READER
Psychologists’ evaluations guide decisions about children’s education and care. For more than 70 years, research has shown that the way findings are written keeps many families from using them. READER is six evidence-supported practices for communicating findings that parents, teachers, and clinicians can understand and act on.
Why it matters
Most psychologists believe families understand their feedback, yet after feedback most parents cannot explain a percentile (Smith et al., 2007; Camodeca et al., 2026). More than half of U.S. adults struggle with longer, multi-step reading, and only 12% have proficient health literacy (Keiper & Rampey, 2024; Kutner et al., 2006). Health literacy guidance places the responsibility for clear communication on the professional, not the family (Nutbeam & Lloyd, 2021). And school psychologists spend nearly five hours on each report (Zhang et al., 2026).
What the evidence shows
When parents read the same findings written two ways, they rated the accessible version as more useful for both a learning disability and ADHD, with the largest differences on understanding the report and taking part in decisions (Hite, 2026). Every one of 14 experiments in a meta-analysis favored the accessible version. The same pattern holds for parents reading pediatric neuropsychology reports, clinicians in psychiatric care, and lawyers (Gerstle et al., 2025; Illouz, 2026; Swanepoel & Van Rensburg, 2020).
The six practices
R
Respond to the referral question
Answer it first. Organize by area of daily life, not by test.
E
Explain how you know
Show what supports each conclusion, with real examples from the child’s day.
A
Address strengths and context
Describe strengths along with needs, in light of the child’s language, schooling, and culture.
D
Describe what results mean
Say what each finding means for this child. Put scores at the end.
E
Everyday words
Replace jargon. Use short sentences and headings. Keep each finding’s meaning and limits.
R
Recommend specific actions
Tie each action to the child’s needs. Say who should do what, with steps that fit the setting.
Two examples
Maya, dyslexia
Traditional
Maya demonstrates a phonological processing deficit with associated weaknesses in rapid automatized naming and orthographic mapping, resulting in impaired decoding accuracy, reading fluency, and encoding.
READER
Maya has trouble hearing the separate sounds in words and linking them to letters. That is why she reads slowly, guesses at new words, and has trouble spelling. When stories are read aloud, she keeps up easily.
Jordan, ADHD
Traditional
On the BASC-3, Hyperactivity (T = 80) was Clinically Significant and Attention Problems (T = 65) At-Risk; teacher ratings on the BRIEF2 reflect deficits in inhibitory control and working memory. Further evaluation of an elevated Depression scale (T = 73) is warranted.
READER
Jordan has ADHD. His parents and teacher, rating separately, describe a child who acts before thinking, struggles to stay with a task, and loses track of multi-step directions, and I observed the same pattern in class. His mother also reports low mood and self-criticism. These can accompany ADHD or reflect a separate mood disorder, so his mood should be reassessed once ADHD treatment is under way.
Putting READER into practice
How it’s written matters more than reading level
Readability formulas miss jargon made of short, familiar words like “working memory” (Camodeca et al., 2026). Replacing technical terms with everyday words helps readers more than defining them in a glossary (Kerwer et al., 2021).
One report serves every reader
The narrative explains findings and recommendations in language families can use. Appendices keep the scores, diagnostic terms, and detail needed for eligibility, reimbursement, and legal review. Lawyers and judges who read forensic reports ask for the same clarity (Friend et al., 2026).
READER and AI
School psychologists who use AI in report writing mostly use it to rewrite sections for clarity and to draft recommendations (Farmer et al., 2026), and psychologists have rated AI-generated recommendations above human-written ones (Lockwood et al., 2025). AI may make accessible writing easier to adopt, but it still needs careful review by the clinician and clear communication standards. One proposed standard asks whether families and educators can understand and act on the report, and whether a plain-language rewrite keeps the meaning and limits of the original (Lockwood & Thomas, 2026). READER’s practices meet that standard, and any clinician can use them, with or without AI.