Special Education Eligibility Research Articles

Examining the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Elementary Students’ Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors in Schools Implementing Tiered Systems

Examining the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Elementary Students’ Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors in Schools Implementing Tiered Systems

The Impact of Initial Level of Performance on Multidisciplinary Team Eligibility Decisions When Using Response to Intervention

When using response to intervention (RTI) for special education eligibility decisions, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) may use performance level and rate of improvement (ROI) as two metrics when evaluating student responsiveness. Although examining student responsiveness to instruction is a critical component of an evaluation using RTI, previous research suggests that final level of performance is the main factor in MDT decisions. ROI is influenced by pre-intervention performance and is also inherently captured in students’ postintervention level, potentially limiting ROI's utility as a distinct indicator of performance. To address these issues with ROI, this study examined whether initial performance level and ROI improve actual MDT decisions about special education eligibility beyond the final level of performance. Results indicate that initial level of performance and ROI add no additional value to predicting MDT's eligibility decisions when using RTI despite identified students having significantly lower initial performance levels and lower ROIs than their nonidentified peers.

Analysis of Prevalence Variations of Students With Deafblindness Across the United States

There is wide variability in the special education eligibility criteria for deafblindness across the United States. This study was a novel examination of variations in state factors, including eligibility criteria for deafblindness, to identify potential relationships between state factors and the number of students who are deafblind during the 2018–2019 school year. No state factors correlated to the OSEP Child Count population data. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed factors primarily relating to sensory disability professionals, which correlated to the National Center on Deaf-Blindness population data. Implications for students, personnel, and professional development offerings are discussed.

One step forward or two steps back? The attitudes of parents of students with disabilities regarding the amendment to the special education law in Israel

AbstractOne prominent change in the amendment to the Special Education Law in the State of Israel (2018) concerns the dissolution of placement committees and their transformation into characterization and eligibility committees. These characterization and eligibility committees determine children's eligibility for special education, whereas parents decide the nature of their school placement. Through in‐depth interviews with parents of school‐aged children with various disabilities, this study examined parents' perceptions of the change in the law and its effects on their children. The interviews revealed four key findings regarding parents' experiences of shifting to a characterization and eligibility committee. The ramifications of the gap between legislative intentions (top‐down educational policy) and parents' experiences as policy subjects (bottom‐up educational implementation) are discussed.

The Intersection of Systemic, Child, and Evaluation Factors in the Prediction of Autism Special Education Eligibility; Examining the Role of Race and Ethnicity.

Though there is evidence autism identification has been inequitable for populations who are culturally and linguistically minoritized, there is limited research that explains the issue of disproportionality and factors contributing to its occurrence, especially within an educational setting. To explore contributors to racial/ethnic disparities in autism special education eligibility, the current investigation evaluated child and evaluation characteristics as they relate to the absence of autism eligibility. Data were obtained from the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network Study and included children with behavioral characteristics consistent with autism and educational evaluation records. Despite documented characteristics consistent with autism, only 72% of the sample received educational services under autism eligibility. To characterize children without autism eligibility, hierarchical logistic regression was used to evaluate factors documented in evaluation records predicting the absence of autism eligibility. Factors influencing autism eligibility included behavioral characteristics documented, evaluation components completed, intellectual ability, and clinical diagnoses present. There was no unique contribution of race/ethnicity in predicting the absence of autism eligibility when accounting for these previous predictors, but many of these predictors differed by racial/ethnic group. Disproportionality in autism may be the manifestation of inequitable evaluation experiences, including experiencing less comprehensive evaluations, and not receiving an autism specific assessment. Though race/ethnicity did not uniquely contribute to the absence of autism eligibility above and beyond those combined factors, it is important to evaluate and reduce inequities experienced within the autism identification process for populations who are culturally and linguistically minoritized.

Using guided credible history interviews to establish special education eligibility for students with traumatic brain injury.

In Oregon in 2019, only 261 students were eligible for special education under the traumatic brain injury (TBI) category. Many students with TBIs are not treated by a medical provider, so the requirement for a medical statement could prevent eligible youth from receiving special education services. This study investigated barriers to using a medical statement to establish special education eligibility for TBI, support for using a guided credible history interview (GCHI), and training needs around GCHI. Among participants, 84% reported difficulty obtaining a medical statement for TBI eligibility determination, and 87% favored the GCHI as an alternative, though they reported a need for training in TBI and GCHI. The results support the use of GCHI to establish special education eligibility for TBI and informed Oregon's addition of GCHI to TBI special education eligibility determination.

Special Education Evaluation Considerations in a Post-pandemic Era.

While disruptions to typical education, special education, and psycho-educational service delivery practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have dissipated, their impact magnified educational systems' overreliance on evaluations to determine eligibility for special education and related services. Given that the potential for future disruptions is now ever-present, it is imperative that service providers learn from these recent experiences to improve typical policies, procedures, and practices under normal service delivery circumstances as well as to respond efficiently and effectively to any future disruptions, should they arise. To this end, this work presents several reminders and considerations for multidisciplinary teams related to assessment, testing, special education evaluations, and closely related processes exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

State Variation Regarding Other Health Impairment Eligibility Criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

The special education eligibility category that has come to be most commonly associated with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in recent years is Other Health Impairment (OHI). However, the eligibility criteria for the OHI disability category have been criticized for being especially vague, given that the disability category incorporates a wide range of health impairments without providing any additional specificity. Because states have the latitude to utilize more specific eligibility criteria than what is provided at the federal level, the purpose of the current study was to review state-level special education eligibility criteria for OHI, with particular interest in identifying the degree to which eligibility guidance exists specific to students with ADHD and the extent to which this guidance varies across states. Results suggested that wide state variation exists regarding eligibility guidance, with 22% of states utilizing the federal definition and only 14% of states providing elaboration regarding all three components of the federal definition. Whereas it was most common for states to provide additional guidance surrounding what is needed to establish that a student has a health impairment, less than half of states provided specific guidance surrounding the other two components of the federal definition. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.

Review of State Policies and Guidance for the Identification of Culturally and Linguistically Minoritized Students With Specific Learning Disabilities

The identification of specific learning disabilities (SLD) remains fraught with controversy and uncertainty about professionals’ capacity to appropriately identify special education eligibility. For students from linguistically minoritized backgrounds, the exclusionary clause prohibits the identification of learning difficulties primarily attributable to contextual or linguistic factors. Yet the ambiguity of the federal language may hinder application, making critical states’ interpretation and corresponding guidance for professional practice in eligibility determination. In this archival study, we systematically reviewed state departments’ education policies and related guidance on the identification of multilingual learners with SLD, with a focus on how states have articulated policies and procedures related to the federal exclusionary clause. Our findings demonstrate variability and depth of information across states pertaining to guidance regarding the exclusionary clause. Implications for practice and policy are provided.

Identifying Racial and Socioeconomic Biases in New Jersey Special Education Eligibility.

This study aimed to determine if eligibility for special education and related services (SERS) in New Jersey (NJ) is biased based on a child's racial/cultural background or socioeconomic status (SES). A Qualtrics survey was administered to NJ child study team personnel including speech-language pathologists, school psychologists, learning disabilities teacher-consultants, and school social workers. Participants were presented with four hypothetical case studies, which differed only in racial/cultural background or SES. Participants were asked to make SERS eligibility recommendations about each case study. An aligned rank transform analysis of variance test found a significant effect of race on SERS eligibility decisions, F(2, 272) = 2.391, p = .093. Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests further yielded that Black children had significantly higher levels of SERS ineligibility at the high-SES (z = -2.648, p = .008) and mid-SES (z = -2.660, p = .008) levels compared to White children. When comparing SES levels within race using Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests, White low-SES children had significantly higher levels of ineligibility for SERS compared to White high-SES children (z = -2.008, p = .045). These results suggest that Black children from high/mid SES are treated comparably to White children from low SES; these groups are more likely to be found ineligible for SERS compared to peers. Both race and SES play a role in SERS eligibility decisions in NJ. Students who are Black and/or from low-SES households are at risk for facing significant biases in schools that influence their educational placements. https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22185820.

Survey of Special Education Eligibility Criteria for the Category Visual Impairment Including Blindness

Introduction: Special education eligibility criteria vary across U.S. states; this study reports a systematic analysis of interstate eligibility criteria in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) category of visual impairments including blindness. Method: Eligibility criteria for all 56 U.S. states, territories, and Washington, DC, were collected and coded on 20 different variables. Variables included use of federal language, qualifying conditions, assessment components, and eligibility team member requirements. Results: Fourteen of 56 states use similar or identical eligibility criteria written in IDEA. Forty-one states (73%) included language that specified criteria or operationally defined what it meant to be a student with a visual impairment in their state. Although about half of the states included an eye report as part of the eligibility process, few specifically mentioned functional vision, learning media, and orientation and mobility assessments in their criteria. Discussion: Significant interstate variations in the interpretation of who qualifies as a student with a visual impairment exist in the United States. Some eligibility criteria were written in an unclear language, making the criteria hard to interpret. Given that identification and prevalence rates of students with disabilities, including students with visual impairments, correlate to components of eligibility criteria, future work should seek to develop an operationalized universal definition of who qualifies as a student with visual impairment in schools. Implications for Practitioners: Since significant interstate variations exist, students, families, and educators must have easy access to all states’ criteria so that families may understand how a student's eligibility for services may change if they move between states.

Impact of State-Level Changes to School-Based Autism Identification Criteria

School and medical settings often use different identification criteria for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a neurodevelopmental disability affecting social-communication, behavioral patterns, and sensory experiences. Further, individual states may use varied definitions for special education eligibility. On January 1, 2019, the State of Oregon began implementing overhauled statewide criteria and evaluation requirements for ASD special education eligibility that directly align with current medical system criteria specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Immediately following these changes, and then again 1 year later in January of 2020 (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic), we surveyed school-based practitioners across the state about their ASD evaluation practices as well as their knowledge, training, and beliefs regarding the newly revised standards. Our results indicated that practitioners felt more familiar with and had received better training on the new standards after a full year of implementation and that 58% of practitioners had changed their evaluation procedures in some way. However, 74% of practitioners reported that despite these changes, there was no difference in the number of students being found eligible for an ASD diagnosis, indicating that the real-world impact of the statewide policy change might be more limited than initially believed. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

Assessment of Co-Occurring Disabilities in Young Children Who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Overall, the literature is clear that more research is needed on various assessment techniques for identifying co-occurring disabilities in young children who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH). As individualized, norm-referenced assessment measures are updated to keep up with the changing demographics of the United States, there appears to be more of an effort to include children with various disabilities within the standardization samples; however, the communication barriers and required assessment accommodations remain the most salient with DHH students. Because accommodations are test-specific, psychologists must be cognizant of the accommodation and interpretation procedures of each test they select for an assessment battery when attempting to determine co-occurring diagnoses or special education eligibility categories for young children who are DHH. This article reviews the literature on the assessment of common co-occurring disabilities in young children, including intellectual disability, specific learning disability, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and emotional and behavioral disorders.

‘경계선급 지적기능성’ 통일된 용어 제안 및 교육지원 쟁점과 과제

An integrative review of 41 Korean research articles(Korea Citation Index, KCI) on the students with ‘borderline intellectual functioning (BIF)’ which were published from 2010 to May 2022 was conducted. The research trend, the use of terms related with ‘BIF’, the common characteristics of the ‘BIF’ students, and the educational supports to each characteristic were all examined. One controversial topic in the Korean contemporary special education delivery system is an increase in interest toward students who do not belong to the 10 disability types(e.g., intellectual disability, physical disability, etc.) that constitute the eligibility for Korean special education but still need educational supports. One of them is a group of ‘BIF’ students. As a result of this literature review, six terms related to ‘BIF’ were identified and their definitions were presented. The common characteristics of ‘BIF’ students were identified by four factors: cognitive and learning, language, social and emotional, and motor functional characteristics; furthermore, the detailed descriptions and each of their educational supports were summarized. This study proposes the coherent use of the term ‘borderline intellectual functioning’ and calls for cooperative brainstorming among professionals, parents, and education authorities to establish a system of public educational supports for BIF students and follow-up research.

Can clinical judgement overcome flawed materials when assessing black children: The need for more intervention-based pedagogy and less assessment negligence

Albert Beckham, who was the first Black school psychologist in the U.S., frequently used intelligence tests with Black children. This usage required clinical decision making to explain the results obtained from psychoeducational assessments. In their discussion of this aspect of Beckham’s work, introduce the concept of Culturally Relevant Clinical Judgement. This paper discusses issues related to the continued use of cognitive assessment instruments as it relates to clinical judgment in special education eligibility decision-making in comparison to alternatives such as Response-to-Intervention (RtI).

School psychologists and autism identification: Present challenges and potential solutions

AbstractAlthough federal law has provided guidelines for autism eligibility for special education, school‐based autism assessment and eligibility vary widely across states and identification continues to lag behind national prevalence data. The main role of the school psychologist continues to be conducting evaluations for special education eligibility, and given current barriers, some school psychologists do not feel equipped to make a recommendation for autism eligibility. This article summarizes the barriers school psychologists face when conducting autism assessments in the schools, including systemic barriers, lack of training or professional development, resulting lack of confidence, among others. We conclude by highlighting recommendations for multipronged systemic changes that will improve the capacity of special education teams and specifically support the pivotal role of the school psychologist in conducting autism eligibility evaluations in the schools.

Examining the Impact of Federal Specific Learning Disability Inclusionary Criteria on Multidisciplinary Team Decision Making When Using Response to Intervention

There are still many unanswered questions regarding the application of response to intervention (RTI) to making eligibility decisions for specific learning disabilities (SLD). Both U.S. federal regulations and research support that students identified with SLD using RTI should be deficient in both level of academic functioning and rate of growth in response to scientifically based instruction. To date, there is little research examining whether these eligibility criteria are predictive in identifying students with SLD by evaluation teams in schools. Two studies conducted in different U.S. states examined if level of academic performance and rate of improvement (ROI) using curriculum-based measurement in reading (CBM-R) predicted student eligibility for special education. Logistic regression results indicated that level of performance predicted special education eligibility across sites and that ROI did not. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Progress and Disparities in Early Identification of Autism Spectrum Disorder: Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 2002-2016.

Early identification can improve outcomes for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We sought to assess changes in early ASD identification over time and by co-occurring intellectual disability (ID) and race/ethnicity. Using data for 2002-2016 from a biennial population-based ASD surveillance program among 8-year-old children in the United States, we defined identification as a child's earliest recorded ASD diagnosis or special education eligibility. Unidentified children had characteristics meeting the ASD surveillance case definition but no recorded identification by age 8 years. We calculated median age at identification among identified children, median age at identification including unidentified children, and cumulative incidence of identification by age 48 months. ASD identification by age 48 months was 4 times (95% CI: 3.6-4.3) as likely in 2016 as in 2002, with the largest increases among children without ID. Median age at ASD identification among identified children decreased 3 months during this time. Children of every race/ethnicity were more likely to be identified over time. There were racial disparities stratified by ID: in 2016, Black and Hispanic children without ID were less likely to be identified with ASD than were White children (both groups risk ratio: 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5-0.8), but Black children were 1.5 times (95% CI: 1.3-1.9) as likely as White children to be identified with ASD and ID. Substantial progress has been made to identify more children with ASD early, despite minimal decrease in median age at diagnosis. Considerable disparities remain in early ASD identification by race/ethnicity and co-occurring intellectual disability.

Collaborative approaches to autism spectrum disorder assessment

AbstractWith the rising prevalence rates of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), school and clinical psychologists must be abreast of the current research on assessment to determine diagnosis or educational eligibility. This is the first of a double special issue focusing on assessment of individuals with ASD. Within the school setting, collaboration is at the core of special education eligibility assessment. This introduction highlights the role of collaboration in the assessment process. Collaborative approaches help school psychologists determine the best assessment plan, understand the diversity, equity, and inclusive needs of children with ASD, and can assist in determining if alternative methods (i.e., telehealth) are appropriate.

Integration of physical health and sensory processing assessment for children with autism spectrum disorder in schools

AbstractIndividuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often undergo various assessments and evaluations as part of the diagnostic process, identification and classification for special education eligibility, and continued progress monitoring for skill growth. Such evaluations may include cognitive, social and emotional, behavioral, and speech evaluations, among other skill and ability assessments. One other area for assessment that clinicians may consider examining when working on evaluations for individuals with ASD includes the integration of assessments capturing physical and sensory needs. Physical health identifiers that may be included in such evaluations cover physical exercise, sleep, diet and food sensitivities, and elimination. Additionally, sensory evaluations may consider auditory, olfactory, taste, tactile, vestibular, and proprioceptive sensory abilities and needs. This practitioner‐focused chapter includes a brief review of each of the aforementioned physical and sensory abilities and their connection to ASD. Further, implications for practitioners in their assessment of ASD are explored with practical tips and recommendations for providers to use for their future assessments for ASD.