47
Comprehensive Assessment of Emotional Disturbance:
A Cross-Validation Approach
Emily S. Fisher,
Katie E. Doyon and
Enrique Saldaña
Loyola Marymount University
Megan Redding Allen
University of California, Santa Barbara
Assessing a student for emotional disturbance is a serious and complex task given the stigma of the
label and the ambiguities of the federal denition. One way that school psychologists can be more
condent in their assessment results is to cross validate data from different sources using the RIOT
approach (Review, Interview, Observe, Test). Because each data collection process has advantages
and limitations, using all four processes together allows for comprehensive assessment for emotional
disturbance. Additionally, school psychologists should strongly consider a student’s strengths, cultural
factors, and the interaction between the student and the environment in order to interpret assessment
ndings. This approach serves to tailor interventions regardless of diagnosis.
Assessing a student for emotional disturbance (ED) is a complex task both because of the ambigui-
ties of the diagnosis in the educational code and because of the seriousness of assigning this classication
to a student. While it is tempting to want to use standardized assessments to make a denitive diagnosis
of ED, other forms of data collection are equally important as they allow for the cross-validation of infor-
mation from various sources. Leung (1993) rst wrote about a method of comprehensive assessment
using the acronym of RIOT (Review, Interview, Observe, Test). Leung acknowledged that each tech-
nique has aws and advocated using information from all four data sources to support conclusions about
diagnoses. By incorporating information from the cumulative folder, interviews with parents, teachers,
and the student, and observations in the classroom and alternative settings along with data from instru-
ments and tests, school psychologists can better justify their conclusions and present information in a
truly comprehensive manner that allows parents and school personnel to have condence in the results.
At the beginning of an ED assessment, most often, school personnel have already identied social,
emotional, and/or behavioral problems as a primary concern and the reason for referral is to determine
the extent to which such problems are contributing to the student’s overall school functioning. While the
school psychologist will collect copious amounts of data about the student’s functioning over the course
of the assessment, it is imperative that the school psychologist also consider the ecological context in
which the student’s behaviors occur (Wright, Gurman, & The California Association of School Psychol-
ogists/Diagnostic Center, Southern California Positive Intervention Task Force, 2001). This allows the
school psychologist to understand the reciprocal relationship between the student and the environment
(Landau & Swerdlik, 2005) and to examine whether adequate interventions were implemented during
the pre-referral process. Additionally, by conceptualizing the problems from an ecological perspective,
school psychologists are better prepared to make recommendations for interventions at the conclusion of
the assessment, regardless of the ultimate diagnosis.
Please send correspondence to Emily S. Fisher, PhD, School of Education, University Hall, Suite 1500, Loyola Mary-
mount University, 1 LMU Drive, Los Angeles, California, 90045. Email: esher4@lmu.edu
The California School Psychologist, Vol. 12, pp. 47 – 58, 2007
Copyright 2007 California Association of School Psychologists
The California School Psychologist, 2007, Vol. 1248
REVIEW OF RECORDS
There is virtually no recent research literature on reviewing cumulative records; however, the diag-
nosis of emotional and behavioral problems should begin with an understanding of the student’s prior
school experience. A review of records provides the school psychologist guidance about what infor-
mation needs to be gathered from other assessment procedures and about interventions that have been
attempted to help the student be more successful in school. For example, if the school psychologist nds
major changes in school functioning of a 10
th
grade student occurred during 7
th
grade, he or she will want
to elicit perspectives on these changes during the parent and student interviews. Additionally, it would
be helpful for the school psychologist to speak with the student’s 7
th
grade teacher for more information
and to nd out what interventions, if any, were implemented during that year. Similarly, a review of
records can inform the school psychologist about questions to ask during interviews, when and where to
observe the student, and which tests and instruments might be most appropriate.
In the case of an ED assessment, a record review is crucial to determine if the student has had
emotional, social, and/or behavioral problems “over a long period of time” as required by the federal
denition of emotional disturbance (Friend, 2008, p. 203). Because interviews rely on retrospective
reports of the onset of problems, the student’s cumulative records provide a less biased report of the
student’s prior functioning in school. Report card comments can often provide some evidence of social/
emotional functioning over time.
In addition to onset, there is other key information to attend to in the cumulative record, and it is
as important to note a lack of ndings (i.e., lack of evidence of ED) as it is to note signicant ndings
(i.e., evidence of ED). In addition to examining grades and test scores, school psychologists should look
for any early warning signs of emotional problems such as difcult transitions to school and between
schools, teacher comments on social skills, discipline records, frequent visits to the nurse’s ofce, coun-
seling referrals, and abnormalities in attendance (e.g., excessive absences or tardiness). It is also impor-
tant to note non-normative transitions such as changing schools mid-year. A review of records should
also document attempts at intervention and the outcomes of such interventions. Most often, there will
have been some type of pre-referral team meeting to discuss the student and develop a plan for action,
including interventions. Rather than just documenting the interventions from the pre-referral meeting
papers, the school psychologist should investigate whether the interventions were actually implemented
with integrity and what worked as well as what did not. The school psychologist might consider exam-
ining interventions from a Response-to-Intervention approach, which provides the student with increas-
ingly intensive interventions (Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, & Lathrop, 2007). A diagnosis of ED should
not be considered if appropriate interventions have not been tried.
Leung (1993) highlighted the limitations of information gathered through a review of a student’s
records, including “dated materials, incomplete records, [and] skewed opinions” (p. 6). When making
inferences about what information records reveal, the school psychologist should cross-validate this
information with other assessment procedures before drawing conclusions. So, if it is noted that the
student has frequent absences, tardiness, and trips to the nurse’s ofce, the school psychologist might
form the hypothesis that the student may be experiencing signicant anxiety or fear about school. In this
case, interviews and standardized measures could be used to test if this is a correct hypothesis.
The California School Psychologist, 2007, Vol. 12
49
INTERVIEWS
Interviewing is a commonly used and important tool in the assessment of students for ED. An inter-
view can be dened as an interpersonal encounter to obtain information about a person’s symptoms and
behaviors, while providing the opportunity for observation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Aklin &
Turner, 2006). During a comprehensive assessment, interviews should be conducted with the student,
his or her parents, and the school staff working directly with the student. Collecting information from
these varied perspectives through the interviewing process is important in making eligibility decisions.
The two types of interviews generally used in an assessment are unstructured or open interviews and
semi-structured or structured interviews. In an unstructured interview, the school psychologist deter-
mines what questions will be asked. School psychologists can collect information on both strengths and
challenges the student is having, and tailor questions based on interviewee responses. While this type
of interview allows the assessment to t the individual needs of the interviewee, there are problems with
variance and they tend to be unreliable, reecting more the psychologist’s perception than a reliable and
accurate picture of the student’s functioning (Aklin & Turner; 2006; Kamphaus & Frick, 2005).
Semi-structured and structured interviews consist of a set of questions that are asked to the student,
parent, or teacher. A stem question is generally provided and then if it is answered afrmatively, follow-
up questions are asked based on the response. Structured interviews are more rigid in terms of the
questions asked and provide explicit scoring criteria, while semi-structured interviews generally provide
sets of questions allowing for some exibility to ask follow-up questions. Both show better reliability
and validity than unstructured interviews, and these types of interviews have been found to increase the
accuracy of diagnosis for individuals of diverse backgrounds because they rely more on standardized
criteria rather than interpretation (Aklin & Turner, 2006; Kamphaus & Frick, 2005). One example of a
semi-structured interview that may be appropriate for use for an ED assessment is the Child Assessment
Schedule (CAS; Hodges, Kline, Stern, Cytryn, & McKnew, 1982), which has been shown to have good
reliability and validity (Hodges, Cools, & McKnew, 1989; Hodges & Saunders, 1989).
Structured and semi-structured interviews have some limitations that the school psychologist should
consider. First, interviews can last for 60-90 minutes, generally longer than an open interview. Addi-
tionally, there is some evidence that the student’s self report on diagnostic interviews is unreliable for
students younger than 9 years (Hodges & Zeman, 1993).
By using interviews, especially a semi-structured interview supplemented with other important
questions, the school psychologist can better understand the parameters of a student’s emotions and
behaviors that are not generally assessed by a behavior rating scale or classroom observations. For
example, information can be obtained about the duration of the student’s behavioral difculties, the age
at which the problems began to emerge, the level of impairment that is associated with the symptoms,
and when symptoms occur (Merrell, 2003). An interview can assess additional psychosocial stressors
that may contribute to a student’s emotional difculties, allowing the symptoms to be understood within
the context. Interviewing also allows the school psychologist to establish rapport, trust, and security
with the student, family, and teacher, which may be crucial to the eventual implementation of an inter-
vention plan.
OBSERVATIONS
Observing a student is “one of the most direct and objective” (Merrell, 2003, p. 51) ways for the
school psychologist to see a student’s interactions and behaviors in various naturalistic settings (e.g.,
Comprehensive Assessment of Emotional Disturbance
The California School Psychologist, 2007, Vol. 1250
classroom and playground) across time. There are denite limitations to observations, such as observer
bias and observer inuence on a student’s behavior (Leung, 1993) and the time commitment that observa-
tions require is great, but observations can provide valuable information about a student’s current perfor-
mance. Observations also allow the school psychologist to better understand the interaction between
the student and the environment, which helps determine the antecedents, consequences, and functions of
behaviors and to plan interventions. The school psychologist might want to conduct observations before
conducting the student interview or formal testing. This not only reduces the likelihood that the student’s
behavior will be inuenced by the presence of the observer, but also allows the school psychologist to
form hypotheses about the student that should guide the choice of testing instruments.
When conducting an ED assessment, it is important for the school psychologist to conduct both
unstructured and structured observations of a student. Unstructured observations typically take the form
of a running log of a student’s behaviors during the observation period. The school psychologist might
note such things as type of response to teacher directions, on-task behavior, responding to or ignoring
other students, level of participation, and response to redirection or discipline. This type of observation
should inform the school psychologist about what behaviors are problematic, what type of structured
observation should be used to collect data, what type of assessment battery is appropriate, and what types
of interventions should be tried.
Structured observations typically take the form of collecting and coding data on certain observ-
able behaviors during a dened period of time. Volpe, DiPerna, Hintze, and Shapiro (2005) provide a
comprehensive review of structured observation coding systems, including characteristics, psychometric
properties, strengths, limitations, and recommendations for each system. Based on this review, the
Direct Observation Form (DOF; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) is supported for observing both external-
izing and internalizing problems across group settings. This system “requires that the observer write a
narrative and observe on- and off-task behavior simultaneously” (Volpe et al., 2005, p. 467) and then
rate the student’s behavior on items that generally correspond to the Child Behavior Checklist (Achen-
bach & Rescorla, 2001). The DOF also allows for social comparison data to be collected, which helps
to determine if the student’s behavior is signicantly different from the behaviors of peers in the same
settings (Merrell, 2003).
It is important for the school psychologist to observe the student in different settings at different
times. Based on the cumulative record review and the teacher interview, the school psychologist should
identify a classroom time when the student is experiencing more difculties and a classroom time when
the student is experiencing fewer difculties. This allows the school psychologist to examine the recip-
rocal relationship between the student and the classroom environment (Landau & Swerdlik, 2005). The
information obtained from these observations can help the school psychologist make recommendations
to support a student’s success in the classroom. Additionally, observing a student in a non-academic
setting, such as recess or lunch, will provide information on the student’s behavior (e.g., peer interac-
tions) in an unstructured setting.
Because observations are time consuming, school psychologists should consider how to make
observations serve multiple purposes. One way to do this is to use the structure of a functional behavior
assessment (FBA) to interpret qualitative and quantitative observation data collected. FBA requires
collecting information on when and where behaviors occur most often, what is happening before the
behavior occurs, and what is reinforcing the behavior (Watson & Steege, 2003). By collecting these
data, the school psychologist can develop hypotheses about the function of the behavior and environ-
mental factors that need to be changed (Wright et al., 2001). If signicant external factors are present,
The California School Psychologist, 2007, Vol. 12
51
then environmental changes should be considered rather than a diagnosis of ED.
In addition to observing in the classroom and other school settings, school psychologists should
attend to observational data collected through testing sessions. Because testing sessions are structured
and tests are administered in a standardized manner, this environment allows the school psychologist to
compare observations of a student to other students with whom the school psychologist has tested, as well
as how the student reacts to factors unique to the testing environment, such as one-to-one interactions
and few distractions (McConaughy, 2005). If school psychologists want to quantify observational data
during testing, the Test Observation Form (McConaughy, 2005) provides a norm-referenced observation
system. This system requires that the school psychologist keep a running log of a student’s behavior
during testing and then rate the behavior on items that generally correspond to other rating forms in the
Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001).
TESTS
“Testing,” in the RIOT model, is loosely dened as the collection of data through various instru-
ments, including cognitive assessments, self-report measures of behavior, behavior rating scales, and
projective assessments. Most of these provide school psychologists with information about a student’s
strengths and challenges as compared to other students of the same age. When using standardized instru-
ments, it is important to consider potential sources of bias in administration, scoring, and interpreting
test results (Sattler, 2001). For example, Skiba, Knesting and Bush, (2002) found Caucasian teachers,
compared to teachers of color, gave Mexican-American and African-American students disproportion-
ately higher ratings for problem behaviors on behavior rating scales. Although these ratings do not
necessarily indicate bias inherent to the test, they do suggest that behavior rating scales are not immune
to informant bias (Skiba et. al., 2002).
Cognitive Assessment
Over 60% of school psychologists use intelligence tests as part of most ED assessments (Shapiro &
Heick, 2004). At a very basic level, cognitive assessment allows the school psychologist to determine
the extent to which students may be experiencing intellectual or sensory difculties that impact their
ability to learn. In more traditional districts that routinely use cognitive assessments, they may help
rule out learning disabilities and mental retardation (Teeter & Korducki, 1998). However, in districts
that employ a Response-to-Intervention model, cognitive assessments are not a necessary part of the
ED assessment as intervention data, observations, and work samples can provide this information. If
cognitive assessments are used, the school psychologist can examine data on cognitive strengths and
weaknesses to better understand the interaction of the individual characteristics of the student with the
classroom environment (Wright et al., 2001). For example, if a student has average cognitive abilities
but slower processing speed, the student might be having inappropriate behaviors in the classroom due to
frustration with timed tasks such as tests or embarrassment about being called on before having time to
process the question. Thus, adequate academic and behavioral interventions would need to be employed
before considering the student for a diagnosis of ED.
Issues of bias in intelligence tests pervade the literature, and perhaps the most signicant source of
bias concerns the use of these assessments with ethnic minority students. This may be especially true for
African American students, who, on average, score one standard deviation below Caucasian students on
standardized cognitive measures (Chung-yan & Cronshaw, 2002; Kwate, 2001). Given the overrepre-
sentation of minority students labeled as ED, school psychologists should strongly consider using other
Comprehensive Assessment of Emotional Disturbance
The California School Psychologist, 2007, Vol. 1252
sources of data to determine eligibility.
Behavior Rating Scales
Behavior rating scales are the most commonly used assessment modality of childhood psychopa-
thology (Achenbach & McConaughy, 1987) due to their many advantages. Rating scales are easy to
administer and score, cost-efcient, based on normative data, and organized by grouping problems into
larger scales (McConaughy & Ritter, 2002). They also provide information on a large range of problems
and allow for systematic comparison across informants (McConaughy & Ritter, 2002).
For an ED assessment, behavior rating scales are typically completed by teachers, parents, and
other adults who know the student well (e.g., administrator or day-care provider). Parent reports are
especially important as they can provide information about the severity, duration, and frequency of
behaviors (Kovacs, 1986). Similarly, teacher reports are benecial, especially in elementary school,
where teachers spend a large part of the day with the student and are able to observe the student over the
course of the day (Epkins, 1995).
Two broad social-emotional rating scales that are commonly used are the Behavior Assessment
System for Children – Second Edition (BASC-2; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004), which has a parent
rating form and a teacher rating form, and the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment
(ASEBA; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), which contains the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; to be
completed by parents) and the Teacher Report Form (TRF; to be completed by teachers). Both systems
have good reliability and validity, and are based on large normative samples of students from back-
grounds representative of the population of the United States. Both systems are appropriate for use in an
ED assessment, as they provide information in internalizing and externalizing domains. Once the school
psychologist determines the areas of most concern based on these broad-based systems, he or she can
conduct more targeted assessment of specic problem areas. For example, if both parents and teachers
rate the student high for anxiety, the school psychologist may want to explore specic symptoms of
anxiety with the student through interviews, self-report measures, or a more narrow-band rating scale,
such as the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC; March, Parker, Sullivan, Stallings, &
Conners, 1997).
Despite their many advantages, behavior rating scales have limitations that should be considered by
the school psychologist. There may be gender differences in how teachers and parents rate a student’s
temperament (Else-Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, & Van Hulle, 2006). For example, what is considered
“cries easily” for boys might be different than for girls. Also, as previously mentioned, characteristics
of the rater can impact ratings (Skiba et al., 2002). Additionally, while parents have been found to be
good at reporting overt behaviors such as conduct problems (Dollinger, 1992), they tend to underreport
depressive symptoms (Angold et al., 1987; Jensen, Rubio-Stipec, & Canino, 1999). Therefore, the
school psychologist should use other sources of data, such as observations and interviews, to ensure that
their conclusions about a student’s functioning are supported.
Self-Report Measures
Self-report measures share similar advantages with behavior rating scales, and are especially impor-
tant in assessing feelings and behaviors that are difcult to observe directly. The two systems previously
discussed, the BASC-2 and ASEBA have self-report forms. Reliability of self-reports increases with age
(Edelbrock, Costello, Dulcan, Kalas, & Conover, 1985). Consequently, it is important to put more weight
on parent and teacher reports for younger students.
The California School Psychologist, 2007, Vol. 12
53
Merrell (2003) identied a number of different response biases that can affect the results of self-
report measures. The rst, acquiescence, refers to the tendency among children to answer dichotomous
questions (those requiring a true/false or yes/no response) consistently in one direction. This can be
particularly problematic when test items are unclear. The second, social desirability, refers to either a
conscious or unconscious tendency to respond to test items in a manner that makes the student appear
favorable to others. The third, faking, refers to deliberate actions taken by the student to create either
favorable or negative impressions of him or herself. Because of the errors that occur through response
bias, it is important that the school psychologist cross-validate ndings with other sources of informa-
tion.
Projective Tests
Projective tests, such as sentence completion tasks, storytelling techniques, and drawings, are thought
to access information about a student’s internal experience through the use of ambiguous stimuli. In a
recent study by Hojnoski, Morrison, Brown, and Matthews (2006), over half of the school psycholo-
gists surveyed indicated using projective tests in their practice, including using them to make eligibility
decisions. However, since their inception, projective tests have been plagued by controversy, generally
due to their lack of adequate reliability and validity (Miller & Nickerson, 2006). Because of the major
concerns with the psychometric properties of projective techniques with students, their use in deter-
mining ED eligibility is not recommended (Miller & Nickerson, 2006; Smith & Dumont, 1995). Instead,
school psychologists should consider using the tests as a way to build rapport and generate hypotheses
rather than using them to draw conclusions about a student’s social and emotional functioning (Garb,
Wood, Lillienfeld, & Nezworksi, 2002; Miller & Nickerson, 2006).
Sentence completion tasks are the most commonly used projective technique by school psychologists
(Hojnoski et al., 2006). They come in a variety of forms that focus on different areas of psychological
functioning and have different purposes (Rabin & Zltogorski, 1981) and are generally quick to admin-
ister. The open-ended nature of the tests may facilitate students’ ability to express their attitudes and
feelings because they allow for a wide variety of responses (Holaday, Smith, & Sherry, 2000). Rogers,
Bishop, and Lane (2003) suggest that sentence completion tasks can be used as a quick screening of
feelings toward self and others. However, sentence completion tests are often administered in a nonsys-
tematic way, are not formally scored, and are rarely individualized based on the presenting problem
(Holaday et al., 2000). If school psychologists are going to use them, they should consider administering
more specic sentence completion tests, such as the Sentence Completion Test for Depression, for which
there is evidence of reliability and validity in assessing depressive thinking (Barton, Morley, Bloxham,
Kitson, & Platts, 2005).
Over a quarter of school psychologists who responded to the survey reported using drawing tech-
niques in their practice (Hojnoski et al., 2006). Drawing tasks, such as the Draw-A-Person: Screening
Procedure for Emotional Disturbance (DAP:SPED; Naglieri, McNeish, & Bardos, 1991), are quick and
require little verbal skills, which can help in working with younger students or students with lower verbal
abilities (Matto, 2002). The DAP:SPED, which is normed on a large standardization sample, has been
found to be able to distinguish students with emotional disturbances from typically developing peers
(Matto, Naglieri, & Clausen, 2005) and has been found to be appropriate for use with African-American,
Hispanic, and Caucasian students (Matto & Naglieri, 2005). While the DAP:SPED has been shown to be
an adequate assessment of internalizing behaviors, it is not as useful for assessing externalizing behav-
iors (Matto, 2002). In order to assess externalizing behaviors, observations, behavior rating scales, and
Comprehensive Assessment of Emotional Disturbance
The California School Psychologist, 2007, Vol. 1254
interviews provide more useful data.
Storytelling techniques, such as the Roberts-Second Edition (Roberts-2; Roberts & Gruber, 2005)
and the Thematic Apperception Technique (TAT; Murray, 1943) are reported to be used by 16-30% of
school psychologists (Hojnoski et al., 2006) and are thought to be non-threatening and fun for children
(Kamphaus & Frick, 2005). In general, storytelling techniques can inform the school psychologist about
how the student constructs his or her world, the quality of interactions between the student and others,
and how the student resolves conicts. While the TAT is generally interpreted by examining recurrent
themes, the Roberts-2 has explicit scoring procedures, resulting in adequate reliability. It should be
noted that the developers of the Roberts-2 describe this instrument as a means to assess social cognitive
understanding (Roberts & Gruber, 2005). Limitations of storytelling techniques include their heavy
reliance on the student’s verbal abilities and questionable reliability and validity resulting from incon-
sistent administration, scoring, and interpretation (Kamphaus & Frick, 2005). Like all projective tests,
storytelling techniques should not be used as a sole means of determining eligibility and might be better
used to build rapport with students.
CONSIDERING STRENGTHS
Historically, psychoeducational assessments focus on a student’s decits (Epstein, 1999), and this
seems to be particularly true in the case of ED assessment. It is as if the assessor has to point out that
the student is failing in all areas to make the case for ED, but this is unnecessary. The federal denition
requires that a student only meet one of the criteria to be considered ED, although a student often meets
several criteria. In addition, it is to the benet of everyone, especially the student and family, to not
only include but to highlight a student’s strengths because this provides hope to everyone and aids in the
development of interventions (Epstein & Sharma, 1998).
Information about a student’s strengths should be gleaned from all of the aforementioned data-
collection processes. From the cumulative record review, the school psychologist might highlight posi-
tive comments from teachers and growth in an academic area (e.g., high math ability). During obser-
vations, the school psychologist might note a student’s positive attributes such as an ability to persist
during a difcult task, offers to help other students, attention to the teacher, or sense of humor. During
interviews with the teacher, parents, and student, the school psychologist should ask more than one
question about a student’s strengths or interests, and should follow up with other questions to more fully
understand the student’s positive attributes. These strengths and interests should inform interventions
to ensure success.
There has been a movement to develop strength-based assessments, and research indicates that these
are an important component of a comprehensive ED assessment (Reid, Epstein, Pastor, & Ryser, 2000).
Specically, the Behavior and Emotional Rating Scale-Second Edition (BERS-2), which has teacher,
parent, and youth rating scales, can be used to quantify a student’s strengths as an overall score (strength
index) and in the following domains: interpersonal strength, family involvement, intrapersonal strength,
school functioning, affective strength, and career and vocational strengths (Epstein, Mooney, Ryser, &
Pierce, 2004). Reid et al. (2000) found that the Behavior and Emotional Rating Scale could discriminate
between typical students and those with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), with typical students
scoring signicantly higher in all domains. In addition to the BERS-2, which solely assesses a student’s
strengths, the BASC-2 has Adaptive Scales, which measure strengths in addition to the Clinical Scales
that measure problem behaviors (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004).
The California School Psychologist, 2007, Vol. 12
55
CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS
Emotions, and thus behaviors and social interactions, vary across cultures, and as such, emotional
responses should be evaluated based on the student’s cultural norms (Mesquita and Walker, 2003). School
psychologists must balance understanding cultural norms with understanding the degree of inuence
these norms might have on an individual student. When conducting culturally competent assessment for
ED, it is important to consider assessment data with awareness of the societal and historical forces that
continue to affect minority students (Skiba et al., 2002). Additionally, because measuring emotions is
rather subjective, their assessment is more inuenced by cultural differences (Spielberger, 2006).
Given the growing diversity of the United States (as of the year 2000, about one third of the popula-
tion was of non-European background; Chen, Downing and Peckham-Hardin, 2002), school psycholo-
gists must understand the complexities of conducting culturally competent assessment of ED, especially
since there are a disproportionate number of minority students diagnosed as such (U.S. Department
of Education, 2003). Engaging in culturally competent assessment does not mean that culture should
account for everything, nor should the school psychologist discount its impact altogether (Cartledge,
Kea and Simmons-Reed, 2002); rather, culturally competent assessment involves an overall commit-
ment to data collection procedures that do not contribute to the over-identication of minority students
for special education (Skiba et al., 2002). Culturally competent assessment is much broader than simply
examining test bias (Harry & Klingner, 2006; Skiba et al., 2002; Skiba et al., 2006), and at the core of
the issue is ensuring that cultural factors and/or lack of educational opportunity are not contributing
signicantly to the student’s school difculties. Because overrepresentation is a multi-faceted issue,
which includes considering physical facilities, curriculum, expectations, and motivation, to name a few
(Skiba et al., 2002), school psychologists need to be well-informed about national and local initiatives to
examine overrepresentation. While an in-depth analysis of this topic is beyond the scope of this article,
readers are referred to the following sources: “Cultural and Linguistic Competency and Disproportionate
Representation” (Osher et al., 2004) and Why are so Many Minority Students in Special Education?:
Understanding Race & Disability in Schools (Harry & Klingner, 2006).
CONCLUSION
While ED assessments are complex, and the methods used to gather data have signicant limita-
tions, school psychologists can gain condence in the conclusions they draw if they do not over-rely on
any one assessment approach and consistently cross-validate their ndings using the RIOT model. In
addition to collecting data through the assessment methods described in this article, it is critical that the
school psychologist have an appreciation of the student’s strengths and an awareness of the complexity
of culturally competent assessment to reduce overrepresentation of minority students classied as ED.
By approaching the data collection from an ecological perspective, the school psychologist can present
a more complete picture of the student within the school environment and make appropriate recommen-
dations for interventions that focus on the environmental contributions to and functions of the student’s
behavioral and emotional responses.
The school psychologist should use data gathered from the assessment to make recommendations
for interventions and supports to help the student be more successful in school regardless of whether the
student qualies for special education services as ED. Recommendations should go far beyond simply
suggesting an appropriate placement. From conducting observations, the school psychologist should
be able to make recommendations about environmental and instructional strategies to help the student
Comprehensive Assessment of Emotional Disturbance
The California School Psychologist, 2007, Vol. 1256
experience greater success, as well as suggest ways to support the student’s behavior. From interviews
and strength-based approaches, the school psychologist is in a position to recommend strategies to capi-
talize on things the student enjoys and build on the student’s strengths. The school psychologist should
also recommend ways to help remediate areas of weakness and to build greater academic and social
competence.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. & McConaughy, S. H. (1987). Empirically based assessment of child and adolescent psychopa-
thology: Practical implications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Proles. Burlington, VT:
University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
Aklin, W. M., & Turner, S. M. (2006). Toward understanding ethical and cultural factors in the interviewing
process. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, and Training, 43, 50-64.
Angold, A., Weissman, M. M., John, K., Merikangas, K. R., Prusoff, B. A. Wickramaratne, P., Gammon, G. D., &
Warner, V. (1987). Parent and child reports of depressive symptoms in children at low and high risk of depres-
sion. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28, 901–915.
Barton, S., Morley, S., Bloxham, G., Kitson, C., & Platts, S. (2005). Sentence Completion Test for Depression
(SCD): An idiographic measure of depressive thinking. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 29-46.
Cartledge, G., Kea, C., & Simmons-Reed, E. (2002). Serving culturally diverse children with serious emotional
disturbance and their families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 113-126.
Chen, D., Downing J. E., Peckham-Hardin, K.D. (2002). Working with families of diverse cultural and linguistic
backgrounds. In J. M. Lucyshyn, R. H. Horner, & G. Dunlap (Eds.), Families and positive behavior support:
Addressing problem behavior in family contexts (pp. 133-151). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Co.
Chung-yan, G. A. & Cronshaw, S. F. (2002). A critical re-examination and analysis of cognitive abilities using the
Thorndike model of fairness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 489-509.
Dollinger, S. J. (1992). Idiographic and nomothetic child assessment: Convergence between the California Child
Q-Sort and the Personality Inventory for Children. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 585–590.
Edelbrock, C, Costello, A. J., Dulcan, M. K., Kalas, R., & Conover, N. C. (1985). Age differences in the reliability
of the psychiatric interview of the child. Child Development, 56, 265-275.
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 33-72.
Epkins, C. C. (1995). Teachers’ ratings of inpatient children’s depression, anxiety, and aggression: A preliminary
comparison between inpatient-facility and community-based teachers’ ratings and their correspondence with
children’s self-report. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 63–70.
Epstein, M. H. (1999). The development and validation of a scale to assess the emotional and behavioral strengths
of children and adolescents. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 258-262.
Epstein, M. H., Mooney, P., Ryser, G., & Pierce, C. D. (2004). Validity and reliability of the Behavior and Emotional
Rating Scale (2
nd
Edition): Youth Rating Scale. Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 358-367.
Epstein, M. H., & Sharma, H. M. (1998). Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale: A strength based approach to
assessment. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to intervention: Examining classroom
behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73, 288-310.
Friend, M. (2008). Special education: contemporary perspectives for school professionals. Boston: Pearson.
Garb, H. N., Wood, J. M., Lilienfeld, S. O. Nezworski, M. T. (2002). Effective use of projective techniques in
clinical practice: Let the data help with selection and interpretation. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 33(5) pp. 454-463.
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education?: Understanding race &
disability in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hodges, K., Cools, J., & McKnew (1989). Test-retest reliability of a clinical research interview for children: The
Child Assessment Schedule. Psychological Assessment, 1, 317-322.
Hodges, K., Kline, J., Stern, L., Cytryn, L., & McKnew, D. (1982). The development of a child assessment interview
for research and clinical use. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 173-189.
Hodges, K., & Saunders, W. (1989). Internal consistency of a diagnostic interview for children: The Child Assess-
ment Schedule. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 691-701.
The California School Psychologist, 2007, Vol. 12
57
Hodges, K., & Zeman, J. (1993). Interviewing. In T. H. Ollendick & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of child and
adolescent assessment (pp. 65-81). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hojnoski, R. L., Morrison, R., Brown, M., & Matthews, W. J. (2006). Projective test use among school psycholo-
gists: A survey and critique. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 145-159.
Holaday, M., Smith, D. A., & Sherry, A. (2000). Sentence Completion Tests: A review of the literature and results of a
survey of members of the Society of Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 371–383.
Jensen, P. S., Rubio-Stipec, M., & Canino, G. (1999). Parent and child contributions to diagnosis of mental disorder:
Are both informants always necessary? Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
38, 1569-1579.
Kamphaus, R. W., & Frick, P. J. (2005). Clinical assessment of child and adolescent personality and behavior (2nd
ed.). New York: Springer Science & Business Media, Inc.
Kovacs, M. (1986). A developmental perspective on the methods and measures in the assessment of depressive
disorders: The clinical interview. In M. Rutter, C. E. Izard, & P. B. Read (Eds.), Depression in young people:
Developmental and clinical perspective (pp. 435-465). New York: Guilford.
Kwate, N. O. A. (2001). Intelligence of misorientation? Eurocentrisim in the WISC-III. Journal of Black Psychology,
27, 221-236.
Landau, S., & Swerdlik (2005). What you see is what you get: A Commentary on school-based direct observation
systems. School Psychology Review, 34, 529-536.
Leung, B. P. (1993, November). Back to basics: Assessment is a R.I.O.T.! National Association of School Psycholo-
gists Communiqué, 22, 1-6.
March, J. S., Parker, J. D. A., Sullivan, K., Stallings, P., & Conners, C. K. (1997). The Multidimensional Anxiety
Scale for Children (MASC): Factor structure, reliability, and validity. Journal of American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 554-565.
Matto, H. C. (2002). Investigating the validity of the Draw-A-Person: Screening procedure for emotional distur-
bance: A measurement validation study with high risk youth. Psychological Assessment, 14, 221-225.
Matto, H. C., & Naglieri, J. A. (2005). Validity of the Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedures for Emotional Distur-
bance (DAP:SPED) in strengths-based assessment. Research on Social Work Practice, 15, 41-46.
Matto, H. C., Naglieri, J. A., & Clausen, C. (2005). Validity of the Draw-A-Person: Screening procedure for emotional
disturbance (DAP:SPED) in strengths-based assessment. Research on Social Work Practice, 15, 41-46.
McConaughy, S. H. (2005). Direct observational assessment during test sessions and child clinical interviews.
School Psychology Review, 34, 490-506.
McConaughy, S. H., & Ritter, D. (2002). Best practices in multidimensional assessment of emotional or behavioral
disorders. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 1303–1336).
Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Merrell, K. W. (2003). Behavioral, social, and emotional assessment of children and adolescents (2nd ed.) Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mesquita, B., & Walker, R. (2003). Cultural differences in emotions: A context for interpreting emotional experi-
ences. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 777-793.
Miller, D. N., & Nickerson A. B. (2006). Projective assessment and school psychology: Contemporary validity
issues and implications for practice. The California School Psychologist, 11, 73-84.
Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Naglieri, J. A., McNeish, T. J., & Bardos, A. N. (1991). Draw-A-Person: Screening procedure for emotional distur-
bance. Austin, TX: ProEd.
Osher, D., Cartledge, G., Oswald, D., Sutherland, K. S., Artiles, A. J., & Coutinho, M. (2004). Cultural and linguistic
competency and disproportionate representation. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R. Mathur (Eds.),
Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 54-77). New York: Guilford Press.
Rabin, A. I. & Zltogorski, Z. (1981). Completion methods: Word association, sentence, and story completion. In
A. I. Rabin (Ed.), Assessment with projective techniques: A concise introduction (pp. 126-149). New York:
Springer.
Reid, R., Epstein, M. H., Pastor, D. A., & Ryser, G. R. (2000). Strengths-based assessment differences across
students with LD and EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 346-355.
Reynolds, C.R., & Kamphaus, R.W. (2004). Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition (BASC-2).
Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
Roberts, G. E, & Gruber, C. (2005). Roberts-2. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Rogers, K., Bishop, J., & Lane, R. (2003). Considerations for the use of Sentence Completion Tests. Journal of
Contemporary Psychotherapy, 33, 235-242.
Comprehensive Assessment of Emotional Disturbance
The California School Psychologist, 2007, Vol. 1258
Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler,
Publisher.
Shapiro, E. S., & Heick, P. F. (2004). School psychologist assessment practices in the evaluation of students referred
for social/behavioral/emotional problems. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 551-561.
Skiba, R., Knesting, K., & Bush, L. (2002). Culturally competent assessment: More than nonbiased tests. Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 11, 61-78.
Skiba, R., Simmons, A., Ritter, S., Kohler, K., Henderson, M., & Wu, T. (2006). The context of minority dispropor-
tionality: Practitioner perspectives on special education referral. Teacher College Record, 108, 1424-1459.
Smith, D. & Dumont, F. (1995). A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the Draw-A-Person Test. Profes-
sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 298-303
Spielberger, C. D. (2006). Cross-cultural assessment of emotional states and personality traits. European Psycholo-
gist, 11, 297-303.
Teeter, P. A., & Korducki, R. (1998). Assessment of emotionally disturbed children with the WISC-III. In A. Pritera
& D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), WISC-III clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 119-
138). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
U.S. Department of Education (2003). Twenty-fth annual report to Congress on the implementation of Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Volpe, R. J., DiPerna, J. C., Hintze, J. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (2005). Observing students in classroom settings: A
review of seven coding schemes. School Psychology Review, 34, 454-474.
Watson, T. S. & Steege M. W. (2003). Conducting school-based functional behavioral assessments: A practitioner’s
guide. New York: The Guilford Press
Wright, D. B., Gurman, H. B., & The California Association of School Psychologists/Diagnostic Center, Southern
California Positive Intervention Task Force (2001). Positive interventions for serious problem behaviors: Best
practices in implementing the positive behavioral intervention regulations. Sacramento, CA: California Depart-
ment of Education.
