The realm of school psychology underscores the importance of accurate and holistic assessments to foster optimal student outcomes. This article delves into the multifaceted world of assessment in school psychology, exploring a variety of tools and methodologies ranging from academic achievement evaluations to neuropsychological assessments. By elucidating key historical shifts, embracing contemporary practices such as the Responsiveness to Intervention Model, and addressing controversial topics like bias in testing, this comprehensive overview aims to provide educators, psychologists, and stakeholders with a deeper understanding of the intricate processes underlying effective educational assessments. The piece underscores the continual need for assessments that are both reflective of diverse student populations and adaptive to the ever-evolving educational landscape.


Assessment in school psychology plays an indispensable role in shaping the educational trajectories and personal development of students. Rooted in the early days of psychology and education, the journey of assessment mirrors the evolution of both disciplines, reflecting changing paradigms, advancements in understanding, and adaptations to the diverse needs of learners (Fagan & Wise, 2007). The essence of these assessments extends beyond mere data collection or the assigning of numerical values. They serve as a compass, providing insights into a student’s cognitive landscape, emotional depth, social nuances, and academic abilities, paving the way for informed interventions and holistic development (Merrell, Ervin, & Gimpel, 2006).

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% OFF with 24START discount code

Over the years, the methodologies employed in assessment have metamorphosed considerably. Traditional methods, once heavily reliant on standardized tests, have evolved to embrace a more inclusive, multifaceted approach, taking into account cultural contexts, neurodiversity, and the myriad factors that influence a student’s journey through the educational system (Jimerson, Stewart, Skokut, Cardenas, & Malone, 2008). The adaptation of these tools has been influenced by shifts in educational theories, groundbreaking discoveries in neuroscience, and a growing recognition of the importance of socio-cultural factors in learning and development (Smith, 2012).

The landscape of assessment in school psychology is rich and varied. It encompasses methodologies ranging from evaluations of academic achievements and cognitive capabilities to in-depth explorations of personality dynamics, social relationships, and behavioral patterns (Bailenson, 2018). Each tool and technique serves a unique purpose: guiding instruction, tailoring interventions, identifying potential challenges, and, importantly, catalyzing opportunities for students to flourish. As we delve into the realm of assessment in this article, we seek to shed light on its multifaceted nature, historical roots, practical applications, and the challenges it faces in the contemporary educational scenario.

The Essence of Assessment in Education

The overarching purpose of assessment in education transcends mere measurements or quantifications. It acts as a guiding star for educators, students, and stakeholders, shedding light on progress, areas of improvement, and potential avenues of intervention (Salvia, Ysseldyke, & Bolt, 2010). Assessments are not just endpoints; they are, in essence, part of an ongoing conversation about the learning journey, providing valuable feedback loops for all parties involved.

Historically, assessments were seen predominantly as tools for stratification, with a heavy focus on rankings and categorizations. The intent was to gauge the capabilities of students, often through one-size-fits-all standardized tests, which determined their educational and occupational paths (Phelps, 2005). However, as the educational arena evolved, so did the understanding of assessments. There was a growing acknowledgment that learning is a multifaceted process, shaped by a host of cognitive, emotional, social, and environmental factors. This realization heralded a shift from mere summative assessments, which typically culminate at the end of instructional units, to formative assessments, which are interspersed throughout the learning journey and provide real-time feedback to educators and learners (Black & Wiliam, 2009).

The role of assessments in facilitating individualized learning experiences cannot be overstated. With the recognition that every student possesses a unique learning style and pace, the need for differentiated instruction gained prominence. Assessments, in this context, provide a blueprint for educators to tailor their teaching strategies to meet the distinct needs of each student (Tomlinson, 2001). Moreover, the insights garnered from assessments go beyond academic proficiency. They offer a window into a student’s emotional well-being, socio-cultural experiences, motivation levels, and behavioral tendencies, allowing for a holistic understanding of the student (Volante & Beckett, 2011).

The value of assessment in education also extends to accountability. In modern educational systems, there’s an increasing demand for transparency, ensuring that institutions are delivering quality education and that students are making adequate progress. Assessments, when used ethically and effectively, serve as indicators of educational quality and student achievement, fostering trust and collaboration among educators, parents, policymakers, and community members (Hargreaves, Earl, & Schmidt, 2002).

In conclusion, the essence of assessment in education is multifaceted. It encompasses a broad spectrum of purposes, from informing instructional practices and promoting individualized learning to ensuring accountability and fostering collaborative educational ecosystems. By understanding and harnessing the power of effective assessment, educators and stakeholders can navigate the complex terrain of education, ensuring that every student receives the support, challenge, and guidance they need to thrive.

Historical Context of Assessments in School Psychology

Assessment within the realm of school psychology has witnessed profound evolutions over the past century. Understanding the historical context is imperative, as it provides a backdrop against which the present-day practices and philosophies can be appreciated and critically examined.

Early Beginnings:

The genesis of formalized assessments in school settings can be traced back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the first standardized intelligence tests were introduced. Spearheaded by pioneers like Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon, the aim of these tests was to identify children in schools who required specialized educational interventions (Binet & Simon, 1916). The Binet-Simon scale, a precursor to many modern intelligence tests, laid foundational principles for understanding mental age, a concept still relevant today.

World Wars and Expansion

The two World Wars catalyzed the widespread adoption and further development of standardized assessments, primarily due to the military’s requirement for large-scale intelligence and aptitude testing of recruits (Yerkes, 1917). This period saw the birth of several new tests and the introduction of group testing methods. The wartime needs indirectly contributed to bolstering the field of school psychology and expanding the realm of assessments beyond just intelligence testing.

The Era of Standardization

Post-war periods, particularly the 1950s and 1960s, witnessed a surge in the standardization of educational assessments. With the advent of psychometric theories and the establishment of bodies like the Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook, there was a rigorous pursuit of validity, reliability, and norms in testing methodologies (Buros, 1978). During this period, assessments became more structured, scientifically validated, and started to encompass areas like personality, behavior, and achievement.

Inclusion and the Shift to Holism

The latter half of the 20th century was marked by increasing advocacy for inclusive education. Landmark legislations, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the U.S., necessitated the evolution of assessment practices to ensure they catered to a diverse range of students, including those with special needs (Kavale & Forness, 2000). The recognition of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983) and the shift towards a more holistic understanding of students also nudged school psychology assessments to broaden their scope and methodologies.

Contemporary Shifts

In more recent decades, the field of school psychology has been deeply influenced by broader societal and educational shifts. With the advent of technological advancements, digital assessments have become more prevalent. Furthermore, there’s an increasing emphasis on formative assessments, ongoing assessments designed to inform and adapt instruction in real-time, as opposed to solely relying on summative, endpoint assessments (Shepard, 2000). Contemporary school psychology also integrates principles from applied behavior analysis, neuropsychological assessments, and socio-emotional evaluations to offer a comprehensive picture of student well-being and capabilities (Jimerson, Burns, & VanDerHeyden, 2016).

In retracing the history of assessments in school psychology, it becomes evident that this evolution has been a dialogic process, informed by societal needs, scientific advancements, and educational philosophies. As society continues to evolve, so too will the paradigms and practices of assessment, reaffirming its central role in understanding and facilitating student development.

Types of Assessments

In school psychology, a diverse array of assessments exists, each serving specific purposes and offering distinct insights into a student’s cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and social functioning. These assessments, administered with ethical considerations and in culturally responsive manners, form the bedrock of evidence-based decision-making in educational settings.

Intelligence Assessment

Rooted in early works by psychologists like Alfred Binet, intelligence assessments provide insights into a student’s cognitive abilities, often quantified as an Intelligence Quotient (IQ). These assessments evaluate various facets of intelligence, including fluid intelligence—the ability to reason and think abstractly—and crystallized intelligence, which encompasses accumulated knowledge (Cattell, 1963). Tools like the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) are commonly employed for such purposes.

Academic Achievement Assessment

Unlike intelligence tests that gauge potential, academic achievement assessments measure a student’s current proficiency in academic domains such as reading, mathematics, and writing. These tests help identify areas of strength and weakness and can be used to monitor academic progress over time (Marston, 1989).

Behavioral and Social–Emotional Assessment

Behavior is a vital component of a student’s school experience. Behavioral assessment, often informed by principles of Applied Behavior Analysis (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007), delve into observable behaviors, seeking patterns, triggers, and outcomes. Social-emotional assessments, on the other hand, provide insights into a student’s emotional regulation, interpersonal skills, and overall well-being.

Personality Assessment

While personality is a complex construct, assessments in this domain aim to capture the underlying traits, motivations, and temperaments of students. Personality assessment instruments may range from rating scales to projective tests, where ambiguous stimuli are presented to respondents to interpret, revealing hidden aspects of their personalities (Meyer & Kurtz, 2006).

Neuropsychological Assessment

Neuropsychological assessments map the relationship between the brain’s function and observable behaviors. These evaluations, often necessitated by medical conditions, traumas, or developmental concerns, provide a comprehensive picture of cognitive processes such as memory, attention, and executive functions (Lezak, 2004).

Curriculum-Based and Performance-Based Assessments

These are intimately tied to specific curricula and pedagogical practices. Curriculum-Based Assessments (CBA) offer insights into a student’s performance on specific instructional materials (Deno, 1985). In contrast, Performance-Based Assessments require students to demonstrate skills and competencies through real-world tasks, often emphasizing the application of knowledge over rote memorization.

Authentic and Portfolio Assessments

Emerging from the quest to make assessments more reflective of real-world tasks, authentic assessment engage students in tasks that mirror real-life situations. Portfolios, a collection of student work over time, represent another form of authentic assessment, spotlighting growth and showcasing a student’s multifaceted abilities (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992).

In the grand tapestry of school psychology assessments, each type of assessment threads its unique narrative, contributing to a holistic understanding of students. Their judicious and ethical application facilitates not just academic growth, but the overall well-being and success of every student.

Contemporary Assessment Approaches

The modern era of school psychology is marked by a proliferation of assessment methodologies, each reflecting different facets of a student’s learning and development. While traditional forms of assessment relied heavily on standardized testing and norm-referenced evaluations, contemporary methodologies highlight the need for a more comprehensive, nuanced, and context-sensitive approach to understanding students’ abilities, achievements, and needs. Below, we delve into several of these contemporary assessment approaches.

Authentic Assessment

Moving away from rote memorization and standardized testing formats, authentic assessments immerse students in tasks that mirror real-world situations and challenges. These assessments, whether they be project-based tasks, simulations, or experiential activities, prioritize the applicability of knowledge and skills in practical, everyday contexts (Wiggins, 1993). The essence of authentic assessment lies in its capacity to provide educators with insights into how students might apply their learning in real-life situations.

Criterion-Referenced Assessment

Unlike norm-referenced tests that compare an individual’s performance to a broader population, criterion-referenced assessments evaluate a student’s performance based on predetermined, explicit criteria or benchmarks. This type of assessment is crucial for understanding whether a student has achieved specific competencies or skills, irrespective of how their peers perform (Popham, 1978).

Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA)

Intimately tied to instructional content, Curriculum-Based Assessment evaluates a student’s performance and skills directly based on the objectives and content of the curriculum. It provides educators with real-time feedback on a student’s current instructional level, helping guide subsequent teaching strategies and interventions (Deno, 1985).

Outcomes-Based Assessment

Centered on the end-goals or desired outcomes of the educational process, this approach assesses the skills, knowledge, and attitudes students have garnered after an instructional period. By focusing on demonstrable outcomes or end results, outcomes-based assessment underscores the tangible skills and knowledge students will carry with them beyond the classroom (Spady, 1994).

Performance-Based Assessment

This assessment mode requires students to demonstrate specific skills and competencies through task completion. Whether it be scientific experiments, oral presentations, or other hands-on tasks, performance-based assessments offer a dynamic and interactive approach to evaluation, emphasizing the process as much as the final product (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992).

Portfolio Assessment

Portfolios offer a holistic view of a student’s learning journey. Comprising various artifacts—from essays and projects to reflective entries and art pieces—portfolio assessments provide a multi-dimensional perspective on a student’s growth, efforts, and accomplishments over time. It empowers students to actively engage in their assessment process, fostering self-awareness and reflective practices (Paulson, Paulson, & Meyer, 1991).

Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI) Model

A transformative approach in the realm of school psychology, RTI is a multi-tiered system designed for early identification and support of students exhibiting learning and behavioral challenges. By providing targeted interventions and closely monitoring student progress, the Responsiveness to Intervention model ensures timely, data-driven decisions to support students’ diverse needs (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

Each of these assessment approaches offers unique insights and benefits. Employed judiciously and in alignment with a student’s individual context, they collectively illuminate the complex tapestry of learning and development that unfolds within the educational setting.

Specialized Areas of Assessment

School psychology, with its multidimensional purview, necessitates specialized assessment tools and strategies tailored to address varied aspects of student development, needs, and contexts. These specialized assessments range from evaluating career aptitudes and classroom behaviors to understanding communication skills and written language proficiencies. Each of these methods offers valuable insights, guiding educational interventions, instructional strategies, and support systems to ensure holistic student development.

Career Assessment

As students transition from educational institutions to professional avenues, understanding their aptitudes, interests, and potential career trajectories becomes paramount. Career assessments, which encompass a spectrum of psychometric tools and structured inventories, assist in this endeavor. Tools like the Strong Interest Inventory (SII) or the Holland Code (RIASEC) model help gauge a student’s interests and potential career paths, ensuring informed decision-making as they embark on their professional journeys (Holland, 1997). Through these instruments, practitioners can guide students towards careers that align with their innate strengths, motivations, and passions.

Classroom Observation

The classroom, a microcosm of the broader educational ecosystem, presents a fertile ground for direct observation and assessment. Through structured classroom observation scales or anecdotal records, professionals assess student behavior, peer interactions, engagement levels, and responses to instructional strategies. Methods like the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) provide standardized criteria for evaluating the quality of teacher-student interactions and the classroom environment, offering insights into areas requiring interventions (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008).


Interviews, with their capacity for depth and nuance, offer a window into the subjective experiences and perspectives of students. Whether structured—with predetermined questions and scales—or unstructured, leaning on open-ended dialogues, interviews elicit insights into a student’s thoughts, emotions, aspirations, and challenges. These verbal exchanges, which may also involve parents, teachers, or peers, often complement other assessment tools, ensuring a well-rounded understanding of the student’s context (McIntosh & Morse, 2015).

Written Language Assessment

With written communication being a cornerstone of educational curricula, assessing a student’s writing skills and associated challenges is critical. Through standardized tools like the Test of Written Language (TOWL) or curriculum-based assessments, professionals can evaluate multiple facets of written language—grammar, vocabulary, coherence, and organization. Written language assessment assessment also helps in identifying specific challenges, such as dysgraphia, guiding subsequent instructional strategies and interventions (Hammill & Larsen, 2009).

In sum, these specialized areas of assessment underscore the expansive nature of school psychology. By honing in on specific dimensions of student development and experience, these tools and strategies provide educators, psychologists, and stakeholders with the nuanced data and insights essential for shaping meaningful educational trajectories.

Controversies and Challenges in Assessment

Assessment in school psychology, while essential, is not without its share of challenges and controversies. The goal of achieving fair, valid, and comprehensive evaluations of student abilities and needs often clashes with inherent biases in testing materials, methodologies, and interpretations. Furthermore, foundational concepts, like the idea of a general intelligence factor, face academic scrutiny and debate. This section delves into two significant controversies that have shaped the discourse in educational assessment.

Bias in Testing

Bias in testing, whether overt or subtle, can distort the results of an assessment, leading to unfair or systematic disadvantages for certain groups of students. These biases can stem from cultural references, linguistic nuances, or content that may be unfamiliar or irrelevant to certain populations. For instance, a test developed in one cultural context may not be suitable or fair when administered in another. The result? Students from minority or different cultural backgrounds may find themselves at an unfair disadvantage, not because of their actual abilities but because of the test’s inherent biases (Helms, 2006). This challenge underscores the importance of culturally sensitive and contextually relevant assessments. As Neisser et al. (1996) pointed out, fair testing should be tailored to the experiences and backgrounds of the examinees, ensuring that the assessment does not privilege one group over another.

Psychometric g

At the heart of intelligence testing lies the controversial concept of ‘psychometric g‘ or the general intelligence factor. Proposed by Charles Spearman in the early 20th century, ‘g’ suggests that various cognitive abilities, like mathematical skill or verbal prowess, share a common underlying factor. In essence, individuals with high ‘g’ would excel in multiple cognitive domains. While the idea has been influential, leading to the development of many intelligence tests, it has also been the subject of intense debate. Critics argue that intelligence is multi-faceted and cannot be reduced to a single factor. They point out that different cultures might prioritize different cognitive skills, making the universal application of ‘g’ problematic. Furthermore, Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences proposes a model where various forms of intelligence (e.g., linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical) exist relatively independently of each other, challenging the unitary nature of ‘g’.

The complexities inherent in assessing human cognition and ability mean controversies are somewhat inevitable. The field’s challenge lies in navigating these controversies, refining assessment tools, and methodologies to ensure they genuinely reflect the rich tapestry of human potential and experience.

Resources and Publications

In the evolving domain of school psychology and assessment, staying abreast of the latest tools, techniques, and methodologies is pivotal. Resources and publications, serving as repositories of knowledge and critical evaluation, facilitate this continuous learning. Two particularly influential resources in the realm of educational assessment are the Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook and the art and science of crafting psychological reports.

Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook

A cornerstone in the landscape of psychological and educational assessment, the Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook (BMMY) stands as a critical resource for professionals in the field. This publication, initiated in the 1930s, provides comprehensive reviews and critical evaluations of commercially available tests in areas like psychology, education, and business. Each edition presents detailed information about test purpose, pricing, test developer contact information, and in-depth reviews penned by experts. For practitioners, the BMMY is an invaluable tool, offering insights into the reliability, validity, and utility of numerous assessments, ensuring informed choices in test selection (Buros Center, 2020). Furthermore, its emphasis on critical, peer-reviewed evaluations ensures that the tests included are held to the highest standards of empirical and theoretical rigor (Geisinger, 2013).

Reports (Psychological)

Assessment, no matter how meticulously conducted, is only as valuable as the clarity and utility of its communication. In this context, psychological reports become paramount. These documents, which encapsulate findings from assessments, are shared with various stakeholders—parents, teachers, administrators, and sometimes the students themselves. A well-crafted report elucidates the assessment’s findings, interprets the data in the context of the student’s unique circumstances, and offers tailored recommendations. However, the art of report writing goes beyond mere clarity. Collaboration, ensuring that reports are accessible and actionable for its intended audience, is pivotal (Shapiro, 2004). Furthermore, as Kamphaus and Frick (2005) pointed out, psychological reports must strike a delicate balance—being comprehensive yet concise, technical yet understandable, and objective yet empathetic.

These resources and publications underscore the foundational bedrock upon which effective school psychology and assessment practices are built. By offering rigorous evaluations, critical insights, and clear communication methodologies, they elevate the quality and impact of assessments in educational settings.


The realm of school psychology, with its intricate tapestry of cognitive, emotional, social, and behavioral facets, demands a multifaceted approach to assessment. Gone are the days when a singular test or metric could encapsulate the complexities of a student’s learning experience. Instead, the modern landscape champions a holistic methodology, one that considers the myriad factors shaping a student’s academic and personal journey.

The importance of this comprehensive approach cannot be understated. By acknowledging and evaluating the diverse dimensions of a student’s experience, professionals can tailor interventions, strategies, and supports with greater precision and efficacy (Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002). Such a nuanced approach does more than just diagnose; it helps in shaping a pathway, grounded in understanding and empathy, that guides students towards their fullest potential.

As we gaze ahead, the assessment landscape in school psychology promises further evolution. Technological advances, increasing global interconnectedness, and a deeper understanding of neurodiversity are likely to shape new methodologies and tools. Moreover, as the importance of socio-emotional learning gains traction, assessments will need to transcend traditional academic metrics, offering insights into aspects like emotional intelligence, resilience, and interpersonal skills (Durlak et al., 2011).

Yet, while the tools and techniques might evolve, the foundational principles remain consistent. At its heart, assessment in school psychology is a means to an end—a tool that, when wielded with care, expertise, and empathy, can illuminate the path towards meaningful, sustained learning and personal growth (Jimerson et al., 2006).

In conclusion, the journey of assessment in school psychology, enriched by its history, guided by its contemporary practices, and propelled by future prospects, embodies a profound commitment. A commitment to understanding, supporting, and nurturing every student’s unique trajectory, ensuring that every child, irrespective of their challenges, finds their place in the tapestry of learning and growth.


  1. Almond, P., Steinberg, L. S., & Mislevy, R. J. (2015). Design patterns for learning and assessment: Facilitating the introduction of a complex simulation-based learning environment into a community of instructors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 180-216.
  2. Bailenson, J. (2018). Experience on Demand: What Virtual Reality Is, How It Works, and What It Can Do. W.W. Norton & Company.
  3. Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children. Williams & Wilkins.
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31.
  5. Buros, O. K. (1978). The eighth mental measurements yearbook. Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
  6. Buros Center for Testing. (2020). The mental measurements yearbook series. Buros Center for Testing.
  7. Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 1-22.
  8. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Pearson.
  9. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219-232.
  10. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta‐analysis of school‐based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432.
  11. Fagan, T. K., & Wise, P. S. (2007). School psychology: Past, present, and future (3rd ed.). National Association of School Psychologists.
  12. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.
  13. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
  14. Geisinger, K. F. (2013). APA’s model act for state licensure of psychologists: Another step in a long journey. American Psychologist, 68(7), 511.
  15. Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (2009). Test of Written Language (TOWL-4). Pro-Ed.
  16. Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., & Schmidt, M. (2002). Perspectives on alternative assessment reform. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 69-95.
  17. Helms, J. E. (2006). Fairness is not validity or cultural bias in racial/ethnic assessment by psychologists. American Psychologist, 61(8), 845.
  18. Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  19. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
  20. Jimerson, S. R., Oakland, T. D., & Farrell, P. T. (2006). The handbook of international school psychology. Sage Publications.
  21. Jimerson, S. R., Stewart, K., Skokut, M., Cardenas, S., & Malone, H. (2008). How many school psychologists are there in each country of the world? International estimates of school psychologists and school psychologist-to-student ratios. School Psychology International, 29(1), 79-88.
  22. Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2016). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed.). Springer.
  23. Kamphaus, R. W., & Frick, P. J. (2005). Clinical assessment of children’s intelligence: A handbook for professional practice. In Clinical assessment of child and adolescent intelligence (pp. 3-17). Springer, Boston, MA.
  24. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis of the inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 279-296.
  25. Lezak, M. D. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  26. Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What is it and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). Guilford Press.
  27. McIntosh, M. J., & Morse, J. M. (2015). Situating and constructing diversity in semi-structured interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2, 2333393615597674.
  28. Merrell, K. W., Ervin, R. A., & Gimpel, G. A. (2006). School psychology for the 21st century: Foundations and practices. Guilford Press.
  29. Meyer, G. J., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Advancing personality assessment terminology: Time to retire “objective” and “projective” as personality test descriptors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(3), 223-225.
  30. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., … & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77.
  31. Paulson, F. L., Paulson, P. R., & Meyer, C. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio? Educational Leadership, 48(5), 60-63.
  32. Phelps, R. P. (2005). The rich, robust research literature on testing’s achievement benefits. The Phi Delta Kappan, 86(7), 500-507.
  33. Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) manual: K-3. Brookes Publishing.
  34. Reschly, D. J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2002). Paradigm shift: The past is not the future. In Second national research symposium on limited English proficient student issues: Focus on evaluation and measurement (Vol. 1, pp. 1-48). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA).
  35. Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, S. (2010). Assessment in special and inclusive education. Cengage Learning.
  36. Shapiro, E. S. (2004). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
  37. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
  38. Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd.
  39. Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers. American Association of School Administrators.
  40. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). Differentiated instruction in the regular classroom: What does it mean? How does it look? Understanding Our Gifted, 14(1), 3-6.
  41. Volante, L., & Beckett, D. (2011). Formative assessment and the contemporary classroom: Synergies and tensions between research and practice. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(2), 239-255.
  42. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  43. Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. Jossey-Bass.
  44. Yerkes, R. M. (Ed.). (1917). Psychological examining in the United States Army. Government Printing Office.