Psychology in the Schools, Vol.

45(9), 2008 
C 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pits.20327

SCHOOL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION

IN NEURODEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS
SCOTT L. DECKER
Georgia State University

The role of school psychologists with training in neuropsychology is examined within the context
of multitiered models of service delivery and educational reform policies. An expanded role is
suggested that builds on expertise in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders and extends
to broader tiers through consultation practice. Changes in federal legislation to allow more flexible
approaches toward assessment are viewed as a catalyst toward the integration of neuropsychological
practice in school-based practice. As a set of priorities, recommendations are made for reforming
assessment practice in schools, linking neuropsychological test results to academic treatment
outcomes, and developing consultation practice with parents and teachers for early identification
purposes and to integrate school-based services with community mental health services.  C 2008

Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Neuropsychology began through systematic observation of behavioral deficits as a result of brain

injury. As such, neuropsychology was defined as the study of brain-behavior relationships with a
primary focus in determining the presence or absence of brain injury and its localization (Dean,
Woodcock, Decker, & Schrank, 2003). Partially due to the advent of brain imaging technology
(magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], positron emission tomography [PET], regional cerebral blood
flow [rCBF]), contemporary neuropsychology has focused less on localizing brain injury and more
on measuring and documenting functional behavioral deficits (Dean, Woodcock, Decker, & Schrank,
2003; Reynolds & Fletcher-Janzen, 1997; Root, D’Amato, & Reynolds, 2005). Neuropsychology
has been one of the fastest growing specialties within psychology (Hebben & Milberg, 2002), and
neuropsychological measures have been found to be as accurate as many medical instruments and are
frequently included in forensic evaluations (Lezak, Howieson, & Loring, 2004; Meyer et al., 2001).
School neuropsychology has emerged as a specialty for the application of neuropsychology
in the schools (Hale & Fiorello, 2004; Miller, 2007). Components of school neuropsychological
practice have been extended to educational interventions, collaboration, crisis services, consulting,
research, development, and educational systems (Root et al., 2005). There is a tremendous need
and interest to extend neuropsychology in the schools by school psychologists (D’Amato, 1990;
D’Amato, Hammons, Terminie, & Dean, 1992).
However, school psychology training programs, while acknowledging the utility of neuropsy-
chology, typically lack the personnel to provide training in neuropsychology and do not plan to
provide such training in the near future (Walker, Boling, & Cobb, 1999). This problem appears per-
vasive in that neuropsychological knowledge is often not utilized in school-based practice because
of a lack of familiarity with the neuropsychological literature both in school psychology practice
(Hynd, 1981) and in school psychology training (Hartlage & Golden, 1990). Despite the interest,
numerous factors, including adherence to behavioral approaches, have reduced the incorporation of
neuropsychology into school psychology practice (Hynd & Obrzut, 1981).
Reduced topical representation of neuropsychology or neuropsychological topics can be found
in the school psychology literature. Investigation of the number of neuropsychological research
articles published in school psychology journals provides an indirect marker for examining such
trends. Toward this goal, a search through seven of the major school psychology journals for research

The author acknowledges Jessie Carboni, Kim Oliver, and Katrina Johnson for their editorial work on this
manuscript.
Correspondence to: Scott L. Decker, Counseling and Psychological Services, P.O. Box 3980, Atlanta, GA 30302.
E-mail: sdecker@gsu.edu

799
800 Decker

Table 1
Representation of Neuropsychology Articles in Major School Psychology Journals

Journal 1900–1980 % 81–85 % 86–90 % 91–95 %

SPI 0 of 26 0.00% 5 of 155 3.20% 5 of 166 3.00% 3 of 125 2.40%

PIS 18 of 1094 1.60% 5 of 408 1.20% 2 of 263 0.70% 4 of 204 2.00%
JSP 14 of 641 2.20% 4 of 199 2.00% 8 of 183 4.40% 9 of 193 4.70%
SPQ 0 of 0 0.00% 0 of 0 0.00% 2 of 126 1.60% 8 of 120 6.70%
JAS* 0 of 0 0.00% 1 of 49 2.00% 0 of 68 0.00% 0 of 44 0.00%
CJSP 0 of 0 0.00% 0 of 0 0.00% 0 of 0 0.00% 3 of 50 6.00%
SPR 2 of 186 1.10% 17 of 283 6.00% 6 of 233 2.60% 11 of 235 4.70%

Journal 1996–2000 % 2001–2005 % 2006–2007 %

SPI 2 of 129 1.60% 2 of 164 1.20% 1 of 53 1.90%

PIS 5 of 203 2.50% 21 of 370 5.70% 4 of 130 3.10%
JSP 10 of 182 5.50% 6 of 239 2.50% 1 of 65 1.50%
SPQ 2 of 109 1.80% 3 of 148 2.00% 3 of 41 7.30%
JAS* 0 of 10 0.00% 0 of 73 0.00% 0 of 8 0.00%
CJSP 2 of 58 3.40% 1 of 52 1.90% 0 of 0 0.00%
SPR 10 of 217 4.60% 1 of 221 0.50% 0 of 63 0.00%

Notes. Chart of articles returned from a keyword search of “neuro*” or “brain” from school psychology journals
compared to all articles from those journals on September 3, 2007. Percentages are listed. SPI: School Psychology
International; PIS: Psychology in the Schools; JSP: Journal of School Psychology; SPQ: School Psychology Quarterly;
JAS: Journal of Applied School Psychology; CJSP: Canadian Journal of School Psychology; SPR: School Psychology
Review.
∗ From 1984 through 2002 JAS was published under the title, Special Services in the Schools.

articles containing the keywords “neuro*” (e.g., neuropsychology, neuropsychological, neuropsych)

and “brain” was conducted between the years 1900 and 2007. Articles found from 1900 through
1980 were grouped together and then subsequently grouped by 5-year intervals up until 2006
through 2007. Table 1 displays the number of neuropsychological articles published along with the
total number of articles published within the time period and the percentage of neuropsychological
articles represented in each journal. As shown in the table, representation of neuropsychological
topics has always been low across all journals with some increase around 1991 through 1995.
After 1995, the trend appears to be on the decline rather than on the rise. Assuming that school
psychologists develop topic familiarity by reading school psychology journals, familiarity with
neuropsychology is unlikely to occur through school psychology resources. Similar results have
been found elsewhere (Miller, 2007).
There are numerous reasons for the slow integration of neuropsychological research into school
psychology (Gaddes & Edgell, 1994; Hale & Fiorello, 2004), despite the fact that school psycholo-
gists are ideally suited to be trained in neuropsychological methods (Miller, 2007). The precarious
inclusion of neuropsychology in the schools and the relative lack of exposure to neuropsychologi-
cal research are important to consider when evaluating educational reform policies and concurrent
legislative changes in federal law.

T HE C HANGING P RACTICE OF P SYCHOLOGY IN THE S CHOOLS

Response to Intervention (RTI) has become the predominant model of school psychology
service delivery. There is a lack of agreement in defining RTI. One model primarily represents a
behavioral orientation of single-subject monitoring of academic interventions. However, this model is

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Neuropsychological Consultation 801

typically embedded within a multitiered model that includes systemic changes in general education.
As such, adoption of RTI requires a major change in role responsibilities of school psychologists in
practice and training (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005; Deno, 2002; Gresham, 2002; Reschly, 1988,
2000; Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002; Tilly, 2002). Advocacy for RTI has already significantly impacted
federal law, and RTI procedures are incorporated into the reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 (IDEA, 2004). Language used in the RTI
approach emphasizes a shift away from individualized psychoeducational testing toward curriculum-
based measurement (CBM) and behaviorally oriented procedures (Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002; Tilly
& Grimes, 1998).
Although RTI shows considerable promise, it has been intertwined with political and ideological
preferences in educational reform (Holdnack & Weiss, 2006; Kavale & Forness, 2000). RTI has been
viewed as an alternative to the Regular Education Initiative (REI) and the “Inclusion Movement,”
which seek to discontinue or reduce special education funding and reallocate financial resources
to regular education (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005; Reynolds, 1988). RTI has been promoted
by those who oppose categorical services that rely on norm-referenced assessment to discontinue
assessment practice, particularly intellectual assessment (Gresham & Noell, 1999). Similarly, RTI
has been promoted through antitesting sentiment used to discredit the use of norm-referenced mea-
surements as a “wait to fail,” “test and place,” or “gatekeeper” enterprise (see Holdnack & Weiss,
2006 for a review). The incorporation of politically based sentiment in promoting RTI and dis-
crediting individualized assessment practice has significantly impacted objective appraisals of both
methodologies, and it is important for school neuropsychologists to be aware of these controversies.
Similarly, criticisms of diagnostic categories, particularly learning disabilities, are influenced
by political and educational opinion, especially from those who wish to redistribute funding re-
sources from special education to low-income children in general education (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2002;
Fuchs & Young, 2006). For example, Ysseldyke et al. (1997) suggested that Specific Learning Dis-
abilities (SLD) is a socially invented concept and that SLD and Low Achievement (LA) are identical
(Ysseldyke, Alzozzine, Richey, & Graden, 1982). These conclusions have been challenged and
found to be a result of methodology biases in a reanalysis of these data (Kavale & Forness, 1994),
and subsequent longitudinal studies have reliably replicated the separation of SLD from LA groups
(Short, Feagans, McKinney, & Appelbaum, 1986). Because of such controversies, the Learning Dis-
abilities Roundtable (2005) has explicitly stated that the concept of SLD is valid and neurologically
based (as well as that RTI is helpful, which is not a contradiction). Meta-analyses leave “no doubt”
that such groups can be distinguished (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2002). Numerous neuropsychological studies
have even documented neurological differences in activation patterns and morphological features in
children with reading disabilities (Shaywitz, 2003), and advocates of children with learning disabili-
ties have raised concerns (Mather & Kaufman, 2006). Nonetheless, the validity of SLD is continually
questioned but done so primarily in the context of advocating for reform in education and school
psychology (Gresham & Witt, 1997; Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002). These conclusions are further
promoted when school districts mandated to develop an RTI approach consult RTI resources (many
of which contain antitesting and noncategorical advocacy as a rationale for implementing RTI).
As an additional caution, research validating the benefits afforded by RTI and problem-solving
models is unclear. Positive outcomes promised by problem-solving models have been questioned
(Telzrow, McNamara, & Hollinger, 2000), particularly because some pilot studies are over two
decades old and still lack empirically defensible evidence (Naglieri & Crockett, 2005). Lack of
empirically validated benefits has been found across multiple studies (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, &
Young, 2003). In a review of these studies, Fuchs et al. (2003) concludes that there is insufficient
evidence for RTI approaches and the claim that such models are “scientifically-based” is unproven. In
reviewing field studies, the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) concludes

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

802 Decker

that many key questions on RTI have not yet been addressed (NJCLD, 2005). Similar conclusions
have been made from other professions who do not have a political stake in the outcome (Graner
& Faggella-Luby, 2005). Alarm about the widespread implementation of RTI approaches in light of
the empirical data has been raised (Hale, Naglieri, Kaufman, & Kavale, 2004; Kavale, Holdnack, &
Mostert, 2006; Naglieri & Crockett, 2005).
Although many legitimate criticisms of assessment practice have accumulated over the last
30 years, most problems are the result of faulty application of tests and over-reliance on simplistic
single-dimension approaches (e.g., IQ-achievement discrepancy approaches) in making complex di-
agnostic decisions, which have proliferated in school psychology primarily for bureaucratic purposes
(Mather & Kaufman, 2006). However, these criticisms have been exaggerated for the purpose of
discontinuing individualized assessment practice, promoting RTI, or promoting educational reform
(Kavale et al., 2006).
The point of this review is not to discredit RTI or problem-solving methodologies or to deny
problems with assessment practice or SLD diagnosis. RTI has many benefits, and there are undoubt-
edly problems with assessment practice in schools. Sufficient evidence already exists to suggest
that school psychology practice will, indeed, evolve more toward “curriculum specialists” providing
general educational support using CBM with reduced emphasis in psychological assessment and
disability services (Holdnack & Weiss, 2006; Reschly & Grimes, 2002; Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002;
Tilly, 2002; Ysseldyke et al., 1997). However, it is important to understand that this change in per-
spective may inadvertently provide a barrier to integrating neuropsychological services in schools.
This change in focus will clearly impact the quality of individualized comprehensive assessment
services provided in schools. Although it was not the intention of Congress to release schools from
the requirements of individualized assessments, antitesting sentiment as part of RTI has led many
scholars and state regulators to the conclusion that individualized evaluations using cognitive or psy-
chological tests are of minor importance (Holdnack & Weiss, 2006). Importantly, theses criticisms
and perspectives on assessment have been generalized to neuropsychological assessment, which is
viewed as a set of techniques that simply extends assessment practice (Reschly & Gresham, 1989).
As such, it is possible for neuropsychology to be systematically excluded during the implementation
of RTI models.

S TRATEGY FOR A DAPTING TO C HANGE IN S CHOOL P SYCHOLOGY

For school psychologists and neuropsychologists who specialize in assessment practice and
wish to integrate neuropsychological methodology in school-based assessments, there are philo-
sophical aspects of RTI, including antitesting sentiment and REI-based educational reform, that may
serve as an impediment to integrating neuropsychology in the schools. However, there are also many
aspects of RTI that may be viewed as a facilitator of neuropsychological assessment practice in
schools.
School neuropsychologists have much to offer school psychology as it transitions toward mul-
titiered models. Toward integrating neuropsychological practice within the context of a multitiered
system, consultation practice based on the expertise of neurodevelopmental disorders is recom-
mended. Components of this practice include (a) school-based expertise in neurodevelopmental
disorders, (b) reform guidelines for providing a comprehensive assessment informed by neuropsy-
chological methodology for identifying neurodevelopmental disorders, (c) evidence-based methods
for developing interventions informed by neuropsychological assessment for children with neu-
rodevelopmental disorders, and (d) provide broad educational consultative services for teachers
and parents on neurodevelopmental disorders. As supplementary goals, promoting contemporary
research-based individualized assessment practices that approximate neuropsychological methods,
promoting competency standards in individualized assessment, and supporting diversification and

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Neuropsychological Consultation 803

differentiation of school-based services for children with neurodevelopmental and other disabilities
rather than the reduction of special services in schools are recommended.
As a basis for this argument, neuropsychology has relevance to almost every eligibility category
specified in special education law. Clearly, children with traumatic brain injury or suspected neuro-
logical insult require neuropsychological services. However, many other conditions brought to the
attention of school psychologists are known to have a neuropsychological basis. Broad consensus
exists for the neurological basis of SLD that includes genetics (Decker & Vanderberg, 1985) and
brain development (Gaddes & Edgell, 1994; Hynd, Semrud-Clikeman, & Lyytinen, 1991; NJCLD,
2005; Torgesen, 1991). The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) position state-
ment acknowledges SLD as the result of neurologically based deficits in cognitive processing (NASP,
2007). Similarly, contemporary research on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) indi-
cates a neurological basis involving frontal lobe activation and dopamine neurotransmitter systems
(Barkley, 1997). Often treatment of ADHD (see Goldstein and Naglieri, in this issue) involves
stimulant medication, which acts on the neurotransmitter systems of the brain and is a prime area
for school psychologists to develop RTI methods that establish the effective or ineffective utility
of psychopharmacological treatments in children, which may include discontinuation and contin-
uation guidelines for psychopharmacological treatments. Autism (see Allen, Robins, & Decker,
in this issue) and other pervasive developmental disabilities are known to have a biological basis
(Smalley & Collins, 1996). Other conditions (including mental retardation, seizures [see Titus et al.,
in this issue], depression, anxiety, fetal alcohol syndrome, cerebral palsy, Tourettes, etc.) are also
known to have a neurological involvement. Finally, neuropsychology has significantly contributed
to understanding all areas of academic achievement for typically and atypically developing children
(Berninger & Richards, 2002)
Children with special needs are likely to increase in numbers and, thus, so will the need for
expertise in understanding a biopsychosocial perspective and capability in distinguishing typical
from atypical development (Miller, 2007). Concurrently, reduced federal funding for children with
handicapping conditions require school districts to become responsible for a more intense level of
care (Fletcher-Janzen, 2005). Here, RTI models are important in that more services are provided
to more children without overwhelming special education. However, school psychology training,
moving away from assessment, reduces the importance in identifying, and thus, understanding
neurodevelopment. Regardless of whether or not RTI models are used, educational personnel rely
on psychologists for guidance and an informed opinion in understanding these conditions. School
psychologists with specialized training in neuropsychology are arguably not only the best prepared
to provide individualized assessment in multitiered systems, but may also be the best prepared to
function in consultation roles with educational personnel on atypical neurodevelopment in children.
Additionally, school neuropsychologists are perhaps the best prepared to rapidly incorporate ad-
vancing research from multiple areas including medicine, psychopharmacology, and neuroscience,
as well as psychology and learning theory to an educational context (Davis, 2006).

R EFORM IN S CHOOL -BASED A SSESSMENT P RACTICE

One obvious area where school neuropsychologists may contribute to reform efforts is assess-
ment and testing practice in school psychology. School neuropsychologists have long awaited the
opportunity to change assessment practice in the schools, but traditional educational law has been
viewed as a barricade (McIntosh & Decker, 2005). However, recent changes in federal guidelines
(IDEA, 2004) reduce adherence to mechanical approaches, such as IQ-achievement discrepancy, in
assessment. Schools may not require an ability-achievement discrepancy and may permit alterna-
tive methods that are based on evidence and research. Furthermore, a “comprehensive evaluation,”
although undefined, is still required. Because the multidisciplinary team may allow alternative

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

804 Decker

scientifically based methods depending on whether the team believes the method will make a contri-
bution to the decision making of the team, disseminating scientific research on neuropsychological
assessment to school psychologists and multidisciplinary team members in schools is of high im-
portance for school neuropsychology advocates (Federal Register, 2006).
Concurrently, many assessment instruments used by school psychologists have been adapted for
neuropsychological applications, which would facilitate the transition toward neuropsychological
methodology. To name just a few, the Dean-Woodcock Neuropsychological Assessment System has
been adapted for use with the Woodcock-Johnson Third Edition (Dean et al., 2003). The Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition, contains an integrated model (Wechsler, 2003). The
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition, includes interpretive methods based on
Luria’s method (see Horton & Reynolds, in this issue for a review of Luria’s theory). The Cognitive
Assessment System (CAS) also involves neuropsychological concepts from Luria’s theory (see
Goldstein & Naglieri, in this issue). For many school psychologists who have solely relied on the
IQ-achievement discrepancy formula, becoming familiar with the neuropsychological applications
of common instruments may be an opportunity.
Additionally, the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of intelligence and its operationalization in
a Cross-Battery Assessment procedure may also improve school psychology assessment practice and
facilitate the integration of neuropsychological methodology in school-based assessments. The CHC
model benefits from more than a half-century of validity research on psychometric, developmental,
heritability, academic outcome, and neurocognitive evidence (Flanagan & Harrison, 2005; Flanagan
& Ortiz, 2005; McGrew, Keith, Flanagan, & Vanderwood, 1997). The CHC model is a multitiered
model of intelligence, with tiers typically referred to as strata I, II, and III (Carroll, 1997). The
broad abilities of stratum II are functionally similar to constructs measured in neuropsychology,
although labels used to describe the measurements may differ (Dean et al., 2003). For example,
neuropsychologists are familiar with constructs like executive functions, with such tests as the
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Halstead’s Category Test, and the Trail Making Test, whereas school
psychologists use equivalent concepts, like fluid intelligence. Psychometrically, these constructs
are highly related but may differ in theoretical specifications (Decker, Hill, & Dean, 2007). The
CHC and Cross-Battery Assessment approaches shift assessment practice from IQ composites
to neurodevelopmental functions. This transition can be facilitated by training in contemporary
psychometric models (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007). Furthermore, integrating Cross-Battery
Assessment approaches within a global hypothesis-testing approach (Hale & Fiorello, 2004) may
provide the best “alternative” method that meets federal requirements for a comprehensive evaluation.
Perhaps more importantly than shifting measurement techniques, neuropsychological ap-
proaches facilitate a conceptual shift in thinking about assessment practice. Neuropsychologists
place more emphasis on the measurement of neurodevelopmental functions. As such, broad global
composites, such as IQ, have long been known to have little utility (Lezak, 1988). Consequently,
neuropsychologists have relied more on functional deficits (e.g., phonological processing) to explain
academic problems (e.g., reading) rather than IQ-achievement discrepancies. Interventions, when
conducted, are targeted based on the specific functional deficits contributing to an academic prob-
lem. Such methodology provides greater specificity in constructing interventions. Additionally, it
provides a neurocognitive language, such as rapid lexical retrieval or sequential visual scanning, as
the intervention target that would otherwise remain elusive. Without such a language, intervention
design will remain a blunt tool generally targeted at global academic constructs.
Another related area for reform is educational diagnostic coding. Diagnostic coding based on
more homogeneous grouping of children by functional deficits is an essential goal for any treat-
ment approach. Current eligibility categories serve more as administrative rather than diagnostic
purposes (Wodrich & Schmitt, 2006). Ample work has been completed in determining subgroups

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Neuropsychological Consultation 805

from psychometric methods (Kamphaus, 1993; Morris et al., 1998; Rourke, 1989). Additionally,
coding systems such as the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) (American
Psychiatric Association, 2000) or International Classification of Disabilities 10 (ICD-10) provide di-
agnostic labels which in turn provide access to empirically based research; educational classification,
such as Emotional Behavioral Disturbance (EBD) or Other Health Impaired (OHI), do not. Changes
in both assessment practice and diagnostic coding would also clarify many research areas including
Attribute-Treatment Interaction (ATI), frequently cited as a criticism of assessment (Gresham &
Witt, 1997; Reschly & Grimes, 2002), because overall composites such as IQ are used as attributes
typically from a heterogeneous group, which significantly confounds ATI research (Speece, 1990).
Next, consideration should be given to quality control and defining professional competence
in school psychology assessment practice. The majority of school psychologists are not trained
in contemporary measurement procedures (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2005) and, given the shift toward
de-emphasizing training and practice in individualized assessment, it is unlikely that assessment
training will improve without a corrective course of action. As previously mentioned, NASP’s
Blueprint clearly has difficulty incorporating assessment practice within their shared vision due to
preconceived notions of assessment. The Blueprint describes assessment practice as “simple psy-
chometrics” and contrasts such practice with NASP’s preferred vision that “moves the profession
away from sorting and sifting children, based on now discredited notions of fixed capacities to learn,
toward a commitment to enabling institutions and individuals to realize their enormous capacities to
grow, improve, and adapt more successfully (Ysseldyke et al., 1997, p. 12). It is unfortunate that such
a contrast is made as assessment practice is not in contrast with helping children grow and adapt;
institutions can be changed one mind at a time. Specialized credentialing beyond a general school
psychology degree has been one suggestion to adapt to the widening differences in professional
preparation (Reynolds & Hynd, 2005). Specialization may better ensure that appropriate assessment
training is implemented for professionals with the important task of identifying and helping children
with atypical neurodevelopment. This may also provide school psychology programs that do not wish
to emphasize individualized assessment in training the freedom to concentrate on other procedures,
such as CBM, but would appropriately prohibit unqualified students from providing assessment ser-
vices in schools. In contrast, changes to school psychology assessment training that better integrates
neuropsychological methodology could be required. Regardless, allowing the continued ineffectual
use of testing practice provides no benefits to children, school psychology, or assessment practice.
Also, whether through credentialing or training, distinctions need to be made in the type of services
provided by school psychologists within a multitiered model. RTI training procedures, which use
achievement probes such as word reading rate, report results under the label of “Psychological Eval-
uations” (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005). Reporting CBM data as a “psychological evaluation”
confuses and misleads school personnel by suggesting that academic support constitutes psycholog-
ical services. Additionally, such practice raises numerous ethical issues because RTI data, in most
circumstances, can be obtained without parental consent, which means that a child would have on
file a psychological report without parent notification or consent. More appropriate distinctions, such
as “Instructional Report” or “Curriculum Monitoring Report” should be made in multitiered service
models to distinguish these services.

C ONSULTATION IN S CHOOL N EUROPSYCHOLOGY

Consultation has been viewed as an important function for school psychologists (Gutkin &
Curtis, 1999; Meyers, Meyers, & Grogg, 2004) and as the new primary role of school psychologists
as the need to work with individual students has become secondary (Ysseldyke et al., 1997).
Consultation has also been suggested practice for school neuropsychologists as well (Hale & Fiorello,
2004; Hynd & Obrzut, 1981; Root et al., 2005). However, school neuropsychology consultation

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

806 Decker

practice has been limited in schools, perhaps due to the continued perception that neuropsychological
knowledge is only relevant for brain injury cases (Hynd, 1981). Additionally, consultation practice
has not been a systematic area of research in school neuropsychology. Within a multitiered model,
consultation may also be a primary role for school neuropsychologists.
The rationale for advocating for school neuropsychologists’ expansion in consultation is based
on the following principle: To prevent or intervene on a condition, one must be able to identify
and understand the condition. School neuropsychologists with integrated training from multiple
disciplines, knowledge of distinguishing atypical from typical development, and knowledge of how
neurodevelopment disorders uniquely manifest in a single individual, are the logical choice of expert
for consultation in early prevention programs. Knowledge of neurodevelopmental conditions affects
how early screening efforts are conceptualized. For instance, early identification at Tier I of a
multitiered system primarily focuses on universal screening with academic probes (Derr-Minneci
& Shapiro, 1992; NASP, 2003; Shinn, 1995). As an example, letter or word fluency measures from
Dynamic Indicator of Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) are frequently used for this purpose. This
makes sense if one views developmental conditions, like SLD, as a result of faulty learning. However,
neuropsychological research has long known that sensory-motor, tactile, and perceptual measures
provide the best early detection of a neurodevelopmental disorder (Blumsack, Lewandowski, &
Waterman, 1997; Dean et al., 2003; Ellison & Semrud-Clikeman, 2007; Reitan & Wolfson, 2003;
Rourke, 1989; Rourke & Strang, 1978). Academic content measures have significant individual
variability at earlier age ranges making it almost impossible to determine which child is typical
versus atypical. These measurement issues also impact the base-rates, sensitivity, and specificity
of the instruments used (Franklin & Krueger, 2003), which is not considered in most screening
approaches.
The evolving model for school psychologist involvement in broad educational screening (Tier I)
of all children with academic probes requires significant time investment that includes personnel
training and coordination, test administration, and data management, which is why school psy-
chology training appropriately calls for a new model of practice. However, it is evident that such
a model will have less time for developing assessment practice. As an alternative for school neu-
ropsychologists, a model involving differing levels of consultation involvement with teachers is
recommended. Teachers spend the most time interacting with children and intuitively sense when
a child’s behavior deviates from the local norm. However, teachers’ intuitions are often sensitive
for atypical development but not specific for any particular condition. Teachers need ready access
to a professional capable of verifying their intuitive concerns. Consultation practice in school neu-
ropsychology may first begin by supporting teachers in identifying critical signs and symptoms of
particular neurodevelopmental disorders. Educating teachers on appropriate signs and symptoms at
different age ranges helps to clarify referral concerns which serve to reduce over- and under-referrals.
Teacher behavioral checklists or rating scales provide rapid screening of core symptoms of different
neurodevelopmental conditions and help clarify referral concerns. Rating scales can include discrim-
inant validity to control for over-responding. By not testing every child, base-rate and false-positive
identifications become less of a concern. This approach helps legitimize the teacher’s concern rather
than, inconsequentially, blame the teacher’s instructional methods (which reduces referrals but for
the wrong reasons). Additionally, this approach does not require substantial changes in training
practice to maintain a focus on neurodevelopmental conditions.
Future school neuropsychology research may explore different methods of incorporating signs
of neurodevelopmental disorders within formal and informal teacher consultation practice. Addi-
tionally, multitiered models should ensure that children with severe neurodevelopmental conditions
(e.g., autism) are appropriately detected early and not routed through multiple layers of academic
monitoring when more intense and nonacademically based interventions are warranted (see Allen,

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Neuropsychological Consultation 807

Robins, and Decker, 2008). Upon detection of early warning signs of neurodevelopmental conditions,
follow-up observations by an individual trained to distinguish atypical from typical development
or formal assessment may be warranted. Finally, school neuropsychologists may consult in the im-
plementation of early screening procedures to ensure that relevant evidence on neurodevelopmental
and included in early screening procedures. Ensuring relevant neurodevelopmental evidence, such as
language or sensory-motor delays, is collected will prove beneficial in clarifying diagnostic decision
making if needed at Tier III.
Parent consultation is another important area for school neuropsychologists. Distinguishing
diagnostic conditions and providing accurate diagnostic feedback provides one of the most important,
but frequently discounted, benefits to parents (Wodrich & Schmitt, 2006). School psychologists
who lack the training in neurodevelopmental conditions not only may be unable to identify such
conditions but also may feel uncomfortable providing feedback to parents concerning their child’s
developmental status. Parents, who often know there is a problem but are unable to name it, are
increasingly overwhelmed with invalid information of “fad” research, but are desperate to try
anything. Diagnosis empowers parents. Explaining to parents that their child has a reading problem
because he or she only reads 25 words per minute does little to help the parents understand the
problem. Conversely, telling parents that their child has a reading disability due to phonological
processing allows parents to become self-directed allies in the intervention. With such information,
some parents even become consumers of empirical research published in journals. Diagnostic
explanations help to distill faulty attributions of the problem developed by both parents and teachers.
Given the neuropsychological underpinnings of many disorders, school neuropsychologists are in a
primary position to help parents understand the complexities of their child’s problem.
Empowering parents in mental health service delivery in school is a primary concern. As much
emphasis is placed on how “schools” misclassify students, which leads to excessive legal issues,
a model based on providing options in services to parents and allowing parents to make decisions
determined by the child’s unique needs is preferred. Individualized assessment practice helps parents
understand a child’s unique needs and also functions to determine which options are available or not
available for parents. Assessment based on functional skills can be linked to a range of appropriate
services that vary in intervention intensity, degree of inclusion, and financial need. During eligibility,
parents could be presented with a range of options and an agreement should be made on the type
of service to be given rather than what diagnostic classification to make to obtain services (i.e.,
Do you want to call your child SLD or MR!). Parents may choose to not accept services, with an
understanding that the child is obligated to abide by the rules of the general classroom without
exception; request that an initial in class intervention be attempted; or choose the most intense form
of intervention permitted by the diagnostic placement. Obviously, greater ranges of services may be
provided for children with greater functional deficits, like mental retardation, than for children with
SLD, so long as the service is justified by the assessment data. Essentially, parents, not schools, have
the right to choose from the education interventions and/or mental health services provided by the
school. Discontinuing special education, as an extreme form of RTI, reduces or eliminates choices.
Although parents have the responsibility for choosing mental health services, schools have the
responsibility for appropriately providing such services. Providing direct and accurate information
concerning a child’s neurodevelopmental status and corresponding risk factors not only informs this
process but is ethically needed to help parents make an informed choice.
Evidenced in the frustration of many parents from the lack of services in schools, integration
of community and private mental health services with school services is another important area of
leadership for school neuropsychological consultation. Viewing assessment as a form of advocacy
for children with disabilities (Mather & Kaufman, 2006), creative solutions are needed to prepare
for not only the reduced funding for children with special needs in schools but also with the reduced

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

808 Decker

expertise in school psychologists and other educational personnel in identifying and intervening in the
care of children with neurodevelopmental problems. In the short term, consideration should be given
to supporting and further differentiating special education and mental health services in schools,
rather than how to narrow or discontinue it. In the long term, an integration of private, community-
based mental health services with school-based services may be considered. Providing methods
of integrating standard federal funding with individualized services supplemented by parents or
government subsidies helps to empower parents to obtain services in addition to or beyond services
provided in schools. Whereas schools are unable or unwilling to provide services for financial
reasons, augmenting services based on additional funding such as insurance or personal payments
could be an option and a new way for parents to obtain improved mental health services. Empowering
parents with choices concerning the mental health services in schools reduces many limitations
faced by both schools and parents. Additionally, many of the controversies in the literature that are
bogged down by political and philosophical opinion on what procedures or interventions best benefit
children can be enhanced through a responsibly implemented market-driven service delivery model
with parent choice at its core. School neuropsychologists are in an important position to facilitate
partnerships with schools that involve universities, mental health providers in the community, medical
facilities, and psychologists in private practice to help deliver such services. Integration of such
services may help relieve schools from some of the financial burden in providing mental health
services, which is partially driving current educational reform seeking to discontinue or limit special
education. Partial privatization of school-based services provides a competitive basis that rewards
more effective methods that are not being resolved in the school psychology literature. This context
provides similar conditions in which clinical neuropsychology has emerged as a valuable profession
and may do so similarly for school neuropsychologists.

C ONCLUSION
Just as general neuropsychology has witnessed tremendous growth based on the capability to
meet the needs of patients, clinicians, and researchers by a willingness to change and adapt to new
demands (Costa, 1988; Johnstone, Coppel, & Townes, 1997), school neuropsychologists must do
the same. This article reviewed a proposal for adapting school neuropsychology practice within
an evolving and changing school psychology context toward multitiered service delivery. School
neuropsychologists face both challenges and opportunities from this change. School neuropsycholo-
gists, or school psychologists with neuropsychology training, may primarily contribute to education
by providing expertise in assessing and identifying neurodevelopmental disorders and conditions.
Changes in federal regulations provide a window of opportunity to reform assessment practice in
school psychology toward neuropsychological methodology. Assessment reform toward neuropsy-
chological methodology provides opportunities for consultation in neurodevelopmental conditions.
These suggestions for school neuropsychologists differ from standard school psychology multitiered
models in that the first step is to implement quality assessment practice with evidence-based decision
making that begins with individual assessment and radiates outward to classroom interventions and
consultation in general education in a sequential order. Neuropsychological training and knowledge
is needed to reinforce the core of school psychology practice and specialized credentialing that
distinguishes different approaches to providing psychological services. This model is viewed as
complementary to multitiered RTI models advocated by many school psychologists and would bet-
ter accommodate some school psychologists who may wish to more fully devote their time toward
specializing in curriculum design and intervention. School neuropsychologists with training that
faithfully represents the complexities of behavior at different levels and an insight into the workings
of cognition at the neural level have much to offer educational services and the field of school
psychology.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Neuropsychological Consultation 809

R EFERENCES
Allen, R. A., Robins, D. L., & Decker, S. L. (2008). Autism spectrum disorders: Neurobiology and current assessment
practices. Psychology in the Schools, 45(10), (in press).
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition, Text
Revision). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.
Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: constructing a unifying theory of
ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 65 – 94.
Berninger, V. W., & Richards, T. L. (2002). Brain literacy for educators and psychologists. New York: Academic Press.
Blumsack, J., Lewandowski, L., & Waterman, B. (1997). Neurodevelopmental precursors to learning disabilities: a preliminary
report from a parent survey. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 228 – 237.
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to intervention. New York: Guilford Press.
Carroll, J. B. (1997). The three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.),
Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (pp. 122 – 130). New York: Guilford Press.
Costa, G. (1988). Clinical neuropsychology prospects and problems. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2, 3 – 11.
D’Amato, R. C. (1990). A neuropsychological approach to school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 5, 141 – 160.
D’Amato, R. C., Hammons, P. F., Terminie, T. J., & Dean, R. S. (1992). Neuropsychological training in American Psycho-
logical Association-Accredited and Nonaccredited School Psychology Programs. Journal of School Psychology, 30,
175 – 183.
Davis, A. S. (2006). The neuropsychological basis of childhood psychopathology. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 503 – 512.
Dean, R. S., Woodcock, R. W., Decker, S. L., & Schrank, F. A. (2003). A cognitive neuropsychology assessment model.
In F. A. Schrank & D. Flanagan (Eds.), WJ III clinical use and interpretation: A scientists-practitioner perspective
(pp. 345 – 377). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Decker, S. L., Hill, S. K., & Dean, R. S. (2007). Evidence of construct similarity in executive functions and fluid reasoning
abilities. International Journal of Neuroscience, 117, 735 – 748.
Decker, S. N., & Vanderberg, S. G. (1985). Colorado twin study of reading disability. In D. B. Gray & J. F. Kavanaugh (Eds.),
Biobehavioral measures of dyslexia. Parkton, MD: York Press.
Deno, S. L. (2002). Problem solving as “best practice.” In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology
(Vol. 1, pp. 37 – 55). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychology.
Derr-Minneci, T. F., & Shapiro, E. S. (1992). Validating curriculum-based measurement in reading from a behavioral
perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 2 – 16.
Ellison, P. A., & Semrud-Clikeman, M. (2007). Child neuropsychology: Assessment and interventions for neurodevelopmental
disorders. New York: Springer.
Federal Register (2006). 34 Code of Federal Regulations 300.307(a)(3). Department of Education (Vol. 71).
Flanagan, D. P., & Harrison, P. L. (2005). Contemporary intellectual assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
Flanagan, D. P., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Best practices in intellectual assessment: Future directions. In D. P. Flanagan & P.
L. Harrison (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (Vol. 2). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychology.
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment: Second Edition. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Fletcher-Janzen, E. (2005). The school neuropsychological examination. In R. C. D’Amato, E. Fletcher-Janzen, & C. R.
Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of school neuropsychology (pp. 172 – 212). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Franklin, R. D., & Krueger, J. (2003). Bayesian inference and belief networks. In R. D. Franklin (Ed.), Prediction in forensic
and neuropsychology: Sound statistical practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Is “Learning Disability” just a fancy term for low achievement? A meta-analysis of reading
differences between low achievers with and without the label. Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for
the Future White Papers: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: definitions, evidence and
implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning and Disability Research & Practice, 18, 157 – 171.
Fuchs, D., & Young, C. L. (2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction.
Exceptional Children, 73, 8 – 30.
Gaddes, W. H., & Edgell, D. (1994). Learning disabilities and brain function: A neuropsychological approach. New York:
Springer.
Graner, P. S., & Faggella-Luby, M. N. (2005). An overview of responsiveness to intervention: What practitioners ought to
know. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 93 – 105.
Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities.
In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

810 Decker

Gresham, F. M., & Noell, G. H. (1999). Functional assessment as the cornerstone for noncategorical special education. In
D. Reschly, W. D. Tilly, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical
programming (pp. 49 – 80). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Gresham, F. M., & Witt, J. C. (1997). Utility of intelligence tests for treatment planning, classification, and placement
decisions: Recent empirical findings and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 249 – 267.
Gutkin, T. B., & Curtis, M. J. (1999). School-based consultation theory and practice: The art and science of indirect service
delivery. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (pp. 598 – 637). New York: Wiley.
Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner’s handbook. New York: Guilford Publications,
Inc.
Hale, J. B., Naglieri, J. A., Kaufman, A. S., & Kavale, K. A. (2004). Specific learning disability classification in the new
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: The danger of a good idea. The School Psychologist, 58, 6 – 13.
Hartlage, L. C., & Golden, C. J. (1990). Neuropsychological assessment techniques. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.),
The handbook of school psychology (2nd ed., pp. 431 – 457). New York: Wiley.
Hebben, N., & Milberg, W. (2002). Essentials of neuropsychological assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Holdnack, J. A., & Weiss, L. G. (2006). IDEA 2004: Anticipated implications for clinical practice - Integrating assessment
and intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 871 – 882.
Hynd, G. W. (1981). Rebuttal to the critical commentary on neuropsychology in the schools. School Psychology Review, 10,
389 – 393.
Hynd, G. W., & Obrzut, J. E. (1981). School neuropsychology. Journal of School Psychology, 19, 45 – 50.
Hynd, G. W., Semrud-Clikeman, M., & Lyytinen, H. (1991). Brain imaging in learning disabilities. In J. E. Obrzut & G. W.
Hynd (Eds.), Neuropsychological foundations of learning disabilities: A handbook of issues, methods and practice
(pp. 475 – 518). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 (IDEA), P. L. N.-., 118 Stat 2647. (2004).
Johnstone, B., Coppel, D., & Townes, B. D. (1997). The future of neuropsychology in medical specialties. Journal of Clinical
Psychology in Medical Settings, 4, 219 – 229 http://www.springerlink.com/content/u3616669704hp575/.
Kamphaus, R. W. (1993). Clinical assessment of children’s intelligence. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1994). Learning disabilities and intelligence: An uneasy alliance. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A.
Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities. (Vol. 8, pp. 1 – 63). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say or don’t say: A critical analysis. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 33, 239 – 256.
Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of spe-
cific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning and Disability Research & Practice, 29, 113 –
127.
Learning Disabilites Roundtable. (2005). Comments and recommendations on regulatory issues under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Public Law 108-446. Retrieved September 14, 2005, from
http://www.ncld.org/content/view/278/398/
Lezak, M. D. (1988). IQ: R. I. P. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 10, 351 – 361.
Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological Assessment (Fourth ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mather, N., & Kaufman, N. (2006). Introduction to the special issue, part one: It’s about the what, the how well, and the why.
Psychology in the Schools, 43, 747 – 752.
McGrew, K. S., Keith, T. Z., Flanagan, D. P., & Vanderwood, M. (1997). Beyond g: The impact of Gf-Gc specific cognitive
abilities research on the future use and interpretation of intelligence tests in the schools. School Psychology Review, 26,
189 – 210.
McIntosh, D. E., & Decker, S. L. (2005). Understanding and evaluating special education, IDEA, ADA, NCLB, and Section
504 in school neuropsychology. In R. C. D’Amato, E. Fletcher-Janzen, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of School
Neuropsychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., et al. (2001). Psychological testing and
psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56, 128 – 165.
Meyers, J., Meyers, A. B., & Grogg, K. (2004). Prevention through consultation: A model to guide future developments in
the field of School Psychology. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15, 257 – 276.
Miller, D. C. (2007). Essentials of school neuropsychological assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Morris, R. D., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Shaywitz, B. A., Stuebing, K. K., et al. (1998). Subtypes of
reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 347 – 373.
Naglieri, J. A., & Crockett, D. P. (2005). Response to intervention (RTI): Is it a scientifically proven method? Communique,
34, 38 – 39.
National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2003). NASP recommendations for IDEA reauthorization: Identific-
tion and eligibility determination for students with specific learning disabilities. Bethesda, MD: NASP.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Neuropsychological Consultation 811

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2007). NASP position statement on identification of students with
specific learning disabilities. Bethesda, MD: NASP.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 28, 249 – 260.
Reitan, R. M., & Wolfson, D. (2003). The significance of sensory-motor functions as indicators of brain dysfunction in
children. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 11 – 18.
Reschly, D. (2000). The present and future status of school psychology in the United States. School Psychology Review, 29,
507 – 522.
Reschly, D., & Grimes, J. (2002). Best practices in intellectual assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices
in School Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 763 – 773). Washington DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Reschly, D. J. (1988). Special education reform: School psychology revolution. School Psychology Review, 17, 459 – 475.
Reschly, D. J., & Gresham, F. M. (1989). Current neuropsychological diagnosis of learning problems: A leap of faith. In C. R.
Reynolds (Ed.), Child neuropsychology: techniques of diagnosis and treatment (pp. 503 – 519). New York: Plenum.
Reschly, D. J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2002). Paradigm shift: The past is not the future. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best
practices in school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 3 – 36). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Reynolds, C. R., & Fletcher-Janzen, E. (1997). Handbook of Clinical Child Neuropsychology. (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum.
Reynolds, C. R., & Hynd, G. W. (2005). School neuropsychology: The evolution of a specialty in school psychology. In R. C.
D’Amato, E. Fletcher-Janzen, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of school neuropsychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Reynolds, M. C. (1988). A reaction to the JLD special series on the Regular Education Initiative. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 21, 352 – 356.
Root, K. A., D’Amato, R. C., & Reynolds, C. R. (2005). Providing neurodevelopmental, collaborative, consultative, and
crisis intervention school neuropsychology services. In R. C. D’Amato, E. Fletcher-Janzen, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.),
Handbook of school Neuropsychology (pp. 15 – 39). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rourke, B., & Strang, J. D. (1978). Neuropsychological significance of variations in patterns of academic performance:
Motor, psychomotor, and tactile-perceptual abilities. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 3, 62 – 66.
Rourke, B. P. (1989). Introduction: the NLD syndrome and the white matter model. In Syndrome of nonverbal learning
disabilities: Neurodevelopmental manifestations (pp. 1 – 25). New York: Guilford Press.
Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level.
New York: Vintage Books.
Shinn, M. R. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement and its use in a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes
(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (Vol. III, pp. 547 – 568). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychology.
Short, E. J., Feagans, L., McKinney, J. D., & Appelbaum, M. I. (1986). Longitudinal stability of LD subtypes based on
age-and IQ-achievement discrepancies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 214 – 225.
Smalley, S. L., & Collins, F. (1996). Genetic, prenatal and immunological factors. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 26, 195 – 198.
Speece, D. L. (1990). Aptitude-treatment interactions: bad rap or bad idea? The Journal of Special Education, 24, 139 – 149.
Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to
student performance. School Psychology Review, 29, 443 – 461.
Tilly, W. D. (2002). Best practices in school psychology as a problem-solving enterprise. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes
(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (Vol. 1, pp. 21 – 36). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Tilly, W. D., & Grimes, J. (1998). Curriculum based measurement: One vehicle for systemic educational reform. In M. R.
Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 32 – 60). New York: Guilford.
Torgesen, J. K. (1991). Learning disabilities: Historical and conceptual issues. In B. Y. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning
disabilities (pp. 3 – 37). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Walker, N. W., Boling, M. S., & Cobb, H. (1999). Training of school psychologists in neuropsychology and brain injury:
Results of a national survey of training programs. Child Neuropsychology, 5, 137 – 142.
Wechsler, D. (2003). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Fourth ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corporation.
Wodrich, D. L., & Schmitt, A. J. (2006). Patterns of learning disabilities. New York: Guilford Press.
Ysseldyke, J., Alzozzine, B., Richey, L., & Graden, J. (1982). Declaring students eligible for disability services: Why bother
with the data? Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 37 – 43.
Ysseldyke, J., Dawson, P., Lehr, C., Reschly, D. J., Reynolds, M., & Telzrow, C. (1997). School psychology: A blueprint for
training and practice II. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits