships. In BearG. G.MinkeK. M. (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 59-71). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
25.
HjörneE.SäljöR. (2004). The pupil welfare team as a discourse community: Accounting for school problems. Linguistics and Education, 15, 321-238.
26.
HjörneE.SäljöR. (2008). Att platsa i en skola för alla: Elevhälsa och förhandling om normalitet i den svenska skolan [To qualify in a school for all: Student health and negotiating about normality in the Swedish school]. Stockholm, Sweden: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.
27.
HoggM. A.VaughanG. M. (2008). Social psychology (5th ed.). Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson.
28.
HylanderI. (2003). Towards a grounded theory of the conceptual change process in consultee-centered consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14, 263-280.
29.
JeynesW. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 202-218.
30.
JeynesW. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237-269.
31.
KaiserB.RasminskyJ. S. (2009). Challenging behavior in elementary and middle school. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
32.
KennedyB. L. (2011). The importance of student and teacher interactions for disaffected middle school students: A grounded theory study of community day schools. Urban Education, 46, 4-33.
33.
KingN.HorrocksC. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. London, UK: SAGE.
34.
KlingnerJ. K.HarryB. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making process for English language learners: Child study team meetings and placement conferences. Teachers College Record, 108, 2247-2281.
35.
KnotekS. (2003). Bias in problem solving and the social process of student study teams: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Special Education, 37, 2-14.
36.
KovaleskiJ. F.GicklingE. E.MorrowH.SwankP. R. (1999). High versus low implementation of instructional support teams: A case for maintaining program fidelity. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 170-183.
37.
LarssonS. (2009). A pluralist view of generalization in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32, 25-38.
38.
MeehanB. T.HughesJ. N.CavellT. A. (2003). Teacher–student relationships as compensatory resources for aggressive children. Child Development, 74, 1145-1157.
39.
MeyersA. B.ValentinoC. T.MeyersJ.BorettiM.BrentD. (1996). Implementing preferral intervention teams as an approach to school-based consultation in an urban school system. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 7, 119-149.
40.
MeyersJ.TruscottS. D.MeyersA. B.VarjasK.Smith CollinsA. (2008). Qualitative and mixed-methods designs in consultation research. In ErchulW. P.SheridanS. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (pp. 89-114). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
MillsM.BonnerA.FrancisK. (2006). Adopting a constructivist approach to grounded theory: Implications for research design. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 12, 8-13.
42.
MishnaF.SainiM.SolomonS. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth’s perceptions of bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 1222-1228.
43.
MorganD. L. (1998). The focus group guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
44.
MoscoviciS. (2001). Social representations: Explorations in social psychology. New York: New York University Press.
PatrikakouE. N.WeissbergR. P. (2000). Parents’ perceptions of teacher outreach and parent involvement in children’s education. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 20, 103-119.
47.
PiantaR. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
48.
PiantaR. C. (2006). Classroom management and relationships between children and teachers: Implications for research and practice. In EvertsonC. M.WeinsteinC. S. (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 685-709). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
PoultonB. C.WestM. A. (1999). The determinants of effectiveness in primary health care teams. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 13, 7-18.
50.
ReyR. B.SmithA. L.YoonJ.SomersC.BarnettD. (2007). Relationships between teachers and urban African American children. School Psychology International, 28, 346-364.
51.
RobinsonF. (2002). Lessons learned from implementing problem-solving teams in urban high schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13, 185-217.
52.
ShawR. S.KellyD. P.JoostJ. C.Parker-FisherS. J. (1995). School-linked and school-based health services: A renewed call for collaboration between school psychologists and medical professionals. Psychology in the School, 32, 190-201.
53.
Slonski-FowlerK. E.TruscottS. D. (2004). General education teachers’ perceptions of the prereferral intervention team process. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15, 1-39.
54.
SprattJ.ShucksmithJ.PhilipK.WatsonC. (2006). Interprofessional support of mental well-being in schools: A Bourdieuan perspective. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20, 391-402.
55.
SunJ.StewartD. (2007). Development of population-based resilience measures in the primary school setting. Health Education, 107, 575-599.
56.
ToselandR. W.IvanoffA.RoseS. R. (1987). Treatment conferences: Task groups in action. Social Work with Groups, 10, 79-94.
57.
ToselandR. W.Palmer-GanelesJ.ChapmanD. (1986). Teamwork in psychiatric settings. Social Work, 31, 46-52.
58.
WilkinsonS. (1999). How useful are focus groups in feminist research? In BarbourR. S.KitzingerJ. (Eds.), Developing focus group research (pp. 64-78). London, UK: SAGE.
59.
WittJ. C.GreshamF. M.NoellG. H. (1996). What’s behavioral about behavioral consultation?Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 7, 327-344.
