Psychology in the Schools, Vol.

50(3), 2013 
C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21671

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM SCHOOL-BASED EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE

ASSESSMENT PRACTICES?
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND PREPARATION IN SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY
RYAN A. ALLEN
John Carroll University

TIMOTHY A. HANCHON
The Citadel

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 un-
changed 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and outdated eligibility criteria, school psychologists must adhere to comprehensive assessment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

Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Pub. L. 94–142) guaranteed access
to public education for children with a range of disabilities, including those with emotional and/or
behavioral disorders. In writing the federal definition for the category intended to include children
diagnosed with various forms of psychopathology, the U.S. Congress adopted a modified version of
a definition originally developed by Eli Bower in the 1950s and 1960s (Merrell & Walker, 2004).
Bower’s definition of what is now designated emotional disturbance (ED) was largely based on his
late 1950s study of 207 children identified as “emotionally disturbed.” According to Bower (1982),
the definition was derived from an analysis of teacher-reported data on each of these previously
diagnosed children. Essentially, his original definition summarized the “major differences” between
the children identified as having ED and their typically developing classmates (Bower, 1982). The
recommendations from this research were codified into Pub. L. 94–142 as the official definition of
ED, and they remain relatively unchanged almost four decades later.
Borrowing directly from Bower’s original conceptualization, the current definition that appears
in the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) delineates
children with ED as those demonstrating at least one of the following:

1. An inability to learn, which cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors;

2. An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and
teachers;
3. Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances;
4. A general, pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression, and;
5. A tendency to develop physical symptoms, pains, or fears, associated with personal or
school problems.

Correspondence to: Ryan A. Allen, John Carroll University, Department of Education and Allied Studies, John
Carroll University, University Heights, OH 44118. E-mail: rallen@jcu.edu

290
 Comprehensive Assessment of ED 291

Other elements of the current federal definition that are rooted in the original Bower conceptu-
alization of ED include the requirements that these symptoms be exhibited to a “marked degree” and
“over a long period of time.” Also, consistent with other IDEA eligibility categories, the federal ED
definition stipulates evidence must exist confirming that the student’s disability “adversely affects”
his/her educational performance (IDEA, 2004 [§300.8 (C)(4)(ii)]).
The addition of a “social maladjustment clause” marks the federal law’s only significant
deviation from Bower’s definition. IDEA’s explicit exclusion of children who are deemed socially
maladjusted has been controversial since its initial incorporation into the law (Skiba, Grizzle, &
Minke, 1994). Basically, without further explanation or guidance, the federal definition requires
school districts to exclude children who are socially maladjusted and do not otherwise meet the
criteria for ED. The problems associated with the implementation of this clause, which has no basis
in the scientific literature and no explicated rationale, have been the focus of several articles critical
of the federal definition of ED (Bower, 1982; Kehle, Bray, Theodore, Zhou, & McCoach, 2004;
Skiba & Grizzle, 1991). Despite serious concerns raised by critics, the social maladjustment clause
has been retained through every reauthorization of IDEA.
Beyond the problems inherent in the social maladjustment clause, several other serious concerns
and deficiencies associated with the federal definition are evident, and these have been enumerated
and discussed in detail over the years since Pub. L. 94–142 was enacted (Becker et al., 2011;
Clarizio, 1987; Forness & Kavale, 2000; Hanchon & Allen, in press; Merrell & Walker, 2004;
Skiba & Grizzle, 1992). The major criticisms have focused on the lack of empirical support for the
eligibility criteria; the vague, ambiguous, and outdated language included in the definition; and the
failure to successfully lobby for changes to the law. More recently, ethical concerns have been raised
regarding the utilization of a definition so fraught with questions of validity and fairness (Hanchon
& Allen, in press).
One of the most pressing ED-related issues for practicing school psychologists, and those
charged with preparing future generations of school psychologists, is the school-based implementa-
tion of a problematic and vague federal definition. This, coupled with research indicating that most
states’ ED definitions deviate only minimally from the federal law (Becker et al., 2011), makes it
imperative that school psychologists consider additional resources (e.g., practice standards, diag-
nostic codes external to IDEA, empirical research) when identifying and intervening with children
suffering from emotional problems. Given the lack of direction and clarity provided within the
federal definition, supplemented with only limited guidance offered through state laws and regula-
tions, school psychologists must be thoughtful and diligent in adhering to various “best practice”
recommendations as applied to the identification of children within the ED classification.

B EST P RACTICES IN THE A SSESSMENT AND I DENTIFICATION OF ED

An appropriate school-based evaluation of a child’s social, emotional, and behavioral function-
ing begins with a school psychologist who is properly trained in assessment, child psychopathology,
intervention planning, and applicable legal and ethical codes. The National Association of School
Psychologists (NASP, 2010) Standards for the Graduate Preparation of School Psychologists re-
quire training programs to provide evidence of preparation in each of these four domains as part of
a comprehensive program curriculum. Although evidence of meeting relevant NASP professional
training standards is necessary, it is not sufficient for ensuring that preservice school psychologists
are adequately prepared to navigate the vague and ambiguous language of the federal definition. In
fact, considering the longstanding concerns associated with the federal guidelines, it is quite likely
that trainers also experience difficulty when preparing to teach school psychology students the best
practices of ED identification.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

292 Allen and Hanchon

To be on sound footing when making assessment-related decisions regarding the identification

of a child who may qualify under the ED category, a school psychologist must first have expertise
and knowledge of the broader domain of child psychopathology. Clearly, the federal definition
and its five primary criteria are not intended to serve as diagnostic criteria for specific types of
emotional disorders (e.g., major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder). Only through
graduate preparation and ongoing professional development can school psychologists develop the
skills necessary to identify childhood disorders. On the completion of academic training, school
psychologists have the additional professional and ethical obligation to keep abreast of developments
in ED research. This sentiment is underscored by recent surveys suggesting that school psychologists
often feel underprepared to work with many emotional disorders and issues (Miller & Jome, 2008).
A strong foundation in child psychopathology not only includes knowledge of the relevant state
and federal eligibility guidelines, but also familiarity with established diagnostic codes for various
emotional, behavioral, and mental disorders (e.g., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders [4th ed.; DSM-IV]; International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health
Problems [10th revision; ICD-10]). These additional resources provide valuable information and
guidance to aide in operationally defining what are otherwise ambiguous concepts within the federal
definition of ED (e.g., “pervasive mood of unhappiness,” “long period of time”) (IDEA, 2004 [§300.8
(C)(4)(ii)]).
The planning of an appropriate ED evaluation can only be accomplished by professionals ade-
quately trained in psychopathology, which includes appropriate treatment options for these types of
disorders. It is insufficient to simply understand topographical features, such as common symptoms,
clinical features, and diagnostic criteria for the various forms of psychopathology (Heathfield &
Clark, 2004). Although this information facilitates eligibility determinations and diagnosis, to best
meet the needs of the children they serve, school psychologists must collect data that can be used to
plan interventions designed to promote the positive functioning and well-being of each child. Obvi-
ously, treatment planning is informed by knowledge of a child’s specific condition (e.g., obsessive
compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder; Theodore, Akin-Little, & Little, 2004). However, knowing
the salient symptoms or features of a child’s specific emotional disorder does not provide adequate
information for individualized treatment planning. The evaluation of a broad range of factors that
may be influencing the child’s behavior is necessary to promote positive functioning in both the
school and home environments.
To ensure that enough data are collected to accurately determine ED eligibility and to plan
an effective course of treatment, school psychologists must utilize a comprehensive approach to
assessment. Although assessment planning should always be guided by referral information and
other considerations that are specific to the individual child, following general guidelines for a
comprehensive multimethod, multisource approach that utilizes multiple measures, settings, and
informants is strongly recommended (Merrell & Walker, 2004; Reddy, 2001). Given the context
of a vague, ambiguous, and perhaps professionally indefensible set of federal criteria that continue
to serve as the basis for ED eligibility determination (Skiba et al., 1994), school psychologists
are advised to follow established models of appropriate and comprehensive psychoeducational
assessment.
Professional training guidelines (NASP, 2010) and ethical practice standards (Jacob, Decker,
& Hartshorne, 2011) emphasize the need for a comprehensive approach to assessment without
regard to the disability category. Likewise, popular assessment textbooks, whether focused on
general psychopathology or specific mental disorders, advocate for comprehensive and multifaceted
assessment methods to facilitate disability identification and intervention planning (Mash & Barkley,
2007; Merrell, 2008; Sattler, 2008). As a result, one can assume that most school psychology graduate
students are regularly exposed to these principles as part of their didactic and field-based experiences.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Comprehensive Assessment of ED 293

Nevertheless, even with a general consensus within the profession regarding the need to adhere to
best practice assessment strategies, recent findings related to school psychologists’ ED assessment
practices raise concerns as to whether or not these recommendations are being carried over into
actual practice in the schools (Hanchon & Allen, in press).
In determining what constitutes a comprehensive school-based evaluation of ED, school psy-
chologists and trainers can draw from several well-respected and established resources (e.g., Frick,
Barry, & Kamphaus, 2010; Mash & Barkley, 2007; Merrell, 2008). One text, in particular, provides
an excellent overview and explanation of the various components of a multimethod, multisource,
multisetting assessment (Merrell, 2008). These components are divided into three general areas:
methods (e.g., interviews, observations, behavior rating scales), sources (e.g., parent, teacher, child),
and settings (e.g., home, school, community). Other training resources (Frick et al., 2010; Mash &
Barkley, 2007; Sattler, 2008) describe similar techniques and sources of data, but we find Merrell’s
(2008) model to be particularly useful in providing a sound overview of the comprehensive assess-
ment of ED. For specific emotional disorders, school psychologists would benefit from access to
more extensive compendiums (e.g., Mash & Barkley, 2007).
Building on our previous research (Hanchon & Allen, in press) indicating that school psychol-
ogists often rely too heavily on only selected components from various comprehensive assessment
models (e.g., behavior rating scales), seemingly at the expense of others (e.g., parent and child
interviews), our current study sought to examine more directly the frequency with which practicing
school psychologists utilize comprehensive assessment strategies in the identification and treatment
planning of children referred for ED evaluations. These data may be useful in bridging the gap be-
tween recommended best practice and the actual school-based delivery of services to children with
emotional and behavioral disorders. Only through comprehensive approaches to assessment can we
effectively design interventions to meet the needs of these students. Furthermore, the data may be
of interest to trainers as they seek to identify areas in need of further coverage within programs’
coursework and field-based experiences.

M ETHOD
Participants
Participants were recruited from the NASP membership through an NASP-sponsored listserv,
as well as direct e-mail invitations. A sample of practicing school psychologists (N = 214) completed
an online survey (described later) regarding their ED assessment practices in the schools. Of the
total sample, 172 respondents were women (80.4%) and 42 were men (19.6%). Most participants
reported their race/ethnicity as Caucasian (n = 196; 91.6%), whereas 8 described themselves as
African American (3.7%), 6 as Hispanic (2.8%), 1 as Native American (0.5%), and 2 as biracial
(0.9%). One respondent declined to report race/ethnicity data. The majority of respondents identified
their terminal degree as “Specialist” (n = 124; 57.9%), followed by “Masters” (n = 48; 22.4%) and
“Doctorate” (n = 40; 18.7%). Two respondents declined to report their terminal degree. The sample
averaged 11.2 years of work experience (SD = 8.4), and the mean student-to-school-psychologist
ratio was 1,523:1. Responses to the survey were collected from school psychologists practicing in
24 states, with the majority of respondents coming from South Carolina (n = 67), Ohio (n = 47),
and Florida (n = 26).

Measure
Participants completed the 32-item ED Assessment Practice Survey, which was created by
the principal investigators and hosted on the Internet. After responding to various demographic
items, respondents completed several sets of items pertaining to evaluation procedures in the context

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

294 Allen and Hanchon

of initial ED identification (i.e., determination of eligibility for students not previously classified
under the ED category; respondents were instructed not to consider ED re-evaluations). Items
relevant to the current study prompted respondents to identify the frequency with which they
utilized various assessment tools/instruments (e.g., behavior rating scales, self-report measures,
projective techniques) and other data-collection techniques (e.g., third-party interviews, diagnostic
interviews with students, classroom observations) when ED was a referral concern. Respondents
rated how frequently they included each assessment tool and data-collection method in their ED-
based evaluations according to the following scale: 0%, 1% to 5%, 6% to 10%, 11% to 25%, 26%
to 50%, 51% to 75%, 76% to 99%, and 100%.
Although they were not a focal point of the current study, additional items in the survey prompted
respondents to rate the perceived usefulness of each tool/data-collection technique in identifying
students with ED. The last cluster of items addressed participants’ opinions regarding the existing
federal definition of ED, including their overall understanding and comfort with the guidelines used
to identify students with ED. These results have been reported previously (Hanchon & Allen, in
press).

R ESULTS
Plan of Analysis
In the previous study using the same data set, Hanchon and Allen (in press) identified broad
trends in school psychologists’ practices as related to identifying students under the ED category.
Specifically, using the scale outlined previously, we examined the frequency with which common
instruments and data-collection techniques were reported across the entire sample. For the current
study, we focused on school psychologists’ practices on an individual, case-by-case basis, with the
intention of determining the extent to which respondents reported employing a “comprehensive”
(i.e., multimethod, multisource, multicomponent) approach to ED identification. Toward this end,
we targeted five “critical” data sources that are consistent with established models of comprehensive
assessment (Mash & Barkley, 2007; Sattler, 2008; Merrell, 2008) in order to deem it as compre-
hensive. The five critical data sources we examined were: (1) classroom observation, (2) teacher
interview, (3) parent interview, (4) student interview, and (5) normative data derived from rating
scales collected from a minimum of two different informants (i.e., teacher, parent, and/or student).
These specific techniques were not chosen because, in and of themselves, they represent a com-
prehensive evaluation. Rather, they represent a sampling of common techniques, instruments, and
sources of data one could minimally expect a school psychologist to contribute within the context
of a comprehensive evaluation of ED.
For the current study, the 8-point frequency rating scale (i.e., 0%–100%), we used previously
was collapsed and re-coded into to a 3-point scale. Respondents who reported that they included
a given data-collection technique in 76% to 100% of their initial ED evaluations were deemed to
use the technique on a “consistent” basis and were assigned a rating of “3.” We selected 76% as
the lower threshold for “consistent” inclusion to account for circumstances in which the school
psychologist was genuinely unable to access information/data (e.g., a parent is unresponsive to
the school psychologist’s request for an interview). Those individuals who reported including the
given data-collection technique in 51% to 75% of their evaluations were assigned a rating of “2.”
Any respondent who reported including the data-collection technique in 50% or fewer of their ED
evaluations was assigned a rating of “1.” Thus, using this coding system, each respondent could be
assigned a maximum of five “3” ratings (minimum of zero). Within our proposed framework for a
comprehensive ED evaluation, a school psychologist must have reported including each of the five

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Comprehensive Assessment of ED 295

Table 1
Frequencies of School Psychologists Who Include Critical Data Sources in 76% to 100% of Their Initial ED
Evaluations

ED Evaluations per Year

Number of Critical Data
Sources Included N % M SD

5 61 28.5 4.70 4.49

4 64 29.9 3.82 3.21
3 34 15.9 3.41 2.68
2 16 7.5 8.69 11.06
1 28 13.1 4.46 3.39
0 11 5.1 3.81 2.96

Note. ED = Emotional Disturbance. Critical data sources = classroom observation, teacher interview, parent interview,
student interview, and rating scale data from at least two informants. ED evaluations per year are reported for groups of
respondents by the number of critical data sources they report, including in their initial ED evaluations.

“critical” data sources in 76% to 100% of his or her ED evaluations (i.e., be assigned a rating of “3”
across all five data-collection techniques) to meet our “consistent” inclusion criterion.

School Psychologists’ Inclusion of Critical Data Sources

Table 1 reports the frequencies and percentages of respondents across the sample who reported
including the five critical data-collection methods outlined earlier in 76% to 100% of their initial ED
evaluations. Approximately 28% (n = 61) of the sample reported consistent use of a comprehensive
approach, whereby they were assigned a rating of “3” across all five critical data sources. Almost
30% (n = 64) of school psychologists reported the consistent inclusion of four of the five critical
data sources in their ED evaluations. Conversely, 28 respondents (13.1%) reported they use only one
of the five critical data sources on a consistent basis, whereas 11 respondents (5.1%) reported they
did not include any of the critical data sources with consistency in their initial ED evaluations.
For respondents who reported they did not consistently include all five critical data sources
in their initial ED evaluations, we examined which sources of data were most commonly being
excluded. Table 2 presents data for school psychologists who reported they consistently included
four of the five critical data sources. Among this subset of the sample (n = 64), behavioral rating
data, teacher interviews, classroom observations, and parent interviews were reportedly included
most regularly. A diagnostic interview with the student was included least consistently, with more
than half of this group reporting they conducted a student interview in 50% or fewer of their initial
ED evaluations.
Among the sample of respondents who reported consistent inclusion of only three of the
five critical data sources in their initial ED evaluations (n = 34), student interviews and parent
interviews were most commonly excluded (see Table 2). For example, 38.2% (n = 16) of respondents
reported including student interviews in 0% to 50% of their evaluations, whereas 47.1% (n = 16) of
respondents reported including parent interviews in 0% to 50% of their evaluations.
Twenty-eight school psychologists included only one of the five critical data sources in their
initial ED evaluations on a consistent basis. Among this group, behavior rating scale data was the
only source reported to be included consistently (n = 28, 100%), whereas the other four critical
data sources tended to be excluded from these respondents’ initial ED evaluations (see Table 2).
When descriptive statistics were calculated for this group of school psychologists, the mean number
of initial ED evaluations reportedly conducted per year was 4.46 (SD = 3.39). A full summary of

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

296 Allen and Hanchon

Table 2
Frequencies of School Psychologists’ Inclusion of Critical Data Sources in Initial ED Evaluations
Number of Classroom Parent Teacher Student Behavior Rating
Critical Data Observation Interview Interview Interview Scales
Sources Frequency of
Included Inclusion,% n % n % n % n % n %

4 of 5 (n = 64) 76–100 59 92.2 52 81.3 60 93.8 24 37.5 61 95.3

51–75 1 1.6 2 3.1 2 3.1 7 10.9 2 3.1
0–50 4 6.3 10 15.6 2 3.1 33 51.6 1 1.6

3 of 5 (n = 34) 76–100 26 76.5 10 47.1 27 79.4 13 38.2 27 79.4

51–75 2 5.9 8 23.5 3 8.8 5 14.7 7 20.6
0–50 6 17.6 16 47.1 4 11.8 16 38.2 0 0.0

2 of 5 (n = 17) 76–100 7 43.8 3 18.8 5 31.3 5 31.3 12 75.0

51–75 3 18.8 3 18.8 2 12.5 1 6.3 2 12.5
0–50 6 37.5 10 62.5 9 56.3 10 62.5 2 12.5

1 of 5 (n = 28) 76–100 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 28 100.0

51–75 1 3.6 1 3.6 3 10.7 0 0.0 0 0.0
0–50 27 96.4 27 96.4 25 89.3 28 100.0 0 0.0

means and standard deviations for school psychologists’ initial ED evaluations conducted per year
according to the number of critical data sources they consistently included in their evaluations are
presented in Table 1.

Examination of Additional Data Sources

In addition to the five critical data sources, we examined other sources of data that are relevant
to comprehensively assessing a student’s behavioral and/or social–emotional functioning, and serve
to inform ED eligibility decisions as well as intervention and treatment planning. Using the same
re-coding procedures described in the plan of analysis, we examined the extent to which school
psychologists reported consistent use (i.e., at least 76% of the time) of the following sources
of data in their initial ED evaluations: functional behavior assessment (FBA), observation of the
student in an “alternate” setting (i.e., outside of the classroom), observation of the student in
“multiple” (i.e., at least two) settings, and teacher as well as parent ratings of the student’s adaptive
behavior.
Within the subset of respondents who reported consistent use of all five critical data sources
in their initial ED evaluations (n = 61), many of them reported they also consistently collected
additional sources of data. For example, 39 school psychologists (64%) reported conducting FBAs
in more than three quarters of their initial ED evaluations. Similarly, 41 respondents (67%) reported
conducting an observation of the student in an alternate setting, whereas 48 respondents (79%)
reported conducting multiple observations of the student. Adaptive rating scales completed by a
teacher (n = 10, 16%) or a parent (n = 12, 20%) were less commonly included on a consistent
basis among this group. The general trend that emerged among these five additional sources of data
suggested that as the number of consistently included critical data sources decreased from five to
one, so did respondents’ reported inclusion of supplemental techniques, such as FBA, additional
observations, and adaptive behavior ratings.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Comprehensive Assessment of ED 297

D ISCUSSION
Among all the disability categories for which school psychologists and other educational
personnel are charged with determining eligibility, perhaps none present more challenges than ED.
School psychologists are required to utilize a vague, ambiguous, and controversial set of criteria
with limited guidance from either federal regulations or state law. Over the four decades since Pub.
L. 94–142 was enacted, the problems associated with an antiquated definition have been the subject
of numerous articles, the focus of special issues of prominent journals (Hughes & Bray, 2004), and
the motivation behind efforts to revise the federal criteria and essentially redefine ED (Forness &
Knitzer, 1992). Still, the ED definition remains unchanged, with few signs of substantial revision in
the foreseeable future. Despite longstanding research citing our educational system’s failure to meet
the needs of ED children (Knitzer & Olson, 1982; Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, Epstein, & Sumi,
2005), school psychologists remain tasked with serving these students under problematic, at best,
and unethical, at worst, conditions.
Given the weaknesses of the federal conceptualization of ED, school psychologists are un-
der greater pressure than normal to adhere to recommended best practices in identification and
assessment. Fortunately, there are numerous resources available to facilitate responsible and com-
prehensive evaluations designed to ensure accurate identification and to inform the development
and implementation of effective interventions. In addition to established and respected diagnostic
systems (e.g., DSM-IV, ICD-10), which can be used to confirm the existence of widely accepted
forms of child psychopathology, the field of school psychology is replete with academic resources
to guide professionals as they navigate the murky waters of ED assessment (Frick et al., 2010;
Mash & Barkley, 2007; Merrell, 2008). In each case, the recommendations are clear. The assessment
of children suspected of ED must exemplify a multimethod, multisource approach, which utilizes
multiple measures, settings, and informants.
The results of our study are consistent with those published previously (Hanchon & Allen,
in press). Although NASP training guidelines, standards of ethical practice (Jacob et al., 2011),
and respected assessment texts recommend comprehensive assessment strategies for determining
eligibility and formulating effective treatment plans, the actual practices of school psychologists
often fall short. On a positive note, our results demonstrated that just over half of the respondents
consistently included at least four of the five components we termed “critical” for an ED evaluation
focused on eligibility determination and intervention planning. In many cases, these school psychol-
ogists also utilized other valuable sources of data (e.g., FBAs, observations in multiple settings).
However, in contrast to these school psychologists who meet various best practice recommendations,
an unacceptably high number of respondents (just over 25%) consistently included only two or fewer
of these critical components (i.e., parent interview, teacher interview, child interview, observation,
behavior rating scale) in their initial ED evaluations.
These results raise concerns regarding both the practice and preparation of school psychologists.
Practicing school psychologists and trainers alike have an ethical responsibility to ensure that
appropriate assessment techniques are used with all children being considered for a potential ED
placement. The identification of a student with ED can yield great benefits for the child in terms
of treatment, support, and supplemental educational programming. However, when the label is
misapplied as the result of a problematic definition and inappropriate evaluation, the classification
of a student as ED can lead to stigmatization, failure, and other negative long-term consequences.
An ambiguous federal definition, further complicated by poor assessment practices, could be a
contributing factor in the overrepresentation of minority, low socioeconomic status, and single-
parent children in ED programs (Losen & Orfield, 2002; Wagner et al., 2005). Only through the
maintenance of high standards in preparation and practice can the field of school psychology

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

298 Allen and Hanchon

effectively meet the needs of ED children being served under an outdated and problematic disability
category.

Limitations
The data and results presented in this article extend the work of Hanchon and Allen’s (in
press) examination of school psychology assessment practices and, as such, share a similar set of
limitations. First, the study includes data from only 214 school psychologists practicing in relatively
restricted geographic regions. Further study of ED assessment practices incorporating a broader and
more representative sample is necessary. Second, the results were based on retrospective estimates
made by school psychologists regarding their assessment practices. An examination of the actual
assessment techniques included in these evaluations would result in a more accurate accounting
of current practices. This could occur through an examination of district, state, and national data
pools.

R EFERENCES
Becker, S. P., Paternite, C. E., Evans, S. W., Andrews, C., Christensen, O. A., Kraan, E. M., & Weist, M. D. (2011). Eligibility,
assessment, and educational placement issues for students classified with emotional disturbance: Federal and state-level
Analyses. School Mental Health, 3, 24 – 34. doi: 10.1007/s12310-010-9045-2
Bower, E. M. (1982). Defining emotional disturbance: Public policy and research. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 55 – 60.
Clarizio, H. F. (1987). Differentiating emotionally impaired from socially maladjusted students. Psychology in the Schools,
24, 237 – 243. doi: 10.1002/1520-6807(198707)24:3<237::aid-pits2310240308>3.0.co;2-d
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (1975). Pub. L. No. 94-142.
Forness, S. R., & Kavale, K. A. (2000). Emotional or behavioral disorders: Background and current status of the E/BD
terminology and definition. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 264 – 269.
Forness, S. R., & Knitzer, J. (1992). A new proposed definition and terminology to replace “serious emotional disturbance”
in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. School Psychology Review, 21, 12 – 20.
Frick, P. J., Barry, C. T., & Kamphaus, R.y W. (2010). Clinical assessment of child and adolescent personality and behavior
(3rd ed). New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
Hanchon, T., & Allen, R. (2013). Identifying students with emotional disturbance: school psychologists’ practices and
perceptions. Psychology in the Schools. 50(3): XX-XX.
Heathfield, L. T., & Clark, E. (2004). Shifting from categories to services: Comprehensive school-based mental health
for children with emotional disturbance and social maladjustment. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 911 – 920. doi:
10.1002/pits.20047
Hughes, T. L., & Bray, M. A. (2004). Differentiation of emotional disturbance and social maladjustment: Introduction to the
special issue. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 819 – 821. doi: 10.1002/pits.20038
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (2004), Pub. L. 94-142.
Jacob, S., Decker, D. M., & Hartshorne, T. S. (2011). Ethics and law for school psychologists (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., Theodore, L. A., Zhou, Z., & McCoach, D. B. (2004). Emotional disturbance/social maladjustment:
Why is the incidence increasing? Psychology in the Schools, 41, 861 – 865. doi: 10.1002/pits.20042
Knitzer, J., & Olson, L. (1982). Unclaimed children: The failure of public responsibility to children and adolescents in need
of mental health services.
Losen, D., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (2002). Racial inequity in special education. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Mash, E. J., & Barkley, R. A. (2007). Assessment of childhood disorders (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Merrell, K. W. (2008). Behavioral, social, and emotional assessment of children and adolescents (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Merrell, K. W., & Walker, H. M. (2004). Deconstructing a definition: Social maladjustment versus emotional disturbance
and moving the EBD field forward. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 899 – 910. doi: 10.1002/pits.20046
Miller, D. N., & Jome, L. M. (2008). School psychologists and the assessment of childhood internalizing disorders: Perceived
knowledge, role preferences and training needs. School Psychology International, 29, 500 – 510.
National Association of School Psychologists (2010). Standards for Graduate Preparation of School Psychologists. Baltimore.
MD: Author.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Comprehensive Assessment of ED 299

Reddy, L. A. (2001). Serious emotional disturbance in children and adolescents: Current status and future directions. Behavior
Therapy, 32, 667 – 691. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7894(01)80015-0
Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (5th ed.). La Mesa, CA.: Jerome M Sattler Publisher.
Skiba, R., & Grizzle, K. (1991). The social maladjustment exclusion: Issues of definition and assessment. School Psychology
Review, 20(4), 580 – 598.
Skiba, R., & Grizzle, K. (1992). Qualifications vs. logic and data: Excluding conduct disorders from the SED definition.
School Psychology Review, 21, 23 – 28.
Skiba, R., Grizzle, K., & Minke, K. M. (1994). Opening the floodgates? The social maladjustment exclusion and state SED
prevalence rates. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 267 – 282.
Theodore, L. A., Akin-Little, A., & Little, S. G. (2004). Evaluating the differential treatment of emotional disturbance and
social maladjustment. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 879 – 886. doi: 10.1002/pits.20044
Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., Epstein, M. H., & Sumi, W. C. (2005). The children and youth we serve: A
national picture of the characteristics of students with emotional disturbances receiving special education. Journal of
Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 13, 79 – 96.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits