Accessible Psychological Report Writing for Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Psychological reports are a core health communication tool for sharing assessment results with caregivers, educators, and other professionals, yet concerns about their clarity and practical value date back more than 70 years. Contemporary reports are often written at postsecondary reading levels, rely heavily on jargon, and are experienced by many families and educators as difficult to understand. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized experimental and quasi-experimental studies that directly manipulated the format of written psychological, psychoeducational, or neuropsychological reports for children and adolescents using the same case but varying only how the report was written. Eligible studies compared traditional reports (e.g., test-by-test, jargon-dense narratives) with accessible reports (e.g., plainer language, thematic organization, concrete examples, clearer recommendations) and measured outcomes for nonpsychologist readers. A random-effects meta-analysis of 11 experiments conducted in the United States, Canada, and Sweden in school, university, pediatric neuropsychology, and child and adolescent psychiatric settings yielded a moderate-to-large pooled effect favoring accessible reports on understanding, perceived clarity and usefulness, and overall evaluations (Hedges' g = 0.91, 95% CI [0.60, 1.21]). Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 91.1%), and a wide prediction interval indicated that the size of the benefit varies across contexts, although all individual studies favored accessible reports. Notably, one experiment found that psychologists rated traditional technical reports as nearly as clear as accessible versions, whereas teachers found accessible reports substantially more understandable, underscoring a mismatch between authors' and consumers' perceptions. Combined with qualitative evidence from parents, educators, and young adults diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, these findings provide strong evidence that accessible report writing should be regarded as an evidence-based practice. They also support treating accessible psychological reports as a health literacy and public health communication standard.