Use of Projective Techniques in Emotional Disturbance Evaluations
Ryan A. Allen, Ph.D.
John Carroll University
Timothy Hanchon, Ph.D.
The Citadel
Bradley Bornancin, Ed.S.
John Carroll University
Abstract
Determining eligibility for the special education category Emotional Disturbance (ED) is a challenging task. The difficulty in identifying students with ED is due, in part, to problematic federal criteria (Olympia et al., 2004; Skiba, Grizzle, & Minke, 1994). Unchanges since 1975, these criteria have created an environment in which inconsistent assessment practices and diagnostic decisions are inevitable. The current study examines school psychologists’ ED assessment practices, and in particular, the use of projective assessment techniques in eligibility determinations. The results suggest that school psychologists regularly use these controversial diagnostic techniques despite questions regarding their psychometric soundness (i.e., reliability and validity) and utility. Among the projective measures reported, those with the most limited empirical support (e.g., H-T-P, KFDS) were most widely used.
Read or Download
To Read this Article - or Download this Article (login required)
To Download the Entire SPRING-SUMMER 2019 Issue of JAASEP - (login required)
NASET Members - Login to Access These Files.
Not a Member?
If you are a member of NASET, please login to freely access this and all archived articles of JAASEP
If you are NOT A MEMBER of NASET you may purchase this article of JAASEP for $4.95 (use the "Buy now" button below):
OR Buy the entire issue of JAASEP SPRING-SUMMER 2019 for $19.95. Use the BUY NOW button below:
OR - Join NASET and have access to this & ALL PAST ISSUES of JAASEP - JOIN NASET