Search

The present article describes an exploratory study regarding the preferred cognitive assessment practices of current school psychologists. Three hundred and twenty-three school psychologists participated in the survey. The results suggest that the majority of school psychologists endorsed that they base their assessment practices on an underlying theoretical framework, specifically Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory. Despite this finding, the majority of those sampled continue to engage in traditional assessment practices that are not consistent with CHC theory. Furthermore, the majority of those sampled reported that they assess culturally and linguistically diverse students and modify their practices when doing so. Unfortunately, the modifications endorsed by those surveyed might be discriminatory. The implications of these findings are discussed herein.

In this issue, Professor Perry Zirkel argues that the points presented in the Dixon, Eusebio, Turton, Wright, and Hale treatise of the Forest Grove School District v. T.A. Supreme Court case confuses "legal requirements with professional norms." Although we appreciate Zirkel's acknowledgment that our position reflects the professional norm--that comprehensive evaluation of psychological processes is critical for identifying children with learning and other disabilities--this position does not equate with "confusion" regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act statutory or regulatory requirements, or legal precedents, presented in Dixon et al. On the contrary, Dixon et al. specifically address all three requirements in their article, suggesting Zirkel's rebuttal is not supported. The resultant effects of Zirkel's arguments on public opinion, professional conduct, and individual children served by the law will be elucidated in this rebuttal. (Contains 8 notes.)

The 2009 "Forest Grove School District v. T.A." United States Supreme Court case could have significant implications for school psychology practice. The Court ruled that the parents of a student with a disability were entitled to private school tuition reimbursement even though T.A. had not been identified with a disability or previously provided with special education services. The district multidisciplinary team had not identified T.A.'s disability in part because of a limited psychoeducational evaluation that did not assess him in "all areas of suspected disability" which is a requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 20 U.S.C. [section] 1414(b)(3)(B)). Dissatisfied with the team's decision, the parents sought an independent comprehensive evaluation of T.A.'s psychological processes which revealed the full nature of his disability and needs. Although T.A. had been unresponsive to interventions in his home school, this comprehensive psychoeducational evaluation led to more targeted interventions in his private school placement and likely contributed to T.A.'s subsequent academic and behavioral success. This Supreme Court case highlights the need for school-based teams to conduct comprehensive evaluations in all areas of suspected disability, including psychological processes such as attention, memory, and executive function. The relevant IDEA 2004 and governing 2006 federal regulations are presented, followed by recommendations for school psychologist assessment practices to ensure compliance with IDEA statutory and regulatory requirements. (Contains 3 notes.)