Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Section I Fundamentals of pediatric neuropsychological intervention
- 1 Introduction
- 2 A developmental approach to pediatric neuropsychological intervention
- 3 Empirical bases for assessment and intervention
- 4 Multicultural aspects of pediatric neuropsychological intervention and rehabilitation
- 5 Bridging neuropsychological practice with educational intervention
- Section II Managing neurocognitive impairments in children and adolescents
- Section III Medical, rehabilitative and experimental interventions
- Section IV Future directions
- Index
- Plate section
- References
5 - Bridging neuropsychological practice with educational intervention
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 August 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Section I Fundamentals of pediatric neuropsychological intervention
- 1 Introduction
- 2 A developmental approach to pediatric neuropsychological intervention
- 3 Empirical bases for assessment and intervention
- 4 Multicultural aspects of pediatric neuropsychological intervention and rehabilitation
- 5 Bridging neuropsychological practice with educational intervention
- Section II Managing neurocognitive impairments in children and adolescents
- Section III Medical, rehabilitative and experimental interventions
- Section IV Future directions
- Index
- Plate section
- References
Summary
Pediatric neuropsychologists are often looked upon to provide recommendations to the school system for the children and adolescents with whom they work. The purpose of these recommendations is generally to identify effective strategies, academic accommodations, and/or special education services that can be provided within the school setting, that are appropriate to the child's disability and functional limitations. Beyond the issue of efficacy of the recommendations being made is the issue of their legal viability and how well they conform to already established laws addressing educational placement. Unfortunately, clinicians often do not have much more than a basic understanding of legislation and statutes that determine the provision of special education services. This can lead to a lack of congruence between the recommendations being made and their effective application. Further complicating the issue is the reality that education laws are at times conflicting, and are often reinterpreted based on regionally relevant court decisions. The laws also dramatically differ in purpose and scope between the secondary and post-secondary setting (Gordon et al., 2002; Murphy, 2004; Ranseen, 1998; Ranseen & Parks, 2005). In addition, the definitions set forth in disability-related legislation are often at odds with standard practices surrounding clinical diagnostic procedures. As a result, clinicians may find themselves confused when their recommendations are not incorporated within the elementary or secondary school environment or when the individual who they tested is deemed ineligible for academic accommodations in college.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Pediatric Neuropsychological Intervention , pp. 68 - 88Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
Albertsons, Inc. v Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999).
& (2003). Advocating in schools for children with disabilities: What's new with IDEA?Social Work, 48(3), 320–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
Association of Higher Education and Disability. (2004). Seven essential elements of quality disability documentation. In AHEAD Best Practices Disability Documentation in Higher Education. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from http://www.ahead.org/resources/bestpracticesdoc.html
& (2003). Learning disability and professional licensing examinations: What accommodations are reasonable under the ADA?The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 31, 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett v New York State Board of Law Examiners, 226 F. 3rd 69 (2d Cir. 2000).
Bartlett v New York State Board of Law Examiners, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11926 August 15, 2001 (S.D.N.Y. August 15, 2001).
Education for the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 (Pub. L. No. 94–142), renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990, 20 U.S.C. Chapter 33.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. Section 401 (1975).
, , & (2003). Responsiveness to intervention: Definitions, evidence and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzales v National Board of Medical Examiners, 225 F. 3rd 620 (6th Cir. 2000).
, , & (2004). Teacher resistance to school-based consultation with school psychologists: A survey of teacher perceptions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 30–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Psychological impairment under the Americans with Disabilities Act: Legal guidelines. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, M. & Keiser, S. (1998). Underpinnings. In , & , eds., Accommodations in higher education under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): A no-nonsense guide for clinicians, educators, administrators, and lawyers. New York: Guilford, pp. 3–19.Google Scholar
, , & (2002). ADA-based accommodations in higher education: A survey of clinicians about documentation requirements and diagnostic standards. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 357–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (1990). The relationship of consultant, consultee, and organizational characteristics to consultee resistance to school-based consultation: An empirical analysis. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1, 111–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrik Hudson District Board of Education v Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 fn. 28 (1982).
IDEA. (2000). 22nd Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
Irving Independent School District v Tatro, 104 Supreme Court, 3371 (1984).
& (2003). Ethics and law for school psychologists. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
, , & (2005). Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of poorly supported ideas. The School Psychologist, 59, 16–25.Google Scholar
Maedgen, J. W. (2002, October). The transition to college: The role of neuropsychologists. Pediatric Neuropsychology Newsletter, 6(1) 3–10. Retrieved from: http://psy-svr1.bsd.uchicago.edu/pnig/index.html/fall-2002.html.
Mapou, R. L. (2004). Assessment of learning disabilities. In , ed., Differential Diagnosis in Adult Neuropsychological Assessment. New York: Springer, pp. 370–420.Google Scholar
Mills v Board of Education for District of Columbia, 348 F. Suppl. 866 (1972).
Mills v Board of Education for District of Columbia contempt proceedings, 551, Education of the Handicapped Legislation, Rep. 643 (D.DC. 1980).
(2004). ADHD documentation for test accommodations under the ADA: Clarifying the confusion. The ADHD Report, 12, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2000). Evaluation practices for college students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (P.A.R.C.) v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (D.C.E.D. Pa. 1971), 343 F. Supp. 279 (D.C.E.D. Pa. 1972).
Prasse, D. P. (1995). School psychology and the law. In & , eds., Best Practices in School Psychology. Washington, DC: NASP, pp. 41–50.Google Scholar
(1998). Lawyers with ADHD: The special test accommodation controversy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 450–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2005). Test accommodations for postsecondary students: The quandary resulting from ADA's disability definition. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
(2006). Neuropsychological aspects for evaluating LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 563–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001). Traumatic Brain Injury in Children and Adolescents: Assessment and Intervention. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
, , & (2001). The effects of conjoint behavioral consultation results of a 4-year investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 361–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton v United Air Lines, Inc., 537 U.S. 491 (1999).
, & (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29, 443–61.Google Scholar
, , , & (2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS-2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar