Contemporary School Psychology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00335-4

Special Education Evaluation Practices and Procedures: Implications

for Referral and Eligibility Decision-making
Kathrin E. Maki 1 & Sarah R. Adams 2

Accepted: 4 November 2020

# California Association of School Psychologists 2020

Abstract
Special education service provision depends upon referral for evaluation, corresponding evaluation procedures, and resulting
eligibility decisions. However, how school districts and decision-makers (e.g., school psychologists) apply special education
evaluation procedural rules is largely unknown. Through a survey of practicing school psychologists, the current study examined
the most common special education referral concerns, multidisciplinary team (MDT) members’ roles in eligibility decision-
making, the value of various assessment data sources in determining special education eligibility, and differences in those
variables across participants’ years of experience, degree level, and geographic region. Participants reported that reading was
the most common special education referral, school psychologists primarily made special education eligibility decisions with
some input from other MDT members, and test scores were the most valued source of assessment data in determining special
education eligibility. There were no reported differences in these variables across degree or US geographic region, but there were
differences in reported perceptions of the most important sources of assessment data across years of experience. Implications for
practice and future research are discussed.

Keywords Special education . Assessment . School psychology

Prior to 1975, students with disabilities or those otherwise
experiencing difficulties in school largely failed to have their
unique learning needs met (Zigmond et al. 2009). Fortunately,
educational services for students with disabilities have
changed significantly since the original authorization of the
Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), now
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
of 2004 (IDEA; Hardman and Dawson 2008). Today, educa-
tors must provide differentiated instruction to meet the needs
of all students, including those with disabilities (Every
Student Succeeds Act [ESSA] 2015; IDEA 2004) who must
meet state categorical disability eligibility criteria in order to
benefit from specialized and individualized special education
services (Burns and Ysseldyke 2009; Pub. L. No. 108–446 §
300.8). Despite these federal- and state-level requirements,
* Kathrin E. Maki
kathrin.maki@coe.ufl.edu
1
Department of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early
Childhood Studies, University of Florida,
FL 32611 Gainesville, USA
2
Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University,
Muncie, IN 47306, USA
implementation of evaluation procedures at the local school
district level to determine special education eligibility is not
clear. This study sought to fill this research gap by examining
school psychologists’ perceptions of the most common spe-
cial education referral concerns, primary eligibility decision-
makers, and the most valued sources of assessment data for
determining special education eligibility.
Special Education Referrals and Evaluations
IDEA outlines 13 disability categories under which a student
may receive special education services. In order to be identi-
fied with one (or more) of these disabilities, a student must
receive a comprehensive evaluation, meet disability eligibility
criteria outlined by state special education regulations, and
demonstrate a need for special education services (P. L. No.
108–446 § 300.304 [b]; P. L. No. 108–446 § 300.8 [a][1]).
Given the need to meet categorical disability eligibility
criteria, special education referrals and evaluations should
align, at least in part, with the characteristics of the disability
categories. For example, if a student is being evaluated for
autism spectrum disorder (ASD), he or she should demon-
strate social, behavioral, and/or communication difficulties

that lead to a special education referral and the assessments
conducted as part of the evaluation. However, the nature of
referral concerns and practices are not well understood per-
haps in part because disability eligibility criteria differ across
states (MacFarlane and Kanaya 2009; Maki et al. 2015).
Clarification of current practices could support implementa-
tion of preventative services, and evidence-based referral and
evaluation practices.
The largest group of students receiving special educa-
tion services are those identified with specific learning
disabilities (SLD; National Center for Education
Statistics 2020; NCES), and academic underachievement
is the hallmark of SLD. Academic difficulties generally
(Lloyd et al. 1991), and reading difficulties specifically
(Bramlett et al. 2002), were reported as the most com-
mon referrals for special education evaluation. However,
this prior research may be outdated because the percent-
age of students identified with SLD has steadily de-
creased from approximately 50 to 34% (National Center
for Education Statistics 2020) since the reauthorization of
IDEA in 2004. Given that the majority of students iden-
tified with SLD have a reading disability (Cortiella and
Horowitz 2014), there may be fewer evaluation referrals
for reading difficulties than previously reported.
The now widespread implementation of multitiered sys-
tems of support (MTSS; Spectrum K-12 School Solutions
2010) and the documented effectiveness of reading interven-
tions within MTSS (Gersten et al. 2009; Hall and Burns 2017)
may also affect the number of reading referrals for special
education evaluation. Moreover, the increased implementa-
tion of problem-solving teams as part of MTSS (Burns et al.
2014; VanDerHeyden et al. 2007) also shifted the special
education referral process from teacher referral to team referral
following intervention implementation, which could similarly
impact the types of referrals for special education evaluation.
Understanding the nature of special education referrals can
help inform special education evaluation best practices and
pre-referral intervention in an effort to devote appropriate re-
sources to target difficulties prior to referral. Thus, updated
research regarding special education referral concerns is
warranted.
Special Education Eligibility Decision-making
Under IDEA, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are required to
determine eligibility for special education services rather than
individual educators making such high-stakes decisions in an
effort to ensure such decisions are valid and appropriate (P.L.
108–446 § 303.24). However, MDTs were shown to demon-
strate a lack of procedural adherence and systematic decision-
making, potentially undermining the validity of such team-
based decisions (Ysseldyke et al. 1981). Furthermore, individ-
ual MDT members made inequitable contributions within
Contemp School Psychol
eligibility and Individualized Education Program (IEP) meet-
ings (Huebner and Gould 1991; Pfeiffer and Hefferman
1984), which could further undermine eligibility decisions
due to the error-prone nature of human decision-making
(Watkins 2009). Such research, though, is dated and may
not reflect MDT functioning since the reported paradigm shift
in school psychological practice in which the field has
attempted to shift away from the role of special education
gatekeeper and toward prevention of academic, social, emo-
tional, and behavioral difficulties (Reschly 2008).
Furthermore, as part of school psychologists’ increased pre-
vention efforts, problem-solving teams have become a regular
and integral part of pre-referral practices (Burns et al. 2014;
VanDerHeyden et al. 2007), which may support MDTs’ en-
gagement in collaborative eligibility decision-making.
However, current research is needed to examine how teams
function when making special education eligibility decisions
within today’s school systems that more frequently incorpo-
rate team processes and decision-making.
Despite school psychologists’ shifting roles and greater
incorporation of school-based teams, school psychologists
in particular possess fundamental knowledge and skills crit-
ical to evaluation practices and eligibility decision-making
(NASP 2020). Special education evaluations typically in-
clude the administration of multiple assessment measures
in which school psychologists are uniquely trained and
skilled for interpretation (Ysseldyke et al. 2008). In particu-
lar, school psychologists possess unique skills and compe-
tence in statistical and measurement properties that underlie
assessments administered as part of an evaluation battery
(NASP 2020). Special education teachers reported that
school psychologists play the second most active role regard-
ing educational setting placement following teachers and
that school psychologists were fundamental in special edu-
cation decisions (Becker et al. 2014). However, Becker et al.
(2014) focused exclusively on students with ED and exam-
ined educational placement rather than eligibility decisions.
School psychologists also viewed themselves as leaders on
MDTs (Burns et al. 2014; Huebner and Gould 1991). Thus,
school psychologists’ unique contributions to and perspec-
tive on the evaluation process could result in MDTs’ heavy
reliance on school psychologists when making special edu-
cation eligibility decisions, but research examining this hy-
pothesis is needed.
Assessment Data Sources
In addition to the requirement that MDTs make eligibility
decisions, IDEA also requires that special education evalua-
tions be multifaceted and comprehensive in nature (P. L. No.
108–446 § 300.304 [b]). Special education evaluations, there-
fore, should include collection of multiple assessment data
sources which, in turn, should be considered when
Contemp School Psychol
determining eligibility for special education services. Making
high-stakes decisions such as special education eligibility de-
cisions with one or few assessment data sources may be prob-
lematic given the error inherent in various measures (NASP
2020). Thus, MDTs should collect assessment data through
multiple methods and from multiple sources including class-
room observations, record reviews, interviews with teachers
and families, rating scales, and individually administered stan-
dardized tests, and should triangulate these data when deter-
mining eligibility for special education (Salvia et al. 2012;
Shapiro 2010). However, the extent to which MDTs rely on
different sources of assessment data in eligibility decision-
making is largely unknown.
The limited research examining MDTs’ use of assessment
data sources when making special education eligibility deci-
sions has resulted in somewhat variable findings. Preservice
and inservice school psychologists and special education
teachers reported that classroom observations, language
ability assessments, student interviews, and emotional func-
tioning assessments were the most important assessment
sources when making special education eligibility decisions
(Knoff 1983). Furthermore, for SLD eligibility determina-
tion specifically, school psychologists reported that individ-
ually administered standardized achievement and cognitive
tests were the most important assessment data sources
(Ysseldyke 1983). However, these findings are dated espe-
cially given the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA which funda-
mentally altered how the largest disability category, SLD,
may be identified in particular. Furthermore, there is a need
for research that has examined the use of assessment data
sources within special education eligibility broadly given
IDEA’s requirement regarding comprehensive evaluations
(P. L. No. 108–446 § 300.304 [b]).
Purpose
Although special education services and eligibility practices
have been fairly widely researched, previous research regard-
ing special education referral concerns, eligibility decision-
makers, and use of specific sources of assessment data is lim-
ited. Because research previously suggested that school psy-
chologists play a leadership role in special education evalua-
tion procedures (Burns et al. 2014; Huebner and Gould 1991),
their perceptions of these issues provide meaningful insight
into special education practices. The purpose of this study,
therefore, was to examine school psychologists’ perceptions
of the most common referral concerns for special education
evaluation, the primary decision-maker(s) in special education
eligibility decisions, and the most valuable source(s) of assess-
ment data in determining special education eligibility. The
following research questions guided the study: (a) what are
the most common referral concerns for special education eval-
uation, (b) who are the primary decision-makers regarding
special education eligibility, (c) what are the most valuable
sources of assessment data in special education eligibility de-
cisions, and (d) to what extent are there differences in the most
common referral concerns, primary eligibility decision-
makers, and most valued assessment data sources for eligibil-
ity across participants’ years of experience, degree, and geo-
graphic region?
Method
This study was conducted as part of a larger project examining
school psychologists’ special education identification deci-
sion-making.
Participants
Participants included 461 licensed or certified school psy-
chologists who practiced in US schools, regularly made
special education eligibility decisions, and were members
of the National Association of School Psychologists
(NASP). Of the 461 participants, the majority identified
as female (82.40%) and 17.60% identified as male. The
majority of the participants identified as white (86.00%),
4.80% identified as Latino, 4.30% as Black, 2.20% as
Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.50% as two or more races/eth-
nicities, and 0.70% as Native American/Alaskan Native.
Regarding degrees, 60.50% of participants held a special-
ist degree, 24.10% held a doctoral degree, and 15.40%
held a master’s degree. Approximately 25.60% of partic-
ipants had been practicing for 5 years or less, 26.00% for
six to 10 years, 19.30% for 11 to 15 years, 15.20% for 16
to 20 years, and 13.90% for more than 20 years.
Participants represented school psychologists from all 50
states plus Washington, D.C. and the four NASP regions.
Approximately 26.03% (n = 120) of participants were
from the Central region, 25.16% (n = 116) of participants
were from the Northeast region, 24.51% (n = 113) of par-
ticipants were from the West region, and 24.30% (n =
112) of participants were from the Southeast region. The
participants were demographically and geographically
representative of school psychologists practicing in the
USA (Walcott and Hyson 2018).
Measure
Participants completed a survey examining special education
evaluation and eligibility practices through a secure, web-
based server. The survey included 32 total items, all of which
were multiple-choice format and included an “other” response
option so that participants could input a response not provided
by the authors. The survey questions of focus in this study
examined participants’ responses to survey questions

regarding the most common referrals for special education
evaluation, the primary eligibility decision-maker(s) within
their MDTs, and the most valuable source(s) of assessment
data for determining special education eligibility. Participants
also provided demographic information regarding gender,
race/ethnicity, years of experience, highest degree earned,
and the state in which they practiced. The multiple-choice
format of the questions resulted in categorical items; thus,
we assigned numerical codes (e.g., most common referral
concern: 1 = reading, 2 = math, 3 = writing, etc.) to each re-
sponse option within each item for data analyses.
The survey was designed based on similar reviews of spe-
cial education identification practices (Benson et al.
2020; Maki and Adams 2019). To further ensure validity of
data obtained from the survey (Johnson and Morgan 2016),
after initial development of the survey, two experts in special
education identification reviewed and provided critiques of
the survey. In response to their feedback, we added, deleted,
and revised items to ensure adequate content validity. Internal
consistency for the measure was σ = 0.89.
Procedures
The University Institutional Review Board and NASP
Research Committee approved the study. The researchers ob-
tained addresses of 1000 practicing school psychologists (ran-
domly selected by the NASP Research Committee) working
with pre-kindergarten through 12th grades from the NASP
membership database. Participants received a letter with infor-
mation about the study, contact information of the principal
investigator, and a hyperlink to access the survey.
Participants entered the study hyperlink into their web
browser at which time the server presented information re-
garding the study purpose, potential risks and benefits of par-
ticipation, the study’s voluntary nature, and anonymity of re-
sponses. If the potential participants agreed to complete the
survey, the server presented the following questions to deter-
mine participant eligibility: (1) are you a practicing licensed or
certified school psychologist in the United States and (2) do
you participate in multidisciplinary teams making special ed-
ucation identification decisions?
If potential participants responded no to either of these
questions, they did not meet study eligibility criteria, the sur-
vey ended, and they were thanked for their time. If participants
responded yes to both questions, the server directed them to
begin the survey. Given the sample recruited (i.e., practicing
school psychologists), the majority of the participants
responded yes to both eligibility questions (97.67%).
Following survey completion, the server directed the partici-
pants to a new survey (to ensure anonymity of participant
responses) where they could provide their email address to
enter a gift card drawing.
Contemp School Psychol
Analyses
The first three research questions were analyzed using de-
scriptive statistics. The frequency of the most common referral
concerns (e.g., reading, math, behavior), primary special edu-
cation eligibility decision-maker (e.g., school psychologist,
special education teacher, MDT as a whole), and most valu-
able source(s) of assessment data (e.g., standardized test
scores, progress monitoring data, observations, record re-
views) in determining special education eligibility were exam-
ined. The fourth research question was analyzed through chi-
square tests to examine differences in the most common re-
ferral concerns, primary eligibility decision-makers, and most
valued assessment data source for eligibility across partici-
pants’ years of experience, degree, and geographical region.
For research question 4, an alpha correction was applied to
reduce the likelihood of type I error; thus, the adjusted alpha
level of .017 was used to determine statistical significance
because three chi-square tests were conducted.
Results
Results are presented in Table 1. The first research question
examined school psychologists’ perceptions of the most com-
mon referral concerns for special education evaluation.
Results indicated that 57.70% (n = 266) of participants report-
ed that reading was the most common referral for special
education evaluation followed by behavior (12.80%; n = 59),
math (10.63%; n = 49), attention (10.20%; n = 47), mental
health (4.60%; n = 21), and writing (4.12%; n = 19).
The second research question examined school psycholo-
gists’ perceptions of the primary decision-maker(s) regarding
special education eligibility. Results showed that 39.50% (n =
182) of participants reported that school psychologists along
with some input from other members of the MDT primarily
make special education eligibility decisions. Approximately
31.02% (n = 143) of participants indicated that school psy-
chologists primarily make special education eligibility deci-
sions, 29.28% (n = 135) reported that the MDT as a whole
makes the special education eligibility decision, and 0.22%
(n = 1) reported that principals primarily make special educa-
tion eligibility decisions. No participants reported that general
education teachers, special education teachers, parents, or
school counselors were primary special education eligibility
decision-makers.
The third research question examined school psycholo-
gists’ perceptions of the most valuable source(s) of assessment
data in determining special education eligibility. The largest
proportion of participants reported that standardized test
scores were most important (41.43%; n = 191), followed by
progress monitoring data (24.51%; n = 113), record reviews
(12.58%; n = 58), developmental/educational history (8.50%;
Contemp School Psychol

Table 1 Perceptions of primary referral concerns, eligibility decision-maker, and assessment data

% N Years X2 Degree X2 Region X2

Primary referral concern 100.00 461 18.08 12.45 15.50

Reading 57.70 266
Math 10.63 49
Behavior 12.80 59
Attention 10.20 47
Mental health 4.60 21
Writing 4.12 19
Primary decision-maker 100.00 461 12.36 6.40 10.46
School psychologists w/MDT 39.50 182
School psychologists 31.02 143
MDT 29.28 135
Principal 0.22 1
Assessment data source 100.00 461 48.55* 20.16 19.21
Test scores 41.43 191
Progress monitoring data 24.51 113
Record review 12.58 58
Developmental/educational history 8.50 39
Observation data 5.00 23
Interview 1.30 6
All data 6.72 31

*p < 0.017
Years, years of experience; Degree, highest degree earned; Region, geographic region; MDT, multidisciplinary team

n = 39), observation data (5.00%; n = 23), and interviews Discussion

(1.30%; n = 6). An additional 6.72% (n = 31) of participants
reported that all assessment data were equally important in
special education eligibility decisions.
The fourth research question examined differences in the
most common referral concern, primary eligibility decision-
makers, and most valuable assessment data source(s) across
participants’ years of experience, degree, and geographic re-
gion. There were no statistically significant differences in
most common referral concerns (X2 = 18.08, p = 0.58) or pri-
mary eligibility decision-maker (X2 = 12.36, p = 0.42) across
years of experience, but there were statistically significant
differences in most valued assessment data source across
years of experience (X2 = 48.55, p = 0.011), which resulted
in a small effect (Cramer’s V = .16). There were no statistically
significant differences in most common referral concern (X2 =
12.45, p = 0.26), primary eligibility decision-maker (X2 =
6.40, p = 0.38), or most valued assessment data source (X2 =
20.16, p = 0.13) across participants’ degree. Results suggested
that there were no differences in reported most common refer-
ral concern (X 2 = 15.50, p = 0.42), primary eligibility
decision-maker (X2 = 10.46, p = 0.32), or most valued assess-
ment data source (X2 = 19.21, p = 0.57) across geographic
region.
The purpose of this study was to examine school psycholo-
gists’ perceptions of the most common referral(s) for special
education evaluation, the primary decision-maker(s) regard-
ing special education eligibility, the most valued source(s) of
assessment data in determining special education eligibility,
and differences in these variables across participants’ years of
experience, degree, and geographic region. Examination of
these variables can inform the field of current practices in
and outcomes of special education evaluation and eligibility.
Understanding such practices and outcomes serves to provide
information regarding the extent to which special education
evaluation and eligibility procedures align with provisions
within federal special education law (i.e., IDEA) and how
school psychologists use data to make special education eligi-
bility decisions.
Special Education Evaluation Referrals
Prior to evaluating a student for special education services,
teachers and/or problem-solving teams must refer the student
for the evaluation, and the referral concern should guide the
evaluation process. Results from this study coincided with

previous research (Bramlett et al. 2002; Lloyd et al. 1991),
suggesting that reading was overwhelmingly the most com-
mon referral for special education evaluation across the USA.
Such findings underscore the notion that reading is a funda-
mental skill that permeates students’ overall academic func-
tioning in schools (Murnane et al. 2012). Moreover, given the
relationship between academic and behavior performances in
schools (Valdez et al. 2011), it is possible that students re-
ferred for evaluation due to reading concerns could also have
difficulties in other academic and behavioral areas. However,
this hypothesis is in need of further study.
The finding that reading was the most commonly reported
referral concern also highlights the importance of early pre-
vention and intervention supports in schools (Lembke et al.
2010; Shapiro 2010). MTSS is commonly implemented in
schools (Spectrum K-12 School Solutions 2010) and is a
framework for providing academic supports for all students
(Burns and Gibbons 2012). MTSS frameworks resulted in
improved student outcomes and fewer referrals for special
education (VanDerHeyden et al. 2007) and therefore could
provide appropriate support to students without special edu-
cation service provision. However, some studies have
questioned the effectiveness of tier 2 intervention (Balu et al.
2015), a fundamental component of providing academic sup-
port within MTSS frameworks, while others have demonstrat-
ed considerable effectiveness of tier 2 intervention (Burns
et al. 2005; Burns et al. 2016; Gersten et al. 2009). These
mixed findings could reflect the difficulty of large-scale
M T S S i m p l e m e n t a t i o n (N o e l l an d G a n s l e 2 00 9;
VanDerHeyden et al. 2016), which could also impact referrals
for special education evaluation due to inadequate progress in
intervention. However, if schools implement MTSS frame-
works with fidelity, they could reduce the number of special
education referrals (VanDerHeyden et al. 2007), which can
free up school psychological resources for preventative and
responsive intervention services, a significant need in schools
(Filter et al. 2013; NASP 2020; Ysseldyke et al. 2008).
Special Education Decision-making
Because IDEA explicitly allows for professional judgment in
special education evaluation (Pub. L. No. 108–446 § 300), it is
important to understand MDT members’ contributions to eli-
gibility decisions. In this study, the largest proportion of par-
ticipants reported that school psychologists, with some input
from MDT members, primarily make decisions regarding spe-
cial education eligibility in all regions of the USA. Although
these findings suggested that all MDT members contribute in
some way to eligibility decisions, it was also evident that
school psychologists play a leadership role in such decision-
making. School psychologists’ unique contributions to MDT
and evaluation processes (e.g., assessment administration, un-
derstanding of psychometric issues underlying assessments
Contemp School Psychol
and eligibility criteria) coincide with their perception of
playing a primary role in determining special education eligi-
bility (Burns et al. 2014). However, such findings may also be
somewhat concerning given the IDEA provision that MDTs
should complete special education evaluations (P.L. 108–446
§ 303.24).
MDTs’ contributions to special education evaluation pro-
cedures are also important because extraneous factors could
impact eligibility decisions. As human decision-makers, error
is inherent within school psychologists’ decision-making pro-
cesses (Watkins 2009). Confirmation bias, or the subcon-
scious influence of preconceived notions, may impact deci-
sions regarding eligibility status. Thus, if a teacher reports that
a student demonstrates academic difficulties, decision-makers
may confirm a priori beliefs by determining the student eligi-
ble for special education services regardless of whether he or
she meets eligibility criteria. When MDTs heavily rely on one
team member to determine eligibility, decision-making error
may represent a more significant threat to eligibility decisions
than when decisions are made as a team (Watkins 2009).
Although school psychologists should contribute their unique
perspective on special education evaluation procedures gener-
ally and eligibility decisions specifically, ensuring all MDTs’
members contribute to eligibility decisions could help to en-
sure such decisions are reliable and meaningful. However,
additional research is needed to directly examine this
hypothesis.
Assessment Data Sources
In addition to the IDEA requirement that special education
evaluations and eligibility decisions be team based (P.L.
108–446 § 303.24), evaluations must also be comprehensive
in nature (P. L. No. 108–446 § 300.304 [b]). That is, evalua-
tions should be multifaceted and include multiple sources of
assessment data (e.g., record reviews, observations, inter-
views, test scores). In this study, across the USA, the largest
percentage of school psychologist participants reported that
test scores were the most important source of assessment data
in determining special education eligibility followed by prog-
ress monitoring data, record reviews, and developmental/
educational history. Few participants (6.70%) reported that
all sources of assessment data were equally important in de-
termining eligibility. Thus, despite the fact that school psy-
chologists and MDTs collect multiple sources of assessment
data during the evaluation process, the results from this study
suggested that assessment data are not weighed equally in
eligibility determination.
Such findings are particularly interesting given the reported
paradigm shift (Reschly 2008) in school psychological prac-
tice from assessing for within child problems to examining
environmental variables within a prevention and intervention
framework. The statistically significant differences in
Contemp School Psychol
participants’ perceptions of the most valued assessment data
source across their years of experience could reflect this shift
in practices in the field. However, the findings in this study
may reflect both this paradigm shift and traditional assessment
practices because 24.50% of participants reported progress
monitoring data were the most valuable assessment data
source while even more participants reported test scores were
the most valuable assessment data source in eligibility deter-
mination. These results suggested that even with the wide
implementation of prevention and intervention frameworks,
special education evaluation procedures may still largely fol-
low our traditional notions of identifying student difficulties
and disabilities. However, substantial reliance on test scores
for eligibility determination can be problematic given the in-
herent measurement error within all test scores and the psy-
chometric issues underlying the application of identification
criteria to such test scores (Francis et al. 2005). Assessment
data should be reliable and valid for specific decision-making
purposes, but special education eligibility decisions have been
shown to be particularly problematic (Allen and Hanchon
2013; Maki et al. 2017) even though high-stakes decisions
necessitate highly reliable data (Salvia et al. 2012).
Moreover, reliance on test scores may ignore the ecological
context within which a child operates despite the fact that
environmental variables impact student performance
(Reschly and Christenson 2012; Shapiro 2010) underscoring
the importance of examining all sources of assessment data
within a comprehensive evaluation.
Implications for Practice
The findings in this study hold important implications for
special education evaluation practices. Most school psychol-
ogist participants reported that reading is the most common
referral for special education evaluation. Despite a significant
body of research supporting the effectiveness of many reading
intervention practices (Hall and Burns 2017; Lee and Yoon
2017; Scammacca et al. 2015), these findings suggested that a
considerable number of students continue to experience diffi-
culty with reading. Thus, school psychologists and other
school personnel should ensure that tiered intervention sup-
ports are implemented effectively and appropriately because
doing so has been shown to improve student outcomes and
reduce the number of students referred for special education
evaluation (Burns et al. 2005; Compton et al. 2010;
VanDerHeyden et al. 2007). Moreover, schools should ensure
that interventions are evidence based because inappropriate
intervention implementation could impact student progress
and thus referral for special education evaluation (Burns and
Ysseldyke 2009). On the other hand, researchers should en-
sure that relevant research findings are adequately disseminat-
ed to practitioners to support implementation.
Although school psychologists possess unique knowl-
edge and experience relevant to the special education
evaluation process, decision-makers should work as a
team to determine special education eligibility. Doing so
could serve as a safeguard against potential decision-
making errors (e.g., confirmation bias) that could inappro-
priately impact eligibility decisions (Watkins 2009).
Furthermore, school psychologists and MDTs should en-
sure that eligibility decisions are based on comprehensive
evaluation data in order to understand students’ difficul-
ties within the environmental context (P. L. No. 108–446
§ 300.304 [b]). This ecological perspective also serves to
more directly tie assessment data to instructional and in-
tervention decisions than isolated test scores, which have
been shown to lack treatment validity (Vaughn and Fuchs
2006), and assessment data should always inform treat-
ment decisions (Cromwell et al. 1975; Salvia et al. 2012).
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
The findings from this study should be interpreted within
the context of its limitations. First, the participants were
all practicing school psychologists. Although school psy-
chologists’ perspectives on special education evaluation
procedures are important given their role in the MDT,
school psychologists should not operate in isolation but
rather should function as part of the MDT. Thus, the find-
ings in this study are limited to school psychologists’
perspectives rather than MDTs’ perspectives as a whole.
Future research could examine all MDT members’ per-
spectives on such special education evaluation proce-
dures. Second, the survey questions posed to participants
in this study were presented as forced choice questions in
an effort to understand the most common referral con-
cerns, primary eligibility decision-makers, and most val-
ued assessment data sources. Thus, participants were re-
quired to select one option in response to each question
when they may have preferred to select more than one
option. Future research could examine similar research
questions to those in this study using alternate question
formats. Third, this study examined school psychologists’
perspectives on overall special education evaluation prac-
tices, but it is possible that some practices may vary by
disability category. Therefore, any potential differences
across disability categories are not captured in this study’s
findings. Future research could examine school psycholo-
gists’ and MDTs’ perspectives in relation to specific dis-
ability categories. Fourth, although the measure demon-
strated adequate internal consistency (σ = 0.89), validity
of the measure interpretations is unknown. Thus, future
research could examine the validity of interpretations
based on such measures.

Conclusion
The current study provided an important perspective on spe-
cial education referral and evaluation practices. Findings sug-
gested that, at least in part, special education evaluation and
eligibility practices may not fully align with federal special
education law because school psychologists reported that they
primarily make special education eligibility decisions, with
some input from the MDT, and that they primarily rely on test
scores to determine eligibility. Importantly, school psycholo-
gists and MDTs should implement practices that not only
align with legal requirements but they should also ensure prac-
tices are supported by a strong evidence base and result in
treatment planning and improved outcomes for students. The
purpose of special education evaluation should not be to mere-
ly determine eligibility for services, but rather, evaluation
should inform intervention and supports for individual student
needs. Without the end goal of improving student outcomes,
the utility of special education evaluation is undermined.
Therefore, school psychologists and MDTs should ensure that
evaluation procedures align with evidence-based practices in
an effort to promote positive outcomes for students.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures
were approved by and in accordance with the ethical standards of the
University Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki decla-
ration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included
in the study.
References
Allen, R. A., & Hanchon, T. A. (2013). What can we learn from school-
based emotional disturbance assessment practices? Implications for
practice and preparation in school psychology. Psychology in the
Schools, 50, 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21671.
Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R.
(2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elemen-
tary school reading (NCEE 2016–4000). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Becker, S. P., Paternite, C. E., & Evans, S. W. (2014). Special educators’
conceptualizations of emotional disturbance and educational place-
ment decision making for middle and high school students. School
Mental Health, 6, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-014-
9119-7.
Benson, N. F., Maki, K. E., Floyd, R. G., Eckert, T. L., Kranzler, J. H., &
Fefer, S. A. (2020). A national survey of school psychologists’ prac-
tices in identifying specific learning disabilities. School Psychology,
35(2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000344.
Bramlett, R. K., Murphy, J. J., Johnson, J., & Wallingsford, L. (2002).
Contemporary practices in school psychology: a national survey of
roles and referral problems. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 327–335.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10022.
Contemp School Psychol
Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2012). Implementing response-to-
intervention in elementary and secondary schools (2nd ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2009). Reported prevalence of
evidence-based instructional practices in special education. The
Journal of Special Education, 43(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022466908315563.
Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic
review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: examining field-
bas ed and res earch-implemented mode ls. Jo ur na l of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394.
Burns, M. K., Kanive, R., & Karich, A. C. (2014). Best practices in
implementing school-based teams within a multitiered system of
support. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school
psychology VI (pp. 569–582). Bethesda: National Association of
School Psychologists.
Burns, M. K., Maki, K. E., Karich, A. C., Hall, M., McComas, J., &
Helman, L. (2016). Problem analysis at tier 2: Using data to find
the category of the problem. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A.
VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: the
science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed., pp.
293–307). New York: Springer.
Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Gilbert, J. K.,
Barquero, L. A., Cho, E., & Crouch, R. C. (2010). Selecting at-
risk readers in first grade for early intervention: eliminating false
positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage screening pro-
cess. Journal of Educational Psychology., 102, 327–340.
Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities:
facts, trends and emerging issues. New York: National Center for
Learning Disabilities.
Cromwell, R. L., Blashfield, R. K., & Strauss, J. S. (1975). Criteria for
classification systems. In N. Hobbs (Ed.), Issues in the classification
of children (pp. 4–25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114–95 § 114 Stat.
1177 (2015).
Filter, K. J., Ebsen, S. A., & Dibos, R. (2013). School psychology cross-
roads in America: discrepancies between actual and preferred dis-
crete practices and barriers to preferred practice. International
Journal of Special Education, 28, 88–100.
Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B.
A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the iden-
tification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(2), 98–108.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-
Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2009). Assisting students struggling
with reading: response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention
for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-
4045). Washington, DC: National Center for education evaluation
and regional assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.
Hall, M. S., & Burns, M. K. (2017). Meta-analysis of targeted small-
group reading interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 66,
54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.11.002.
Hardman, M. L., & Dawson, S. (2008). The impact of federal public
policy on curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities
in the general classroom. Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.
3200/PSFL.52.2.5-11.
Huebner, E. S., & Gould, K. (1991). Multidisciplinary teams revisited:
current perceptions of school psychologists regarding team func-
tioning. School Psychology Review, 20(3), 428–434.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub.
L. No. 108–446,118Stat. 2647; 2004 Enacted H.R. 1350; 108
Enacted H.R. 1350. Final regulations implementing IDEA 2004
were published in the Federal Register, Monday, August 14, 2006,
pp. 46540–46845.
Contemp School Psychol
Johnson, R. L., & Morgan, G. B. (2016). Survey scales: a guide to de-
velopment, analysis, and reporting. New York: Guilford Press.
Knoff, H. M. (1983). Effect of diagnostic information on special educa-
tion placement decisions. Exceptional Children, 49, 440–443.
Lee, J., & Yoon, S. Y. (2017). The effects of repeated reading on fluency
for students with reading disabilities: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 50, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022219415605194.
Lembke, E. S., McMaster, K. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The prevention
science of reading research within a response-to-intervention model.
Psychology in the Schools, 47, 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.
20449.
Lloyd, J. L., Kauffman, J. M., Landrum, T. J., & Roe, D. L. (1991). Why
do teachers refer pupils for special education? An analysis of referral
records. Exceptionality, 2, 115–126.
MacFarlane, J. R., & Kanaya, T. (2009). What does it meant to be autistic:
inter-state variation in special education criteria for autism services.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 662–669.
Maki, K. E., & Adams, S. R. (2019). A current landscape of specific
learning disability identification: Training, practices, and implica-
tions. Psychology in the Schools, 56, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.
1002/pits.22179.
Maki, K. E., Floyd, R. G., & Roberson, T. (2015). State learning disabil-
ity eligibility criteria: a comprehensive review. School Psychology
Quarterly, 30, 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000109.
Maki, K. E., Burns, M. K., & Sullivan, A. (2017). Learning disability
identification consistency: the impact of methodology and student
evaluation data. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(2), 254–267.
https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000165.
Murnane, R., Sawhill, I., & Snow, C. (2012). Literacy challenges for the
twenty-first century: introducing the issue. The Future of Children,
22, 3–15.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2020). The professional
standards of the National Association of School Psychologists.
Bethesda: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics (2020). Children and youth with
disabilities. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/
indicator_cgg.asp. Accessed July 2020.
Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2009). Moving from good ideas in edu-
cational systems change to sustainable program implementation:
coming to terms with some of the realities. Psychology in the
Schools, 46, 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356050023491.
Pfeiffer, S. I., & Hefferman, L. (1984). Improving multidisciplinary team
functions. In C. A. Maher, R. J. Illback, & J. E. Zins (Eds.),
Organizational psychology in the schools: a handbook for
professionals (pp. 283–301). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Reschly, D. J. (2008). School psychology paradigm shift and beyond. In
A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology
V, 1 (pp. 3–15). Bethesda: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Moving from “context mat-
ters” to engaged partnerships with families. Journal of Educational
and Psychological Consultation, 22, 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10474412.2011.649650.
Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, S. (2012). Assessment in special and
inclusive education. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G., & Vaughn, S. (2015). A meta-analysis of
interventions for struggling readers in grades 4-12. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022219413504995.
Shapiro, E. (2010). Academic skill problems (4th ed.). New York:
Guilford. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012343014-4/50026-5.
Spectrum K-12 School Solutions. (2010). Response to intervention adop-
tion survey. Towson: author.
Valdez, C. R., Lambert, S. F., & Ialongo, N. S. (2011). Identifying pat-
terns of early risk for mental health and academic problems in ado-
lescence: a longitudinal study of urban youth. Child Psychiatry and
Human Development, 42, 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-
011-0230-9.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year
evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model
on identification of children for special education. Journal of School
Psychology, 45, 225–256.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Burns, M. K., Brown, R., Shinn, M. R., Kukic,
S., Gibbons, K., Batsche, G., & Tilly, W. D. (2016). RTI works
(when it is implemented correctly). Education Week, 35(15), 25.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). A response to “competing views: a
dialogue on response to intervention”: why response to intervention
is necessary but not sufficient for identifying students with learning
disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 58–61.
Walcott, C. M., & Hyson, D. (2018). Results from NASP 2015 member-
ship survey, part one: demographics and employment conditions.
Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Watkins, M. W. (2009). Errors in diagnostic decision making and clinical
judgment. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of
school psychology (4th ed., pp. 210–229). Hoboken: Wiley.
Ysseldyke, J. E. (1983). Current practices in making psychoeducational
decisions about learning disabled students. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 16, 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002221948301600411.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Allen, D. (1981). Participation of
regular education teachers in special education team decision mak-
ing: a naturalistic investigation. The Elementary School Journal, 82,
160–165.
Ysseldyke, J., Burns, M., Dawson, P., Kelley, B., Morrison, D., Ortiz, S.,
& Telzrow, C. (2008). The blueprint for training and practice as the
basis for best practices. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best
practices in school psychology V (pp. 37–69). Bethesda: National
Association of School Psychologists.
Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Volonino, V. (2009). What, where, and how?
Special education in the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality: A
Special Education Journal, 17, 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09362830903231986.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Kathrin E. Maki, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of School Psychology in
the School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early
Childhood Studies at the University of Florida. Her research centers on
the conceptual, psychometric, and decision-making issues related to
Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) identification, and the use of assess-
ment data to drive academic intervention implementation for students
with SLD and other academic difficulties.
Sarah R. Adams is a doctoral candidate in School Psychology at Ball
State University.