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


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 Instructions

To Read or Download this Article - Click Here (login required)

To Download the Entire SPRING-SUMMER 2019 Issue of JAASEP - Click Here  (login required)

AASEP MEMBERS LOGIN to Access live links to all available JAASEP issues.

Not a Member?

If you are a member of AASEP, please login to freely access this and all archived issues of JAASEP

If you are NOT A MEMBER of AASEP or NASET you may purchase this article for $4.95 (use the Buy Now button below):

OR - Buy the entire issue of JAASEP WINTER 2019 for $19.95 by using the Buy Now button below:

OR - Join AASEP Today and receive access to this and all past issues of JAASEP -

Join NASET Here

Return to the Table of Contents - Click Here

To top