| Course | PSY 620 Psychological Interactions |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 8 |
| Paper type | Consultation evaluation |
| Length | About 1,049 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PSY 620 Module 8
Did It Help, and How Do We Know? Evaluating a School Consultation
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
PSY 620: Psychological Interactions
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Did It Help, and How Do We Know? Evaluating a School Consultation
The consultation at Desert Willow Elementary, a Tucson school that exists only in this course, began in September with a request to fix Mateo, an eight-year-old who disrupted his third-grade class. It moved through consultation with his teacher, Gloria, assessment that pointed to escape from written work, collaboration with his mother, Ana, and a referral for special education evaluation. By December, Leah, the consulting psychologist, needed to judge whether the work had helped. This paper sets out that evaluation.
What to Evaluate
An evaluation of consultation should ask several questions. Did the client's behavior change from baseline? Was the plan carried out as intended? Did the consultee's skills or understanding change? How did the family experience the process? And how do the results compare with what research suggests is typical?
The Child's Outcomes
Gloria recorded calling out during independent work for two weeks before the plan began and for eight weeks after. Busse et al. (1995) proposed effect size measures for single-case consultation data, including a standardized difference between baseline and intervention phases, calculated by subtracting the intervention mean from the baseline mean and dividing by the baseline standard deviation. They offered rough benchmarks for interpreting such effects and recommended reporting them alongside graphs, since visual inspection and effect sizes can disagree.
The standardized difference for calling out was well above Busse and colleagues' threshold for a large effect, and the graph showed an immediate drop after the plan began, sustained across eight weeks, apart from a rise in week three.
| Measure | Baseline mean | Intervention mean | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calling out per independent work period | 3.8 | 1.1 | Large reduction |
| Leaving seat per period | 2.2 | 0.6 | Large reduction |
| Written tasks completed | 41 percent | 78 percent | Nearly doubled |
| Office referrals | 6 in two weeks | 1 in eight weeks | Near elimination |
| Homework minutes at home | About 120 | About 25 | Shorter, with more completed |
Was the Plan Carried Out?
Noell et al. (2005) studied how well teachers implemented plans after behavioral consultation in schools. Without follow-up, implementation declined quickly after the first days. Brief weekly meetings did little to prevent the decline. Performance feedback, in which the consultant showed teachers graphed data on how accurately they had implemented the plan alongside the student's data, produced higher and more sustained implementation and better student outcomes.
Leah had asked Gloria to complete a short daily checklist of the plan's steps: chunking worksheets, honoring the help card, offering breaks and not sending Mateo out. In week three, a busy week with testing, checklist completion fell to about half the steps, and calling out rose. Following Noell and colleagues, Leah showed Gloria a graph of both lines together. Gloria saw the connection immediately, and implementation returned to over ninety percent for the remaining weeks. The episode supports attributing the improvement to the plan: when the plan lapsed, the behavior returned.
Outcomes for the Teacher and Family
Gloria's explanation of Mateo's behavior changed from attention seeking to difficulty with writing, and she reported using shortened tasks with two other students. In a brief feedback form, she rated the consultation as useful and said the data had changed her mind more than advice would have. Ana reported that homework evenings were calmer and that she felt the school now listened to her. She valued meetings held after work, in Spanish, and the change to the home plan that she had proposed.
What the Organizational Work Added
The school-wide working group that grew out of Mateo's case, described in an earlier module, also produced results by December. With afternoon recess restored for grades 2 to 4 and a shared definition of referral-worthy behavior, monthly office referrals across those grades fell by about a third against the matching months of the prior school year. That change cannot be attributed to Mateo's plan, but it shows the case opening a wider conversation in the school.
Comparing With Research
Medway and Updyke (1985) found in their meta-analysis that consultation produced positive effects for consultees and clients across models. The outcomes here fit that pattern: changes in the consultee's understanding and practice and improvements in the client's behavior. The case adds an example of why implementation must be monitored, consistent with Noell and colleagues.
Social Validity
Beyond whether the plan worked, an evaluation should ask whether the people involved found its goals, methods and results acceptable and important, sometimes called social validity. Gloria said the plan was practical in a busy classroom once the checklist became habit. Ana said the shortened homework fit her evenings. Mateo, asked in simple terms by Gloria, said writing was "less long now." The plan's acceptability matters because a plan people dislike is unlikely to continue once the consultant leaves.
Follow-Up
Leah scheduled a brief check-in with Gloria and Ana for six weeks after the consultation ended, to see whether the gains held and whether the plan needed changes now that Mateo was receiving special education services in writing. She also agreed with Gloria that the daily checklist would continue in shortened form, so that any slippage would be noticed early.
Limits
The evaluation has clear limits. There was no comparison student, so other factors, such as Mateo growing more comfortable in the classroom, may have contributed. The special education evaluation, which found a specific learning disability in written expression in November, led to added services in the final weeks, overlapping with the plan. And the data were collected by Gloria, who was also implementing the plan; Leah's own observations agreed with Gloria's records on the two days she checked.
Lessons for Practice
Three lessons stand out. Measure implementation from the start, not only after outcomes falter. Use performance feedback with graphs rather than general check-ins. And collect consultee and family feedback in a structured way, since their accounts explained changes the numbers could not.
Conclusion
The consultation was associated with large reductions in Mateo's disruptive behavior and gains in completed work, measured against baseline with Busse and colleagues' single-case effect sizes. Implementation was checked, and when it slipped, performance feedback restored it, as Noell and colleagues' research predicted. The teacher's understanding and the family's experience changed as well, consistent with Medway and Updyke's findings. Limits remain, but the evaluation gives a defensible answer to whether the work helped.
References
Busse, R. T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Elliott, S. N. (1995). Meta-analysis for single-case consultation outcomes: Applications to research and practice. Journal of School Psychology, 33(4), 269-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(95)00014-D
Medway, F. J., & Updyke, J. F. (1985). Meta-analysis of consultation outcome studies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(5), 489-505. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00923263
Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S. L., Williams, K. L., Koenig, J. L., Resetar, J. L., & Duhon, G. J. (2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 34(1), 87-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2005.12086277
PSY 620 Module 8 instructions, in plain terms
The final module of PSY 620 typically asks you to evaluate a consultation, including outcomes and how the work was carried out. Let the Module 8 instructions in your Aspen course guide you; the school and family here are fictional. Measure client outcomes against baseline. Check whether the plan was implemented as intended. Assess outcomes for consultees, such as skills and satisfaction. Compare results with research. Acknowledge limits, such as the absence of a comparison. Draw lessons for practice, including what you would measure differently next time. Use APA 7 for every source, and present data in tables where they help. Report anything that coincided with the plan and might explain the results, such as other services the child began receiving.
How the PSY 620 Module 8 example is put together
Mateo, the composite third grader, called out an average of about four times per independent work period at baseline and completed about forty percent of written tasks. Busse, Kratochwill and Elliott's Journal of School Psychology article supplies effect size methods for single-case data. Noell and colleagues' School Psychology Review study shows why performance feedback was added when Gloria's implementation slipped in week three. Medway and Updyke's meta-analysis provides context. A table reports outcomes for Mateo, Gloria and Ana. Limits include no comparison and the overlapping special education evaluation. Lessons include measuring implementation from the start. The family's and teacher's accounts are set beside the numbers, and a follow-up check is scheduled six weeks after the consultation ends.
Where the marks sit in the PSY 620 Module 8 rubric
Evaluation papers earn credit for measuring client outcomes against baseline, checking implementation, assessing consultee outcomes and stating limits honestly. This example reports baseline and intervention data with effect sizes. It checks implementation and explains how performance feedback restored it, following Noell and colleagues. Consultee outcomes include the teacher's changed explanation of the behavior, her use of the same strategy with other students and the mother's experience of the process. Results are compared with research. Limits, including other changes in the period, are named. The lessons are specific and drawn from what happened. The rise in week three is used as evidence rather than hidden, since it shows the behavior tracking the plan.
PSY 620 Module 8 help: mistakes that cost marks
Evaluation papers often report that consultation worked without data. Measure against baseline. Check implementation; if the plan was not carried out, outcomes cannot be attributed to it. Assess consultee outcomes, including whether the consultee would handle similar problems differently. Name alternative explanations. Compare with research. Draw lessons you will apply. Ask the teacher and the family which parts helped and which they would drop; their answers often matter as much as the numbers, and they are the best guide to whether the gains will last. Plan a follow-up check a few weeks after consultation ends, since gains that depend on the consultant's presence often fade once the visits stop.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More PSY 620 and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- PSY 620 Module 1: Interactions, Consultation and Collaboration
- PSY 620 Module 2: Mental Health and Behavioral Consultation
- PSY 620 Module 3: Organizational Consultation
- PSY 620 Module 4: Assessment Through Behavioral Dialogue
- PSY 620 Module 5: Federal Guidelines for Children's Assessment
- PSY 620 Module 6: Collaboration With Families and Schools
- PSY 620 Module 7: Cross-Cultural Discourse
- PAC 499 Module 8: Final Report and Reflection
- PAC 102 Module 1: Substance Use Among Adolescents and Young Adults
- PAC 610 Module 3: Antidepressants
- PAC 115 Module 3: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Terms
PSY 620 Module 8 questions, answered
What does PSY 620 Module 8 usually ask for?
Aspen's PSY 620 ends with evaluating consultation in this module, so assessing outcomes, implementation and consultee change is typical. Consult your Module 8 prompt.
How do you measure change for one child?
Compare data across baseline and intervention phases; Busse, Kratochwill and Elliott proposed effect size measures for such single-case consultation data.
Why check treatment implementation?
Noell and colleagues found teachers' implementation of plans declined quickly without follow-up; if a plan is not carried out, its effects cannot be judged.
Where can I find a free PSY 620 Module 8 sample paper?
This page has the full evaluation: child outcomes with effect sizes, an implementation check and outcomes for teacher and family.
What is performance feedback in consultation?
Showing a consultee data on how accurately they implemented a plan, often graphed, which Noell and colleagues found improved and sustained implementation.