View in EDS

Manifestation Determination Reviews and Judicial Interpretations: A Systematic Review of Federal Litigation Challenging the Relationship Test

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Manifestation Determination Reviews and Judicial Interpretations: A Systematic Review of Federal Litigation Challenging the Relationship Test
Language: English
Authors: Justin P. Allen (ORCID 0000-0003-0172-5970), Rachel J. O'Neill (ORCID 0000-0002-8589-4677), Matthew T. Roberts (ORCID 0000-0003-0659-7138), Margaret E. Trinka (ORCID 0000-0003-4604-8029), Kayla D. Spenard (ORCID 0000-0002-3020-8553), Faith Fisher (ORCID 0000-0001-8315-8492), Ben A. Mason (ORCID 0000-0002-1614-6405)
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
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1496583
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Manifestation Determination Reviews and Judicial Interpretations: A Systematic Review of Federal Litigation Challenging the Relationship Test
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Justin+P%2E+Allen%22">Justin P. Allen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0172-5970">0000-0003-0172-5970</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rachel+J%2E+O'Neill%22">Rachel J. O'Neill</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8589-4677">0000-0002-8589-4677</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Matthew+T%2E+Roberts%22">Matthew T. Roberts</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0659-7138">0000-0003-0659-7138</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Margaret+E%2E+Trinka%22">Margaret E. Trinka</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4604-8029">0000-0003-4604-8029</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kayla+D%2E+Spenard%22">Kayla D. Spenard</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3020-8553">0000-0002-3020-8553</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Faith+Fisher%22">Faith Fisher</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8315-8492">0000-0001-8315-8492</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ben+A%2E+Mason%22">Ben A. Mason</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1614-6405">0000-0002-1614-6405</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. 2026 63(3):618-630.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: 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
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Legislation%22">Educational Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Legislation%22">Federal Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Court+Litigation%22">Court Litigation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Psychologists%22">School Psychologists</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Psychology%22">School Psychology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expertise%22">Expertise</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Evaluation%22">Psychological Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Testing%22">Psychological Testing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Interpretation%22">Test Interpretation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Implementation%22">Program Implementation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.70113
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1496583
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1496583
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.70113
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 618
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Court Litigation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Psychologists
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Psychology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expertise
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Testing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Interpretation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Implementation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Manifestation Determination Reviews and Judicial Interpretations: A Systematic Review of Federal Litigation Challenging the Relationship Test
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Justin P. Allen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rachel J. O'Neill
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Matthew T. Roberts
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Margaret E. Trinka
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kayla D. Spenard
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Faith Fisher
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ben A. Mason
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 63
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1