When are professional reports TL;DR?
6 Replies
Today I spent over an hour reading and summarising ten reports and letters about a complex new client, to prepare for our first session. The longest report was 15 pages, but some professional reports contain 50 or more pages. Gah. Paediatricians’ reports are usually only one or two pages, while the really long reports tend to be by Psychologists.
Reading takes time. Everyone’s time-poor. How fast can a skilled reader read and understand a complex professional report? There’s a great, 54-page study guide to the first half of Mark Seidenberg’s important (though not very succinctly-titled) book “Language at the Speed of Sight: How We Read, Why So Many Can’t, and What Can Be Done About It” which says:
If you are a good reader, texts can be comprehended more rapidly than speech. Listeners are at the mercy of speakers who control how rapidly they talk and how clearly ideas are expressed. Reading can go faster because readers control how fast they read: there’s no “speaker” to wait for.
The catch, however, is that the visual system imposes hard limits on how fast we can read. Properties of the eye limit how much can be seen at a time, creating a major bottleneck. The perceptual span–the amount of information that registers during an eye fixation–is surprisingly limited, with only 2 or 3 words clearly visible, at best. Our eyes don’t allow us to take in entire lines of text at a time.
Reading consists of a succession of fixations (pauses) and saccades (jumps to the next fixation). Most words in texts are fixated at least once, with the exception of short words like ‘of’ and ‘an’. Many words are skipped when we skim a text, which results in shallower comprehension.
Good readers average about 4-5 words per second (240-300 words per minute). People do not read faster by making fewer fixations or larger saccades. Rather, faster readers spend less time on each fixation because they recognize and comprehend words more rapidly.
Reading speed also depends on the difficulty of the text, the reader’s familiarity with the topic, and how deeply the text is read (one’s goal in reading it).
The 15-page report I read today contains 5,167 words, so at 300 words per minute, it takes 17.22 minutes to read. That seems fairly reasonable, especially since it contains clear sections/headings and tables. SPELD-Vic literacy assessment reports are also now clear and succinct, with appendices and attachments containing extra information only relevant to some readers (they’re also now running an online course for Psychologists about SLD assessment). But a 48-page report I received recently contains 16,605 words, or at least 55 minutes of reading. TL,DR. I just skimmed it, and I’m sure teachers did the same.
Too often, quantity seems to displace quality in exceptionally long reports, with cut-and-paste errors (e.g. wrong names or pronouns – a boy was suddenly called Grace in one I read the other day – or duplicate sections) and typos, suggesting that even the authors didn’t read them. Sometimes very long reports discuss a client’s learning style (not a Thing), recommend coloured overlays, or include pages of very general lists of resources which may or may not be suitable. I’ve seen Dandelion readers, most suitable for 4-7 year olds, suggested for tweens or teens. Another sigh.
I suggest parents ask professionals to keep their reports under 5000-6000 words, including a maximum of a couple of pages of recommendations, and to only recommend specific resources/programs if they are confident they’re directly relevant. There’s no point paying $1000+ for a report nobody will read, or lots of poorly-targeted recommendations. Besides, reading difficulties run in families, and many parents of struggling readers also struggle to read long, complex reports.
The inimitable Anita Archer has many concise, compelling sayings about teaching, and one of her best is “Teach the stuff and cut the fluff”. I’d love not to find myself paraphrasing this as “write the stuff and cut the fluff” when reading some professional reports.
Alison Clarke
PS Thanks to Cathy Basterfield of Access Easy English for pointing out Speech Pathologist Harmony Turnbull’s blog on the accessibility of allied health reports. Lots of useful links and great food for thought!
6 thoughts on “When are professional reports TL;DR?”
Leave a Reply
The Spelfabet shop has affordable, downloadable spelling teaching resources.
Where there is time (and I have the luxury of usually being able to make the time) I offer parents a two-page summary in very plain English, in addition to the detailed professional report that the school has requested. This is in addition to sharing information during a discussion. Many parents say that they are happy with just the professional report, but other parents say that they would value the summary report as well. The parent summary report headings include: can do well, finds difficult, (sometimes) finds very difficult, what helped during the assessment, what could help at school, what could help at home, additional agreed actions such as seeing a paediatrician. The school gets the detailed report of course, to inform programming and funding applications, and a copy of the parent summary report if written, so they know what the parent has. I have my helpful templates but I believe it’s important to make the information individual. I have had positive feedback from parents and schools about this approach. Bottom line – if I want to provide information and recommend actions, I feel it’s my responsibility to express these clearly.
Great, Elspeth, sounds like your reports are the kind I’d always read properly, and teachers would too. And since you’re working for the Education Department (I assume from your email address), parents don’t have to pay $1000+ for them. Win-win! All the best, Alison
Thanks Alison – this is very helpful for me, as a psychologist who does these assessments. It reinforces the importance of making the info as clear and succinct as possible. I do grapple with the expectation that SLD reports contain all sorts of different assessments and justifications. Unfortunately, the diagnosis is fraught with a plethora of different definitions, interpretations and complexities that can be expected for a “proper” diagnosis of SLD, including dyslexia. Just recently, the body that creates the official diagnostic criteria, APA, endorsed a statement that contradicts the way all psychologists I know have interpreted the criteria: https://codereadnetwork.org/advocacy/apa-clarifies-dsm-5-diagnosis-for-slds/ I’m waiting for a response from peak Australian psychology bodies regarding this. Basically, the key take-away is to make a clear, succinct case for a severe and persistent reading disorder, without needing all the complexities and masses of information!
Another interesting point: I think I know why Dandelion Readers have been recommended for older kids. SPELD NSW got their recommendation mixed up: https://www.speldnsw.org.au/shop/dandelion-catchup-readers/ I thought “someone needs to tell them” -so I just did!
Hi Michelle, oh dear, I hadn’t realised the APA had endorsed something that isn’t consistent with its members’ usual practice. The DSM-5 SLD criteria need a rewrite, let’s hope the DSM6 contains criteria that ensure people who have longstanding and severe learning difficulties and need a diagnosis (even if their parents don’t have a spare $1000+ for one) can get one, while wealthy students who have never shone academically but have no history of significant difficulties, no IEPs, no prior intervention etc don’t suddenly seek a diagnosis to get extra reading time in final exams, or be able to find a psychologist who will cooperate with this line of thinking (grrrr).
I had not noticed that SPELD NSW calls the Phonic Books Catch Up series “Dandelion” books, good pickup and thanks for pointing this out to them, I’ll add my voice to yours, that’s just a mistake needing correction. All the best, Alison
I was having the same discussion with colleagues at work this week when I received a 20 pager !! I feel AI is also impacting this with pages and pages of recommendations and much of it repeated or conflicting and as you say copy and paste for any child diagnosed with x. Shorter and targeted so they are read and referred to is much more beneficial.
Yup, it’s always wonderful to receive a succinct report in which key information is easy to find. If we all asked ourselves “What kind of report do I like to read?” and then try to write that kind of report, that might help. But I suspect that part of the reason report lengths have really blown out is that they cost a lot, and people think that they have to provide a LOT of information to justify the cost. I think it’s fine to send a lot of information in handouts/attachments, but not try to roll it all into the report to the point where the key findings and recommendations get buried.