One
THE SPECIALIZATION OF SCHOOL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY

This first chapter examines the major changes in the specialization of school neuropsychology since the first edition of this book was published in 2007. The chapter reviews some of the reasons why there has been an increased interest in the emerging specialization of school neuropsychology, including the acknowledgment of the neurobiological bases of childhood learning and behavioral disorders, the increased number of children with chronic medical conditions that affect school performance, the increased use of medications within the school‐aged population, the increase in the number of children with severe behavioral and emotional challenges, and the increased emphasis on the identification of processing disorders in children with specific learning disabilities (s). The chapter also reviews the need for providing neuropsychological assessment and consultation services within the schools. A definition of school neuropsychology is provided and the roles and functions of a school neuropsychologist are outlined. Finally, lists of the recent school neuropsychological publications and scholarly journals that publish school neuropsychology research are presented.

In 2012, Schneider and McGrew stated:

The most active CHC “spillover” has been in the area of neuropsychological assessment. … It is our opinion that CHC‐based neuropsychological assessment holds great potential… . However, more CHC‐organized factor‐analytic studies of joint neuropsychological and CHC‐validated batteries are needed before such a synthesis is possible… . Even more crucial are studies that describe the functioning of the brain (e.g., with functional magnetic resonance imaging) during performance on validated tests of CHC abilities. (p. 109)

Schneider and McGrew's (2012) observation of the potential for the integration of Cattell‐Horn‐Carroll theory () within neuropsychology was one of the main inspirations for Miller's revision of the original 2007 School Neuropsychological Conceptual Model. In the second edition of this book (Miller, 2013), Miller introduced the Integrated School Neuropsychology ()/CHC model, which integrated school neuropsychological assessment measures with CHC theory. The cross‐battery assessment () authors have also taken up the challenge of integrating traditional measures of XBA (e.g., tests of cognitive abilities and achievement) with neuropsychological measures. In the third edition of the Essentials of Cross‐Battery Assessment (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013), and in the software applications which operationalize XBA software systems (e.g., : Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2017; X‐BASS online: Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2018), the XBA authors have integrated neuropsychological measures (e.g., NEPSY‐II, D‐KEFS) with traditional measures of cognitive abilities and academic achievement.

Schneider and McGrew (2018) cite several factor‐analytic studies which included both traditional CHC tests and neuropsychological measures (e.g., Jewsbury & Bowden, 2017; Jewsbury, Bowden, & Duff, 2017). These studies have provided evidence of CHC construct validity for many of the neuropsychological measures currently in use. To date there have not been any studies which have used functional neuroimaging techniques to evaluate performance of CHC abilities, but this area of research holds great promise.

The specialization of school neuropsychology has continued to rapidly evolve since this book was first published in 2007 and later revised in 2013. Several new major tests have been published since the second edition of this book, including but not limited to: the Cognitive Assessment System—Second Edition (Naglieri & Goldstein, 2014b), the Feifer Assessment of Mathematics (Feifer, 2016), the Feifer Assessment of Reading (Feifer, 2015), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition (Wechsler, 2014), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Integrated—Fifth Edition (Wechsler & Kaplan, 2015), the Woodcock‐Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (Schrank, Mather & McGrew, 2014a), the Woodcock‐Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language (Schrank, Mather, & McGrew, 2014b), and the Woodcock‐Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities (Schrank, McGrew, & Mather, 2015). The Appendix features over 90 new or revised tests published since the second edition of this book.

As a result of this continued integration of traditional CHC measures of cognitive abilities and academic achievement with neuropsychological measures, graduate training programs are struggling to find time in packed curricula to train future school psychologists and clinical psychologists in these broader‐based assessment skills. Practitioners who have been out of graduate school for several years are quickly finding that their skill sets need to be updated in stride with the new tests and products which are available. Competency‐based continuing education becomes paramount for those practitioners needing to update their skills.

In the next sections of this chapter, the reasons why there is a growing interest in school neuropsychology will be discussed. The number of children with neurodevelopmental risk factors has increased since 2007 and the need for more comprehensive neuropsychological assessments to guide evidence‐based interventions has become more important than ever. Finally, the debate over the best methods for the identification of SLD continues unabated. After the latest revision of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) in 2004, many states blindly adopted response‐to‐intervention () models in a grand experiment. More recently, many of those same states have switched to an identification method that emphasizes looking empirically at patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW models). This PSW approach to SLD identification has fueled interest in the underlying neurocognitive constructs which are predictive of academic achievement and has resulted in increased interest in school neuropsychology.

REASONS WHY THERE IS A GROWING INTEREST IN SCHOOL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY

Recognition of the Neurobiological Bases of Childhood Learning and Behavioral Disorders

DON'T FORGET

Many parents and educators are looking to school psychologists for answers as to why a student is not achieving at grade level or behaving in socially inappropriate manner rather than merely receiving a special education diagnosis.

The interest in the biological bases of human behavior is not new to the school psychology profession, but it is becoming more relevant to the current generation of school psychologists. Some of the more seasoned veterans or psychology historians would suggest that there has always been an interest in the biological bases of behaviors. In fact, the “nature vs. nurture” debate is as old as the psychology profession. Some major theorists in our shared past, such as B. F. Skinner and John B. Watson, were strict behaviorists. They believed that observable behavior was the only essential element that needed to be considered in human behavior. The curriculum‐based measurement/assessment approach touted by many practitioners today has its theoretical roots in behaviorism.

In the late 1950s, researchers came to realize that the behaviorist approaches could not “explain complex mental functions such as language and other perceptual functions” (Gazzaniga, Ivry, & Mangun, 2002, p. 21), and this still holds true today. At the opposite end of the theoretical spectrum were the cognitive psychologists such as George Miller, Noam Chomsky, and Michael Posner, who believed that brain function needed to be considered in understanding human behaviors. Starting in the 1970s through today, cognitive psychologists have been aided tremendously by the development of neuroimaging techniques. Magnetic resonance imaging (), positron emission tomography (), and functional magnetic resonance imaging () are all useful tools in validating or helping to refine theoretical models of cognition developed by cognitive psychologists.

It is important to acknowledge that the integration of neuropsychological principles into educational practice got off to a rough start. Practitioners who entered into the field prior to the 1970s may remember Doman and Delcato's perceptual‐motor training (Doman, Spitz, Zucman, Delacato, & Doman, 1960) for children with “minimal brain dysfunction” or tests such as the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (Kirk, McCarthy, & Kirk, 1968). These approaches may have had good face validity, but they did not accurately show treatment efficacy for either perceptual‐motor deficits or language deficits. These early missteps in integrating neuropsychological principles into educational practice only reinforced the rising role of behaviorism in school psychology (Hynd & Reynolds, 2005). Some contemporary and influential scholars still cite inadequate findings on the early process assessment approach in the 1970s as the basis for current legislative changes to the definition of an SLD (Reschly, Hosp, & Schmied, 2003). Unfortunately, these influential scholars...