From its inception as a disability category in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, serving students under the special education category Emotional Disturbance (ED) has been a challenging task for school psychologists. In particular, the vague and ambiguous federal definition has created an environment in which inconsistent assessment practices and decision making are almost inevitable. In this study, we examined school psychologists’ (N = 214) assessment practices when determining initial eligibility for ED, as well as their perceptions regarding the language contained within the federal ED definition. Findings indicated that although school psychologists recognize the need for a multimethod, multisource assessment model when ED is a classification consideration, in many instances, their actual assessments are missing commonly recommended sources of data for making eligibility decisions, including classroom observations; parent, teacher, and student interviews; and behavior rating scales. The results from the study provide a useful overview of school psychologists’ assessment practices and are couched within the questions and confusion that have surrounded the federal ED definition since its codification into law.

Cognitive deficits in working memory (WM) are characteristic features of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and autism. However, few studies have investigated cognitive deficits using a wide range of cognitive measures. We compared children with ADHD (n = 49) and autism (n = 33) with a demographically matched control group (n = 79) on a multidimensional battery of cognitive ability. Results confirmed previous research that both groups were characterized by deficits in WM. However, results also suggest verbal WM measures were better predictors than nonverbal WM measures. In addition, measures of visual-motor integration are equally discriminating of children with ADHD and autism from a matched control group. In all, 81% discrimination accuracy was obtained using only WM and visual-motor integration measures. Demonstrated shared deficits in WM and visual-motor integration are explained based on proposed neurological mechanisms common across the two disorders. Clinical implications are discussed.

This study reviews recent research related to the neurobiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) an provides an empirical analysis of current assessment practices. Data were collected through a survey of 117 school psychologists. The Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS), Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS), and Gilliam Asperger's Disorder Scale (GADS) were the most frequently used measures. Among the less popular, but more intensive instruments, the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) appears to be gaining popularity within school‐based evaluations. Generally, respondents approached the assessment of ASDs from a traditional psychoeducational perspective and reported the use of a very narrow range of ASD‐specific instruments. Concerns are raised regarding the inconsistent inclusion of developmental questionnaires, parent/guardian interviews, and medical professionals in the ASD evaluation process. Implications for practice and the training of school psychologists are discussed. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The federal definition of emotional disturbance (ED) provides limited guidance to educational professionals charged with making Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act eligibility determinations. Despite calls to revise the definition, the ED category remains largely unchanged nearly four decades after being codified into federal law. To navigate the vague, ambiguous, and outdated eligibility criteria, school psychologists must adhere to comprehensive assessment strategies whenever an ED placement is considered. In this study, we examined the ED assessment practices of 214 school psychologists. The results indicated that respondents all too frequently relied on only select sources of data (e.g., behavior rating scales), rather than taking a multimethod, multisource approach, when evaluating children referred for emotional and behavioral concerns. Implications for both the practice and preparation of school psychologists are discussed. C 2013

For over 40 years, the special education category Emotional Disturbance (ED) has elicited considerable confusion and controversy for educators. Perhaps most notably, the federal ED definition has been assailed for its inclusion of vague, construct‐laden terminology, coupled with a general lack of clarity or guidance. In this article, we review the salient issues that have surrounded ED since it was first recognized as a disability category under P.L. 94–142 (i.e., the Education for All Handicapped Children Act). Additionally, we offer guidance that is intended to promote responsible and defensible assessment practices, as well as assist school psychologists and other educational professionals to avoid potential clinical judgment errors that may otherwise cloud the eligibility determination process. To conclude, we advocate for comprehensive assessment practices that are conducted in accordance with ethical standards that govern the field of school psychology, and are underpinned by scientific principles with the intent of accurately identifying as well as optimally serving students who are considered for the ED category.