Strengths Illuminated: Exploring Approaches to Psychoeducational Assessment in Canadian Schools

Abstract

Students may be referred for psychoeducational assessment to elucidate factors that underlie or contribute to their learning, behavioural, and/or socio-emotional difficulties. Although these assessments have traditionally been deficit-focused, strengths-based assessment (SBA) is an alternative approach that seeks to explore areas of challenges whilst also identifying and leveraging strengths. We surveyed 57 school-based Canadian psychologists and psychological associates about their assessment beliefs and practices. SBA implementation was greater amongst those who endorsed stronger beliefs in the value of SBA, had more years of experience providing school-based assessments, and had a lower assessment caseload. Findings highlight the importance of attitudes and professional development for school psychology providers.

Keywords

strengths-based approaches psychoeducational assessment school psychology

Introduction

School psychologists and psychological associates provide psychoeducational assessments to elucidate factors that underlie or contribute to students’ learning, behavioral, and/or socio-emotional difficulties. Assessments have traditionally focused on identifying deficits to determine student eligibility for special education services (Laija-Rodriguez et al., 2013). When feedback is predominantly negative, however, parents and teachers form lower expectations of students and student self-efficacy is diminished (Mercer & Gulseren, 2024; Smeets et al., 2025). Strengths-based psychoeducational assessment (SBA) is an alternative approach that seeks to help students, and others, recognize and leverage strengths whilst also evaluating challenges (Climie & Henley, 2016). Compared with psychoeducational assessments that are deficit-focused, SBA is associated with more positive parent-child and parent-professional relationships and more favorable expectations of students amongst school personnel (Donovan & Nickerson, 2007). SBA also is experienced as more empowering by students and may help foster their resilience in school (Climie & Henley, 2016; Donovan & Nickerson, 2007).

Our study explores awareness and incorporation of SBA amongst psychologists and psychological associates who provide psychoeducational assessment services to students in Canadian schools. We focus on schools because this is where most academic learning takes place and assessments are typically provided at no cost to families. In our survey, we asked school-based practitioners about their assessment-related beliefs and practices and explored factors that may be relevant to their engagement in SBA. Research has shown that mental health service providers are more likely to incorporate innovative ideas and/or methods into their practice when they believe they are important and add value to their work (Aarons et al., 2012). At the same time, new clinical skills are typically acquired through training and consolidation is often facilitated through experience (Vempaty, 2018). When workload demands are substantive, however, there can be reduced uptake of more time intensive clinical practices—even if empirically supported (Aarons et al., 2012). Based on these findings, we hypothesized that SBA would be more likely to be implemented among school psychology providers who perceived SBA to be important, were more experienced, and had lesser demands on their professional time.

Method

Participants

Seventy-six participants¹ were recruited through flyers on Canadian professional listservs and emails sent by school boards to professional staff. Within each province or territory, we approached the largest English-language public secular school board. Of 13 contacted, 8 replied that they had research partnership capacity and agreed to share information about our study. Eligibility criteria included self-identifying as a psychologist or psychological associate, being registered to practice in a Canadian province and/or territory, and currently providing psychoeducational assessments to students in a Canadian school setting on a full-time, part-time, or contractual basis. Our final sample included 57 school-based practitioners, characteristics of whom are presented in Table 1. This study was approved by the Office of Research Ethics at the University of Waterloo (ORE # 46358).

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics.

Characteristic	n	%
Gender
Cis- or transgender man	10	17.54
Cis- or transgender woman	44	77.19
Age (years)
Under 30	6	10.53
30–40	17	29.82
40–50	21	36.84
Over 50	12	21.05
Race/ethnicity*
White/European	51	89.47
Non-White/European^a	9	15.79
Highest level of education
Master’s degree (e.g., MA, MSc, MEd)	40	70.18
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)	11	19.30
Other doctoral degree (PsyD, EdD)	6	10.53
Region of practice*
Atlantic	15	26.32
Ontario	22	38.60
Prairies	12	21.05
British Columbia, Quebec, or Territories	4	7.02
Practice setting*
Schools/school board	57	100
Private practice/office	27	47.37
Other public agency^b	3	5.26
Years of assessment experience in schools
Less than or equal to 10	20	35.09
More than 10	37	64.91
Number of school assessments per year (“assessment workload”)
Less than or equal to 10	6	10.53
More than 10	51	89.47
School level*
Junior to senior kindergarten	37	64.91
Grades 1–8	57	100
High school	46	80.70
Assessment feedback involvement*
Children and youth	25	43.86
Children and youth pending age/diagnosis	6	10.52
Parents/guardians	49	85.96
Children/youth and parents	30	52.63
School staff	34	59.65
Other service providers (e.g., family doctors, therapists)	2	3.51

Note. *Feedback refers to the psychoeducational assessment results meeting. Multiple responses were permitted. Some categories are collapsed to protect anonymity.

Indigenous of North American, Black/Afro-Caribbean/African, East/South/Southeast/Central Asian.

Hospital, rehabilitation, and/or community clinic.

Procedure and Materials

The study was conducted on Qualtrics between September 2024 and August 2025. Participants provided written consent, completed the survey, and afterward had the option of entering a $100 gift card raffle (n = 42). There was no time limit for survey completion (M = 14.77 min, SD = 39.38 min). The complete survey is available on Open Science Framework (OSF: osf.io/9mk2e).

As shown in Table 2, part 1 of the survey included 14 items about assessment beliefs (rated from 1, not important, to 6, extremely important), and 14 items about assessment practices (rated from 1, never, to 7, every time). Within each subsection, nine items asked about strengths (beliefs: α = .86; practices: α = .77), four items asked about challenges (beliefs: α = .84; practices: α = .74), and one item considered both strengths and challenges. To examine participants’ consideration of strengths whilst accounting for their consideration of challenges, proportional scores were calculated by dividing the sum of strengths-based items by the sum of strengths-based and challenge-related items (beliefs: M = 0.68, SD = 0.02; practices: M = 0.67, SD = 0.03).² Part 2 of the survey began with a definition of SBA³, after which participants rated their implementation of this definition in six components of their most recently completed school-based assessment case (ranging from 1, not at all, to 5, extensively). Responses were summed for a total score (M = 23.96, SD = 4.28, α = .85).

Table 2.

Survey Items.

Item	M	SD
Part 1a. How important do you think the following are?
Asking parents/guardians about their child’s challenges in school	5.61	0.65
Asking parents/guardians about their child’s challenges in areas other than school	5.58	0.73
Asking parents/guardians about their child’s strengths in school^a	5.53	0.68
Asking parents/guardians about their child’s strengths in areas other than school^a	5.65	0.58
Asking children/youth about their challenges in school	5.56	0.63
Asking children/youth about their challenges in areas other than school	5.30	0.91
Asking children/youth about their strengths in school^a	5.54	0.68
Asking children/youth about their strengths in areas other than school^a	5.56	0.66
Selecting assessment tools that take the strengths of children/youth into account^a	4.89	1.10
Interpreting the tests in the contexts of children’s/youths’ strengths^a	5.32	0.76
Assessing the resiliency of children/youth (i.e., their ability to bounce back after adversity or challenge)^a	4.68	1.05
Assessing protective factors of children/youth (e.g., familial supports, peer relationships, areas of interest, etc.)^a	5.11	0.96
Making an effort to build on a child/youth’s strengths in recommendations^a	5.70	0.50
Emphasizing both the strengths and challenges of a child/youth when providing feedback (e.g., in-person feedback, handouts/resources, written reports)^c	5.86	0.35
Part 1b. How often do you do the following in your work?
Asking parents/guardians about their child’s challenges in school	6.86	0.35
Asking parents/guardians about their child’s challenges in areas other than school	6.53	0.78
Asking parents/guardians about their child’s strengths in school^b	6.46	0.76
Asking parents/guardians about their child’s strengths in areas other than school^b	6.67	0.61
Asking children/youth about their challenges in school	6.63	0.64
Asking children/youth about their challenges in areas other than school	6.02	1.11
Asking children/youth about their strengths in school^b	6.44	0.80
Asking children/youth about their strengths in areas other than school^b	6.23	0.98
Selecting assessment tools that take the strengths of children/youth into account^b	4.98	1.56
Interpreting the tests in the contexts of children’s/youths’ strengths^b,c	5.75	1.25
Assessing the resiliency of children/youth (i.e., their ability to bounce back after adversity or challenge)^b	4.35	1.61
Assessing protective factors of children/youth (e.g., familial supports, peer relationships, areas of interest, etc.)^b	5.19	1.51
Making an effort to build on a child/youth’s strengths in recommendations^b	6.32	0.89
Emphasizing both the strengths and challenges of a child/youth when providing feedback (e.g., in-person feedback, handouts/resources, written reports)^c	6.70	0.57
Part 2. To what extent did you use SBA in your most recent psychoeducational assessment?^d
Clinical interview	4.12	0.76
Selection of tests and measures	3.18	1.05
Testing sessions with child/youth	3.95	0.98
Case formulation	4.18	0.92
Report writing	4.21	0.73
Feedback (e.g., with child/youth, family, school)	4.60	0.59

Note.

Interpreted as a strengths-based belief.

Interpreted as a strengths-based practice.

Not included in creation of proportional score.

One participant selected “not applicable” for all items except report writing and feedback.

Analytic Plan

Our full quality control procedure is available in online Supplemental material and OSF. Briefly, 19 participants were excluded due to mostly missing data (n = 16) or two or more failed attention checks (n = 3). Because one strengths-based practice item was erroneously omitted for the first 30 participants, values were recreated using single regression imputation with the eight other strengths-based practice items (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019). Spearman correlations were calculated to look at bivariate associations and then multiple regression was used to predict participants’ practices from their beliefs and personal characteristics (i.e., time since degree conferral, years of school experience, number of school assessments per year). For the latter, inspection of regression assumptions resulted in the removal of influential outliers (Model 1: n = 2; Model 2: n = 4).

Results

Spearman correlations are available in online Supplemental material and on OSF. As shown in Table 3, Model 1 explained 57% of variance in participants’ general SBA practice (p < .001), with significant predictors including SBA beliefs (p < .001), school-based assessment experience (p = .003), and workload (p = .02). Model 2 explained 28% of variance in participants’ SBA practice in their most recent case, (p = .009), with general SBA practice emerging as the only significant predictor (p = .02). There was no indication of multicollinearity (VIFs < 2.17).

Table 3.

Multiple Regression Analyses.

Predictor	Model 1: SBA practice – general						Model 2: SBA practice – most recent
Predictor	B	β	SE	t	95% CI [UL, LL]	p	B	β	SE	t	95% CI [UL, LL]	p
Experience in schools	0.02	.40	0.006	3.16	[0.15, 0.66]	.003	−1.62	−.21	1.46	−1.11	[−0.58, 0.17]	.27
Time since degree	−0.0002	−.10	0.0003	−0.80	[−0.34, 0.14]	.43	0.10	.26	0.06	1.59	[−0.07, 0.59]	.12
Assessment workload	−0.02	−.25	0.008	−2.50	[−0.46, −0.05]	.02	0.70	.06	1.62	0.43	[−0.22, 0.34]	.67
SBA beliefs	0.85	.56	0.15	5.72	[0.36, 0.76]	<.001	11.79	.05	40.22	0.29	[−0.30, 0.40]	.77
SBA practices - general	–NA–						74.46	.48	29.92	2.49	[0.09, 0.88]	.02
Model	R² = 0.57, F(4, 49) = 16.54, p < .001						R² = 0.28, F(5, 46) = 3.52, p = .009

Discussion

Consistent with our hypothesis, school psychology providers were more likely to use SBA in general when they reported stronger beliefs in the importance of this approach. This finding may reflect growing awareness of SBA in the field of professional psychology coupled with increased emphasis on SBA training in psychology graduate programs (Vempaty, 2018). General SBA practice was also positively associated with their experience providing psychoeducational assessments to students in schools and negatively associated with their school-based psychoeducational assessment workload. Direct involvement in the school workplace may be important insofar as school-based practitioners’ consolidation of SBA skills (Vempaty, 2018), though workplace demands may impede SBA practice—which in other mental health services has been mitigated by providing strong values, training, and supports to staff (Aarons et al., 2012). Finally, although most school-based practitioners identified using SBA in multiple components of their mostly recently completed school assessment case, general SBA practice was the only significant predictor. In the context of client-centered care, we speculate that case-level factors are likely to have a substantive influence on SBA implementation in a single assessment (e.g., pending referral question, client particulars, etc.).

Limitations

Our findings, though novel, should be considered in the context of several limitations. First, although a significant proportion of overall variance was captured in the regression models, the size of our sample rendered analyses underpowered to detect predictor effects that may have been present yet small in magnitude (potentially giving rise to false negatives). Second, the generalizability of our findings may be limited to the demographic particulars of our sample—most of whom self-identified as White cis- or trans-gender women. Though reflective of the profession of psychology in Canada currently, this landscape is likely to change as the field of strives to become more diverse, equitable, and inclusive (Goghari, 2022). Lastly, owing to our use of an online survey, there may be data variation reflecting individual differences in how school-based practitioners applied our SBA definition to appraisals of their assessment work. Relatedly, we are unable to determine whether these appraisals reflect what they do in actual clinical practice versus their thoughts about what they do or should do in the latter. In future work, confidence in self-report may be bolstered by providing respondents with explicit examples and non-examples of SBA practices and/or comparing their ratings to more objective measures such as direct observation or file review.

Relevance to the Practice of School Psychology

Our study shows that school-based practitioners view SBA as important and incorporate SBA into psychoeducational assessments with students. Because SBA is not prescriptive, school psychology providers may incorporate a strengths-based lens into the process of assessment and/or selection of specific assessment tools in a flexible manner. Graduate training programs and continuing education initiatives hold promise insofar as boosting awareness and uptake of SBA among Canadian psychologists and psychological associates who are working with struggling students.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cjs-10.1177_08295735261451316 – Supplemental material for Strengths Illuminated: Exploring Approaches to Psychoeducational Assessment in Canadian Schools

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cjs-10.1177_08295735261451316 for Strengths Illuminated: Exploring Approaches to Psychoeducational Assessment in Canadian Schools by Brianna MacPherson and Tara McAuley in Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We extend our thanks to the Canadian school boards who disseminated information about our study, the clinicians who opted to participate, and students Abi Peters and Erya Xu for their research assistance on this project.

ORCID iDs

Brianna MacPherson

Tara McAuley

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Office of Research Ethics at the University of Waterloo (ORE # 46358).

Consent to Participate

Participants provided online written consent prior to completing the survey.

Author Contributions

BM conceived the study, established the research design and study methods, applied for ethics approval, undertook statistical analyses, supervised research assistants, and drafted the manuscript. TM provided input into study conceptualization, research design, and study methods, validated statistical analyses, reviewed and edited the manuscript, and supervised the work of BM. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported in part by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Canada Graduate Research Scholarship — Master’s Program, awarded to the first author (BM).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Study materials, data, and results are available on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/9mk2e).

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Brianna MacPherson is a doctoral student in Clinical Psychology at the University of Waterloo. Her research examines the implementation of and outcomes associated with strengths-based approaches to psychological assessment, particularly for individuals with ADHD.

Tara McAuley is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Waterloo and is registered as a clinical neuropsychologist with the College of Psychologists of Ontario. Her research interests pertain to the development of self-regulation and promotion of wellbeing in children, adolescents, and emerging adults.

References

Aarons

G. A.

Glisson

Green

P. D.

Hoagwood

Kelleher

K. J.

Landsverk

J. A.

Weisz

J. R.

Chorpita

Gibbons

Glisson

Green

E. P.

Hoagwood

Jensen

P. S.

Kelleher

Landsverk

Mayberg

Miranda

Palinkas

Schoenwald

(2012). The organizational social context of mental health services and clinician attitudes toward evidence-based practice: A United States national study. Implementation Science : IS, 7(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-56

Climie

Henley

(2016). A renewed focus on strengths-based assessment in schools. British Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12131

Donovan

S. A.

Nickerson

A. B.

(2007). Strength-based versus traditional social-emotional reports: Impact on multidisciplinary team members’ perceptions. Behavioral Disorders, 32(4), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290703200401

Goghari

V. M.

(2022). Reimagining clinical psychology. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 63(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000328

Laija-Rodriguez

Grites

Bouman

Pohlman

Goldman

R. L.

(2013). Leveraging strengths assessment and intervention model (LeStAIM): A theoretical strength-based assessment framework. Contemporary School Psychology, 17(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03340990

Mercer

Gulseren

D. B.

(2024). When negative feedback harms: A systematic review of the unintended consequences of negative feedback on psychological, attitudinal, and behavioral responses. Studies in Higher Education, 49(4), 654–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2248490

Smeets

Rohaan

van der Ven

Bakx

(2025). The effects of special educational needs and socioeconomic status on teachers’ and parents’ judgements of pupils’ cognitive abilities. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12719

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(Eds.). (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.

Vempaty

(2018). Evaluation of clinicians’ strengths-based practice with clients [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Spalding University.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.02 MB

0.00 MB