A school-funded assessment with a deadline and a desired conclusion
Dr. Samuel Adeyemi, C.Psych., consults to a large elementary school. The principal asks him to assess Liam, age 9, within three weeks, before the school's IPRC meeting. The school will pay. Liam's parents separated 10 months ago; his mother has consented and reports severe inattention, meltdowns, and poor sleep at home, while his teacher reports Liam is "fine in class, maybe a bit quiet." The principal says the report "needs to support a learning disability designation" so the school can submit a special equipment claim, and asks Dr. Adeyemi to "keep it simple - one diagnosis, no maybes." Liam's father has not returned two calls or a letter. Dr. Adeyemi's usual ADHD rating scale uses norms from 1997; a newer edition exists, but he has never been trained on it and there is no one in town to supervise him. He plans to base the ADHD conclusion on the mother's and teacher's rating scales alone, because a full psychoeducational battery would push the assessment past the IPRC date.
1. Can Dr. Adeyemi proceed on the mother's consent alone? What must he establish before starting?
Read the worked answer
Not until he knows who holds decision-making authority for Liam. Ontario practice, and the College's consent standard, require informed consent from a capable parent or legally authorized substitute decision-maker. Separation alone does not remove a father's rights: unless a court order or written agreement gives one parent sole decision-making, both parents ordinarily remain guardians and both should be informed and asked to consent. Two unanswered calls and one letter are a reasonable-efforts record in progress, not consent.
Steps: ask the mother, neutrally, for the custody order or separation agreement; if authority is shared, send the father the same consent materials with a clear deadline and offer a phone meeting; document every attempt (date, method, content). If the father genuinely cannot be located, proceed only where the mother has authority and delay would harm Liam, and limit the assessment to what is necessary. Obtain Liam's assent in age-appropriate terms; at nine he is old enough to have a view.
The father's absence is also a clinical problem: a home/school discrepancy cannot be interpreted without information from both homes. Dr. Adeyemi should tell the mother that the quality of the assessment depends on the father's input and that he will record the missing data as a limitation rather than draw a confident conclusion from it.
2. The principal wants a report that supports a learning disability designation. How should Dr. Adeyemi handle that request?
Read the worked answer
Refuse clearly and early, in writing, before the assessment begins. The client is Liam, with his parents as consent-givers; the school is a third party that is paying and that will receive a report with consent. A psychologist's conclusions must follow the data. Writing to a predetermined conclusion inverts the process and turns a clinical assessment into an advocacy document.
He should explain what a report can and cannot do: it can describe Liam's cognitive and academic profile, determine whether a learning disability or ADHD is present, document impairment and need, and make recommendations; it cannot guarantee a designation. The IPRC decides educational identification under the Ministry criteria, on the evidence, not on the label. "One diagnosis, no maybes" is not a standard he can work to; premature certainty about a nine-year-old, ten months after his parents separated, risks mislabelling adjustment difficulties as a disorder - or missing a genuine learning issue because the school data are thin.
He should also flag the funding link on the record so the potential conflict of interest is transparent, propose a phased process (data gathering, feedback, report), and confirm the school's agreement to the scope and fees. Document the conversation, including the principal's request in the principal's own words.
3. What is wrong with the test plan, and what should he do about the three-week deadline?
Read the worked answer
Both the instruments and the deadline need reworking.
The rating scale: a 1997 normative sample is not an acceptable basis for interpreting a nine-year-old's scores now. Norms drift, and stale norms can move a score from normal to clinical or the reverse. A newer edition exists, but he has no training on it and no local supervisor. The answer is not to muddle through; it is to use an instrument he is competent with that has current norms, obtain proper training, or involve a colleague who has the competence. Administering and interpreting a test outside one's training is a competence breach regardless of the deadline.
Rating scales alone cannot establish ADHD. Diagnosis requires a developmental history, impairment in more than one setting, and evidence not better explained by another condition, gathered through multiple methods and informants. Here the home and school reports diverge sharply; that divergence is the most important finding and needs investigating - anxiety, sleep, language, learning, family change, different informants, different demands - not smoothing over.
The deadline is negotiable. Propose an interim consultation to the school about classroom supports while a proper assessment is completed, and tell the parents and principal what can and cannot be concluded in the time available. Feedback to Liam and his parents, and consent for what is shared with the school, complete the process.