Quality and accessibility of written development assessment reports provided to caregivers in a publicly funded child developmental assessment service.
Assessment reports are too hard and too narrow—write at 6th-grade level and list every diagnosis with a clear next step.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Munro et al. (2023) looked at 100 real assessment reports given to families in a free child-development clinic.
They used a computer tool to score reading level. They also checked if reports listed other diagnoses besides autism.
What they found
Only 13 % of reports talked about other problems like ADHD or anxiety.
Most reports read at 9th-grade level or higher. Families need 6th-grade or lower.
How this fits with other research
Habayeb et al. (2025) show the fix: primary-care teams wrote short, plain reports and cut wait time.
Wen et al. (2023) and Yi et al. (2023) found the same gap in autism journal lay summaries.
Delprato (2001) saw the same mismatch with staff talking over clients’ heads. The problem is everywhere.
Why it matters
Your report may be the only paper a parent keeps. Run it through a free readability checker. Aim for 6th-grade or lower. Add one plain-language page that lists every diagnosis and the next step for each. Parents will follow through, and you meet ethics code 3.01.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Paste your last report into a free readability tool; if it scores above 6th grade, shorten sentences and swap medical words for everyday ones.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Despite long wait times, public paediatric developmental assessment services remain crucial for assessment of children. Assessment is a critical opportunity to guide the placement of supports to improve outcomes. There is little research examining how clinical assessment services conduct their assessments, present results and write reports to families. This study examined 85 reports provided to caregivers at a developmental assessment service. Reports were evaluated for whether they (1) addressed caregiver perceived needs, (2) used available data to provide appropriate information about child needs, (3) provided recommendations that were actionable and specific to needs, (4) had appropriate readability levels and (5) followed existing autism assessment guidelines. Findings showed clinicians were more focused on autism diagnostic needs while caregivers were more focused on non-diagnostic needs. Recommendations related to autism diagnoses were actionable, but they rarely addressed comorbidities such as cognitive impairments or mental health. For instance, only 13% of reports contained recommendations for conditions other than autism spectrum disorder, despite 61% of the population receiving two or more diagnoses. Reports largely followed autism assessment guidelines, but the language used was more complex for families than recommended. Recommendations for future practice are provided so that consideration may be given to how to improve the quality and effectiveness of reports for families attending services.
Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 2023 · doi:10.1177/13623613221145868