Virtual Cognitive Assessment: Legal and Ethical Considerations

When the coronavirus pandemic was declared a public health crisis in March 2020, school psychologists were forced into situations where face-to-face interaction with their students was discouraged and in some cases, prohibited. Consequently, the traditional practice of school psychology abruptly ended. Individualized Education Plans (IEP) and Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) meetings were moved to virtual formats, and consultation, counseling, and assessment had to be performed remotely. In the case of behavior rating scales, social-emotional questionnaires, and other inventories, the shift to virtual administration was almost seamless, as publishers had already created remote assessment options for many of these measures. The transition to virtual administration of cognitive assessments was much more difficult because they rely heavily on in-person interaction (American Psychological Association [APA], 2020). School psychologists are required to follow rigid assessment timelines prescribed by federal law, as well as state statutes. For example, according to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA, 2004), an initial evaluation must be conducted within 60 days of obtaining parent permission for the assessment. Deciding how to proceed with cognitive assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic requires a deep exploration of ethical and legal guidelines to ensure the completion of valid and defensible evaluations of students. In this article, the authors propose the use of the ethical decision making model posited by Jacob and colleagues (2016) to support decision-making in this context. The seven steps in this model include: (1) describing the problem situation; (2) defining the potential ethical-legal issues involved; (3) consulting available ethical-legal guidelines; (4) consulting with supervisors and colleagues; (5) evaluating the rights, responsibilities, and welfare of all affected parties; (6) considering alternative solutions and consequences of making each decision; and (7) making the decision and taking responsibility for it (Jacob et al., 2016).