2020
DOI: 10.1007/s40688-020-00335-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Special Education Evaluation Practices and Procedures: Implications for Referral and Eligibility Decision-making

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, SLD identification requires MDTs to triangulate various types of assessment data (IDEA, 2004; e.g., academic achievement tests, progress‐monitoring data, classroom observation data), but research examining how different assessment sources relate to SLD identification, particularly within RtI methods, is limited (Maki, Barrett, et al., 2020). Other research examining SLD identification within RtI methods has largely focused on the use of progress‐monitoring data and standardized achievement test scores (e.g., Maki et al., 2017), but MDTs collect and interpret multiple assessment sources (e.g., background information, classroom observation data, grades) when identifying SLD (Benson et al., 2020; Maki & Adams, 2020). Prior research (e.g., Maki et al., 2017) in this area used simulated vignettes to examine school psychologists’ SLD identification decisions.…”
Section: Assessment Data and Mdt Decision‐makingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Furthermore, SLD identification requires MDTs to triangulate various types of assessment data (IDEA, 2004; e.g., academic achievement tests, progress‐monitoring data, classroom observation data), but research examining how different assessment sources relate to SLD identification, particularly within RtI methods, is limited (Maki, Barrett, et al., 2020). Other research examining SLD identification within RtI methods has largely focused on the use of progress‐monitoring data and standardized achievement test scores (e.g., Maki et al., 2017), but MDTs collect and interpret multiple assessment sources (e.g., background information, classroom observation data, grades) when identifying SLD (Benson et al., 2020; Maki & Adams, 2020). Prior research (e.g., Maki et al., 2017) in this area used simulated vignettes to examine school psychologists’ SLD identification decisions.…”
Section: Assessment Data and Mdt Decision‐makingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The assessment practices involved in identifying an SLD vary, given that states and school districts allow different identification methods (Cottrell & Barrett, 2016;Maki et al, 2015) and that these methods are not always implemented similarly in the SLD identification process Kranzler et al, 2019;Schneider & Kaufman, 2017). Although previous research has examined how school psychologists use data to make SLD-identification decisions (e.g., Maki & Adams, 2020;Maki, McGill, et al, 2020), there is a gap in the literature concerning how multidisciplinary teams (MDTs; e.g., school psychologist, special education teacher, general education teacher, principal, and parent or legal guardian) use data to identify SLD with an RtI identification method (Kranzler et al, 2020;Maki, Barrett, et al, 2020).…”
Section: Specific Learning Disability Identificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Notwithstanding the ongoing debate regarding how a disability diagnosis is achieved, the assessment professional continues to be a crucial contributor to team decisions that determine conclusions for children and adolescents in special education. (Maki & Adams, 2020;Marcus, 2018;Sullivan et al, 2019) Based upon the requirements of the state they practice in; the function of the special education evaluator may look different based upon differing policies and expectations (Zirkel & Krohn, 2008). Numerous states employ a certified school psychologist as a specialist in cognitive evaluations, while others utilize both the school psychologist and the psychological examiner as experts in special education assessment (Kritikos, 2010).…”
Section: Trainingmentioning
confidence: 99%