1.4 Background Information, Records Review & Screening
Key Takeaways
Record review is the "R" in RIOT and usually the first step of problem identification: attendance, grades, prior interventions, prior evaluations, health and language history.
Vision and hearing status should be confirmed before testing, because an uncorrected sensory problem makes cognitive and achievement scores uninterpretable.
Under 34 CFR § 300.302, a teacher or specialist screening a student to decide instructional strategies is not an evaluation for eligibility and does not require parental consent.
Universal screeners identify risk, not disability; a positive screen leads to confirmatory assessment or intervention, never directly to eligibility.
Parents must be notified before a school administers a mental health screening survey and must have the chance to opt their child out (NASP Standard I.1.1).
Why Background Information Comes First
The ETS outline lists two problem-identification skills beside RIOT: appropriate use of background information (student records, medical records and reports, reviews of previous interventions, developmental history) and appropriate use and interpretation of screening measures and methods. Both sit at the front of the problem-solving model. Before a school psychologist tests anything, existing information often answers basic questions: Has this student had adequate instruction? Has attendance been poor? Has vision or hearing been checked? What has already been tried, and did it work?
Skipping this step is one of the most common errors in exam scenarios. An answer choice that jumps straight to a full cognitive battery, or to a special education referral, is usually wrong when records have not been reviewed and simple explanations have not been ruled out.
Sources of Background Information
| Source | What to Look For | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Cumulative record | Grades over time, retention history, schools attended, state test results, report card comments | Shows whether the concern is new or longstanding, and whether it follows a school move or life event |
| Attendance and discipline records | Absences, tardies, suspensions, office referrals | Chronic absence can explain skill gaps; discipline patterns point to settings and times |
| Intervention records (MTSS) | Tier 2/3 interventions, dosage, fidelity data, progress-monitoring graphs | Required to judge response to instruction and to meet IDEA's SLD documentation rules |
| Prior evaluations | Earlier psychoeducational, speech-language, OT, or private evaluations; prior IEPs or 504 plans | Prevents duplicate testing, shows change over time, and must be considered by the team |
| Health records | Vision and hearing screenings, school nurse logs, diagnoses, medications, hospitalizations | Rules out sensory and medical explanations; medication can affect attention and fatigue |
| Developmental history | Pregnancy and birth, milestones, early intervention (Part C), illnesses, injuries | Needed for autism, intellectual disability, and developmental delay questions |
| Language and cultural history | Home language, English learner status and proficiency scores, years of instruction, interrupted schooling | Required to separate language difference from disability (see Section 9.1) |
| Family and social history | Household changes, stressors, trauma exposure, supports | Context for emotional or behavioral concerns; gathered respectfully and only as needed |
Getting the Most From a Record Review
- Look for patterns across time and settings. A drop in grades that coincides with a move or a family crisis suggests a different hypothesis than a steady pattern of low scores since kindergarten.
- Check the instructional history. IDEA requires the eligibility group to consider data showing that the child received appropriate instruction in regular education settings, and repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, when SLD is suspected (34 CFR § 300.309(b)).
- Verify, do not assume. A diagnosis listed on an old health form may be outdated; a note that says "passed vision screening" three years ago does not rule out a current problem.
Rule Out Sensory and Health Explanations Early
IDEA requires that a child be assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including health, vision, and hearing where appropriate (34 CFR § 300.304(c)(4)). In practice, confirm that recent vision and hearing screenings were passed before interpreting cognitive or achievement scores. A child who cannot see the stimulus book or hear the directions will produce low scores that reflect a sensory barrier, not ability.
Health information also shapes interpretation. Seizure medications, stimulant timing, poorly controlled diabetes, sleep problems, and chronic pain can all lower attention and processing speed on test day.
Records From Outside the School
Reviewing a student's education records within the school is part of routine practice. NASP Standard I.1.1 states that parental consent is not ethically required for a school-based school psychologist to review a student's education records, and FERPA permits access by school officials with a legitimate educational interest.
Records held by outside providers are different. A pediatrician's, hospital's, or private therapist's records are generally protected health information under HIPAA, and the provider will release them only with a signed authorization from the parent (or adult student). Request outside records when they are relevant to the referral question, for example when a student takes medication during the school day or has a diagnosed medical condition that may affect learning. NASP Standard I.2.1 directs school psychologists to minimize intrusions on privacy and not to seek information that is not needed for services. A request driven by personal curiosity or research interest is never appropriate.
Screening: Purpose and Limits
Screening is a brief, low-cost check to identify students who may need more support. It does not diagnose. Screening appears at two levels:
- Universal screening checks all students, usually three times a year, to find those at risk (academic screeners such as CBM probes or computer-adaptive tests; behavior and social-emotional screeners).
- Targeted or selected screening checks a specific group or a referred student more closely.
Under 34 CFR § 300.302, "the screening of a student by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation shall not be considered to be an evaluation for eligibility for special education and related services." Such screening does not require the parental consent needed for an initial evaluation.
Common Screening Tools
| Domain | Examples | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Early literacy and reading | DIBELS 8, Acadience Reading, CBM oral reading fluency | Brief, repeatable; also used for progress monitoring |
| Math | CBM computation and concepts probes | Correct digits scoring (Section 1.2) |
| Broad academic (computer-adaptive) | Adaptive benchmark assessments used three times a year | Efficient, but check how cut scores were set |
| Behavior and social-emotional | Student Risk Screening Scale–Internalizing and Externalizing (SRSS-IE), BASC-3 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS), SAEBRS, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) | Teacher, parent, or student forms |
| Multiple gating | Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) | Gate 1 teacher nomination and ranking, Gate 2 rating scales, Gate 3 direct observation |
| Early childhood development | Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ-3), vision and hearing screening | Feeds Child Find and Part C referrals |
Multiple gating saves resources: every student passes through a quick first gate, and only students flagged there receive the more expensive second and third gates. The SSBD is the classic example and is designed to catch internalizing students, who are often missed by teacher referral.
Mental Health Screening Requires Notice
Schools increasingly screen for depression, anxiety, and suicide risk. NASP Standard I.1.1 states that parents must be notified when the school intends to administer a survey that screens for mental health problems and must be given the opportunity to remove their child from the screening. The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) adds requirements for surveys that ask about mental or psychological problems: prior written consent when the survey is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, and notice with an opt-out opportunity otherwise.
Interpreting Screening Results
- A positive screen is a hypothesis. Follow it with a brief diagnostic check (for example, a phonics inventory after a low oral reading fluency score) or with a Tier 2 intervention and progress monitoring.
- Screening accuracy depends on sensitivity, specificity, and base rates (Section 1.3). When a problem is rare, even a good screener produces many false positives.
- Never use a screening score as the sole basis for eligibility. IDEA prohibits using any single measure as the sole criterion (34 CFR § 300.304(b)(2)).
Exam Scenario Pattern
A teacher refers a third grader who "cannot keep up." The best first steps are usually to review attendance, grades, and prior interventions; confirm vision and hearing; and look at screening and progress data. Direct testing or a special education referral may follow, but not before this groundwork.
A second-grade teacher asks the school psychologist to evaluate a student who "can't read the board and seems to ignore directions." Before administering cognitive or achievement tests, what should the school psychologist do first?
Administer a full cognitive battery to rule out intellectual disability.
Recommend placement in a resource room while the evaluation is completed.
Begin a functional behavior assessment focused on noncompliance.
Confirm the student's current vision and hearing status and review records and attendance.
A reading specialist gives a first grader a brief phonics inventory to decide which small-group lessons to use. A parent asks whether the school needed her written consent. Under IDEA, which statement is correct?
Yes. Any individual assessment of a student is an evaluation requiring written parental consent.
Yes. Consent is required because the phonics inventory is a norm-referenced test.
No. Screening by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies is not an evaluation for eligibility (34 CFR § 300.302).
No. Consent is only required for students in Grade 3 and above.
A middle school plans to use the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD). Which feature best describes this multiple-gating approach?
Teachers first nominate and rank students with internalizing or externalizing patterns; only those students receive rating scales, and only students who exceed cutoffs are observed directly.
Every student receives a full diagnostic interview, and only students with confirmed disorders are rated by teachers.
Parents complete a single questionnaire, and students above the cutoff are placed directly into special education.
Students complete self-report measures, and scores are sent to outside clinics for diagnosis.
Sections you finish are checked off in the contents.