Manifestation Determination Reviews and Judicial Interpretations: A Systematic Review of Federal Litigation Challenging the Relationship Test
Saved in:
| Title: | Manifestation Determination Reviews and Judicial Interpretations: A Systematic Review of Federal Litigation Challenging the Relationship Test |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Justin P. Allen (ORCID |
| Source: | Psychology in the Schools. 2026 63(3):618-630. |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 13 |
| Publication Date: | 2026 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Information Analyses Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Educational Legislation, Federal Legislation, Access to Education, Students with Disabilities, Court Litigation, School Psychologists, School Psychology, Expertise, Decision Making, Psychological Evaluation, Student Evaluation, Psychological Testing, Test Interpretation, Program Implementation, Program Effectiveness |
| DOI: | 10.1002/pits.70113 |
| ISSN: | 0033-3085 1520-6807 |
| Abstract: | The manifestation determination review (MDR) is a pivotal element in providing equitable access to education for students with disabilities. This systematic review examines litigation concerning MDRs with an explicit focus on federal challenges to the relationship test (i.e., Was the problem behavior directly and significantly related to the student's disability?). Of the 448 cases identified for review, 16 met the full inclusionary criteria. The findings revealed a spectrum of legal challenges encompassing the district's interpretation of the relationship test. Three overarching themes were identified: (1) cases in which the MDR was foundationally improper, (2) cases wherein the team failed to review the student's relevant records sufficiently, and (3) cases in which the scope of the disability's influence was improperly considered. The second and third categories encapsulated additional subcategories, delineating nuanced contentions. These results provide insights into the nature and scope of MDR-related court challenges and how the courts receive them. The complaints identified in this study highlight ambiguity within the MDR process that results in opposing interpretations of the relationship test. The findings underscore the nuances of MDR procedures and provide decision-making guidance for school psychologists, educators, and policymakers. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1496583 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | The manifestation determination review (MDR) is a pivotal element in providing equitable access to education for students with disabilities. This systematic review examines litigation concerning MDRs with an explicit focus on federal challenges to the relationship test (i.e., Was the problem behavior directly and significantly related to the student's disability?). Of the 448 cases identified for review, 16 met the full inclusionary criteria. The findings revealed a spectrum of legal challenges encompassing the district's interpretation of the relationship test. Three overarching themes were identified: (1) cases in which the MDR was foundationally improper, (2) cases wherein the team failed to review the student's relevant records sufficiently, and (3) cases in which the scope of the disability's influence was improperly considered. The second and third categories encapsulated additional subcategories, delineating nuanced contentions. These results provide insights into the nature and scope of MDR-related court challenges and how the courts receive them. The complaints identified in this study highlight ambiguity within the MDR process that results in opposing interpretations of the relationship test. The findings underscore the nuances of MDR procedures and provide decision-making guidance for school psychologists, educators, and policymakers. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0033-3085 1520-6807 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/pits.70113 |
