Surveys reveal that many school psychologists continue to employ cognitive profile analysis despite the long-standing history of negative research results from this class of practice. This begets the question: why do questionable assessment practices persist in school psychology? To provide insight on this dilemma, this article presents the results of a content analyses of available interpretive resources in the clinical assessment literature that may shed insight on this issue. Although previous reviews have evaluated the content of individual assessment courses, this is the first systematic review of pedagogical resources frequently adopted in reading lists by course instructors. The interpretive guidance offered across tests within these texts was largely homogenous emphasizing the primary interpretation of subscale scores, de-emphasizing interpretation of global composites (i.e., FSIQ), and advocating for the use of some variant of profile analysis to interpret scores and score profiles. Implications for advancing evidence-based assessment in school psychology training and guarding against unwarranted unsupported claims in clinical assessment is discussed.

调查显示，尽管这类实践的负面研究结果已有很长的历史，但许多学校心理学家仍继续采用认知特征分析。这引起了一个问题：为什么可疑的评估做法在学校心理学中仍然存在？为了提供有关此难题的见解，本文介绍了临床评估文献中可用的解释性资源的内容分析结果，这些分析结果可能会使您对该问题有所了解。尽管以前的评论对单个评估课程的内容进行了评估，但这是对课程教员经常在阅读清单中经常采用的教学资源的系统评价。这些课文中所有测试所提供的解释性指导在很大程度上都是同质的，着重说明了量表分数的主要解释，不再强调对整体综合知识（即FSIQ）的解释，并主张使用概况分析的某些变体来解释分数和分数概况。讨论了在学校心理培训中推进循证评估的含义以及在临床评估中防止不必要的无根据的主张的含义。