🧩 Intellectual Disability — Eligibility Criteria
Federal (IDEA):34 CFR §300.8(c)(6)
Texas:TAC §89.1040(c)(7)
Prong A — Cognitive
Significantly sub-average intellectual functioning as measured by a
standardized, individually administered cognitive test in which the overall score is
at least 2 standard deviations below the mean, taking the standard error of measurement into account.
Standard score of approximately 70 or below (SEM considered — may allow up to ~75 depending on test SEM).
Prong B — Adaptive Behavior
Concurrently exhibits deficits in
at least two of the following adaptive behavior areas:
- Communication
- Self-care
- Home living
- Social/interpersonal skills
- Use of community resources
- Self-direction
- Functional academic skills
- Work
- Leisure
- Health and safety
Also required:Manifested during the developmental period AND adversely affects educational performance.
⚠️ Key Evaluation Considerations
⚖️
False positives AND false negatives both cause harm. A missed ID means a student loses access to appropriate services and SSI eligibility. An incorrect ID eligibility creates stigma, overrepresentation concerns, and a potentially devastating label if the student encounters the legal system (death penalty eligibility in Texas is affected by ID status).
🚫
Larry P. v. Riles (CA, 1979) implications: Heavy reliance on global IQ scores alone is insufficient and legally problematic — especially for students from marginalized racial/ethnic groups. Always document cultural and linguistic considerations, use SEM range, and anchor cognitive data to adaptive and functional performance. Never use a single score as the sole basis for ID eligibility.
📏
SEM matters in Texas. TAC explicitly requires taking SEM into account. A score of 73 on a test with SEM of 4 points has a confidence interval that could extend to 77 — document and discuss this in your FIE rather than treating the number as fixed.
🧠
DSM-5-TR shifts weight toward adaptive behavior. The DSM-5-TR definition of ID places greater weight on adaptive behavior than on intellectual functioning. This supports a holistic evaluation approach — the cognitive score is a necessary but not sufficient data point.
📋 ID Evaluation Best Practices
Perspective:Use a developmental lens — understand the student's trajectory, not just a current score snapshot.
Variability:Performance variability is common in students with ID. Assess across multiple sessions and contexts where possible.
Cultural load:For students from diverse backgrounds, consider tests with reduced cultural and linguistic demands. Document explicitly. See the Tools tab for nonverbal/language-reduced options.
Adaptive data:Use ABAS-3 or Vineland-3. Gather multiple raters (parent AND teacher — discrepancies are informative, not invalidating). Know the family's cultural context, as adaptive behaviors vary by community expectation.
Cross-battery:Highlight intra-individual skills — areas of relative strength matter for goal-setting and intervention. ID doesn't mean uniform low performance across all areas.
Testing limits:Consider "testing the limits" after standardized administration to understand response to coaching, feedback, and scaffolding. Note motivation, persistence, and attention as qualitative data.
ASHA caution:ASHA opposes using cognitive-linguistic discrepancy formulas as the sole basis for SLP eligibility. Students with ID deserve language services — low cognitive scores don't rule out meaningful language intervention needs.
✍️ FIE Language Starters
[Student] earned an overall cognitive composite of [score] (confidence interval [low]–[high], SEM ±[X]), which falls at least two standard deviations below the mean when the standard error of measurement is considered. This is consistent with significantly sub-average intellectual functioning as defined under TAC §89.1040(c)(7)(A).
Results from the [ABAS-3 / Vineland-3], completed by [parent/caregiver] and [teacher], indicate deficits in at least two adaptive behavior domains. [Student] demonstrated significant difficulty in [Domain 1, e.g., Communication] (standard score [X]) and [Domain 2, e.g., Social] (standard score [X]). These deficits are consistent with the adaptive behavior criterion under TAC §89.1040(c)(7)(B) and are documented across settings.
Differences between parent and teacher adaptive behavior ratings were noted in [domain]. This discrepancy was investigated and is attributed to [setting-specific expectations / task demands / caregiver support at home]. Both raters reported consistent deficits in [overlapping domains], which are weighted as the primary basis for the adaptive behavior determination.
Cultural and linguistic factors were considered in the interpretation of evaluation results. [Student]'s [home language / cultural background / immigrant status] was reviewed as a potential factor influencing performance. Assessment results are not considered to primarily reflect cultural or linguistic difference, as [rationale — e.g., adaptive deficits are present in the home language context as reported by the family / performance is consistent across verbal and nonverbal measures].
♾️ Autism — Eligibility Criteria
Federal (IDEA):34 CFR §300.8(c)(1)
Texas:TAC §89.1040(c)(2)
Texas Definition: A developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age 3, that adversely affects a student's educational performance. Other characteristics often associated with autism are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences.
The term does not apply if a student's educational performance is adversely affected primarily because the student has an emotional disturbance.
⚠️
Key exclusion: If the student's educational performance is primarily affected by Emotional Disability (not "emotional disturbance" — Texas uses ED), AU is not the appropriate category. This is a clinical judgment call that requires thorough behavior history and medical/developmental documentation.
📋 AU Evaluation: What Diagnosticians Need to Know
🤝
AU is a team evaluation. Diagnosticians typically contribute the cognitive, academic, and adaptive behavior components. School psychologists, SLPs, and behavioral specialists may lead or co-lead the autism-specific diagnostic components. Know your role and document clearly who conducted which portions.
Medical history:Review carefully. Prior ASD diagnoses, developmental milestones, regression, and sensory concerns all inform the evaluation picture. Document whether onset was apparent before age 3.
Cognitive profile:AU presents with widely variable cognitive profiles. Do not assume low IQ. Many students with AU have average to above-average cognitive ability. Nonverbal or language-reduced measures may be needed — particularly for students with limited verbal output or high communication support needs.
Adaptive behavior:Adaptive behavior deficits are common in AU even when cognitive scores are average or above. Vineland-3 is the most commonly used instrument and has AU-specific norming. Socialization domain performance is particularly relevant.
Communication:Document both verbal and nonverbal communication. For students with limited oral language, note AAC use, gesture, and echolalia patterns. SLP involvement in the communication component is critical.
Behavior rating scales:SRS-2, GARS-3, CARS-2, and ASRS are commonly used. BASC-3/4 provides useful context but is not autism-specific. Cross-informant (parent + teacher) data is essential.
Sensory profile:Unusual sensory responses are a diagnostic characteristic. Include sensory history from parent interview and SPM-2 or direct teacher/parent narrative if a formal sensory profile is not conducted.
♾️
AU + ID dual eligibility: A student can be eligible for both AU and ID. These are not mutually exclusive. If cognitive and adaptive behavior criteria for ID are met alongside AU characteristics, document both eligibilities and ensure the IEP reflects the full support picture. The AU category does not subsume ID.
✍️ FIE Language Starters
[Student] demonstrates a developmental disability that significantly affects verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction. Characteristics consistent with autism include [e.g., limited reciprocal social interaction, restricted and repetitive behaviors, and unusual sensory responses]. These characteristics were apparent before age 3 based on [caregiver report / developmental history] and adversely affect [Student]'s educational performance in the areas of [e.g., communication, social participation, and academic engagement].
[Student]'s cognitive profile is notable for significant intra-individual variability. [He/She/They] demonstrated relative strengths in [e.g., visual-spatial reasoning and nonverbal pattern recognition] alongside areas of greater challenge in [e.g., verbal comprehension and working memory]. This profile pattern is consistent with cognitive presentations observed in students with autism and should inform instructional planning and accommodation development.
Results indicate that [Student] meets eligibility criteria for both Autism and Intellectual Disability under TAC §89.1040. The presence of both eligibility categories is documented because [Student]'s educational needs reflect characteristics of both conditions, and the IEP requires goals and services that address each area. These eligibilities are not mutually exclusive, and both categories are reported to ensure access to the full range of appropriate supports and services.
👁️ Visual Impairment — Eligibility Overview
Federal (IDEA):34 CFR §300.8(c)(13)
Texas:TAC §89.1040(c)(12)
Definition: An impairment in vision that, even with correction, adversely affects a child's educational performance. Includes both partial sight and blindness.
🏥
Texas requires a medical report. A licensed ophthalmologist or optometrist must provide exact measures of visual field and corrected visual acuity at distance and near in each eye. If exact measures cannot be obtained, the specialist must state so and provide best estimates. This is not optional.
📋 Required Evaluation Components (Texas)
TAC §89.1040(c)(12)(A) specifies all of the following must be included in a VI evaluation:
① Medical Report:From ophthalmologist or optometrist — diagnosis, prognosis, visual acuity (near and distance), visual field measures. Must specify whether student has no vision, partial vision, or a progressive condition.
② Functional Vision Eval:Conducted by a certified Teacher of the Visually Impaired (TVI) or certified Orientation & Mobility (O&M) specialist. Includes performance of tasks in multiple environments requiring both near and distance vision. Must include clinical low vision evaluation recommendation.
③ Learning Media Assessment:Conducted by a certified TVI. Must recommend which specific visual, tactual, and/or auditory learning media are appropriate and whether ongoing evaluation in this area is needed.
④ O&M Evaluation:For initial evaluations: conducted by a certified O&M specialist in a variety of lighting conditions and settings — home, school, community, and unfamiliar settings.
🤝
Diagnostician's role: You are not conducting the functional vision or O&M components — those belong to certified specialists. Your role is cognitive/academic assessment, coordinating the multidisciplinary team, and ensuring all required components are documented in the FIE. Collaborate closely with the TVI throughout.
🔬 Assessment Considerations for VI Students
🚫
Visual-spatial scores: never report for eligibility. Students with VI score significantly lower on nonverbal cognitive components. Visual-spatial subtest results should be used for descriptive/clinical purposes only — never reported as standard scores or used to determine eligibility.
Age of onset matters:Congenital vs. acquired VI affects the cognitive profile differently. Age of onset, level of visual functioning, and etiology all interact to shape score interpretation. Document all three factors explicitly.
Formal options:WJ-IV (now WJ-V) is available in Braille. This is one of the few standardized instruments with a Braille administration option.
Informal data:Work samples, reading fluency samples across material types (Braille, large print, digital), and comprehension over time all contribute important data beyond standardized scores.
Early signs in young children:Divergent eye contact, absence of pointing/showing, inability to follow joint attention, reduced pre-verbal babbling. These overlap significantly with ASD early indicators — careful differential is critical.
Adaptations:Plan and document adaptations in advance in collaboration with the TVI and test developer. All modifications must be documented in the FIE with an explanation of their impact on validity.
VI as SLD rule-out:When considering SLD alongside VI, systematically rule out visual impairment as the primary cause of the reading difficulty. Review the eye condition and its implications, developmental/educational history, and collaborate with TVI on the functional vision/learning media data.
🌐 Cultural Norms — Low Vision/Blind Community
Identification:Always identify yourself by name in conversation — don't assume the student can see you enter the room or identify you visually.
Guiding:Always ask before guiding someone who is blind. Do not grab the student's arm — offer your arm for them to take if they want guidance.
Guide dogs:Never pet or distract a working guide dog. This is a safety issue, not just etiquette.
Language:Person-first language is common in educational contexts, but take personal preferences into account. Some individuals prefer identity-first language ("blind person") — ask or follow the student's/family's lead.
Directions:Be specific when giving directions or describing the environment. "It's over there" is not useful. Use clock positions or specific distance/direction language.
👂 Deaf / Hard of Hearing — Eligibility Overview
Federal (IDEA):Deafness: 34 CFR §300.8(c)(3) · Hearing Impairment: 34 CFR §300.8(c)(5)
Texas:TAC §89.1040(c)(3)
Deafness
A hearing impairment so severe that the child is impaired in processing linguistic information through hearing, with or without amplification, that adversely affects educational performance.
Hearing Impairment
An impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating, that adversely affects educational performance but does not meet the definition of deafness.
Texas Required Evaluation Data: Must include (1) an audiological evaluation by a licensed audiologist and (2) a communication assessment completed by the multidisciplinary team. Must describe implications of the hearing loss for the student's hearing in a variety of circumstances with or without recommended hearing assistive technology.
📊 Degrees of Hearing Loss
| Type | dB Range | Implications |
|---|
| Mild | 27–40 dB | May miss soft speech; benefits from preferential seating, FM system |
| Moderate | 41–55 dB | Misses most conversational speech without amplification |
| Moderately Severe | 56–70 dB | Significant speech/language impact without amplification |
| Severe | 71–90 dB | Hears loud sounds only; relies on visual communication |
| Profound | 90+ dB | Minimal hearing; ASL or AAC typically primary communication mode |
Types of Hearing Loss:
Conductive — outer/middle ear; often treatable
Sensorineural — inner ear/auditory nerve; typically permanent
Mixed — combination of both types
🔬 Assessment Considerations for D/HH Students
🚫
Systematic errors to avoid: Providing oral directions to students who use sign as their primary communication mode; expecting oral responses from signing students; using test items that require the ability to hear (e.g., rhyme matching); fingerspelling words instead of signing them (this shifts the construct to literacy knowledge).
Historical limitation:Historically, evaluations relied only on nonverbal IQ scores, which gave an incomplete picture of cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Current best practice uses a broader assessment battery.
Co-occurring disabilities:Approximately half of D/HH children have additional disabilities. Don't assume D/HH is the only factor — conduct a full evaluation.
CHC-based batteries:Research supports CHC theory-based cognitive assessments as valid for D/HH students when administered using ASL. DAS-II, KABC-II NU, and SB-5 manuals explicitly address D/HH administration.
ASL vs. SEE:ASL is a fully developed, independent language with its own grammar and syntax. SEE is a manually coded English system used in some educational settings. Know which communication system the student uses — this affects test selection and administration. ASL-fluent evaluators or qualified interpreters are required for valid ASL-based assessment.
Interpreter use:Interpreters must be skilled in the student's preferred communication system (ASL, SEE, etc.), familiar with assessment procedures and instruments, and understand confidentiality requirements. Document interpreter use in the FIE.
🏫
Texas educational placement continuum: Texas School for the Deaf (residential) → Texas School for the Deaf (day) → Regional Day School for the Deaf (RDSPD) → DHH Classroom → Inclusion with itinerant TOD/interpreter. Know the continuum when discussing LRE in the ARD meeting.
🌐 Cultural Norms — Deaf/Hard of Hearing Community
Eye contact:Eye contact is sacred in Deaf culture — looking away during a signed conversation is considered rude, the equivalent of walking away during a spoken conversation.
Attention:Get a student's attention by tapping on the shoulder, tapping the table, waving a hand in their visual field, or flickering the lights. Never shout.
Facial expression:In ASL, facial expressions are grammatically required — they mark questions, negation, and affect. Do not interpret a student's facial expression outside the context of signed communication.
Communication style:Direct communication ("bluntness") is considered polite in Deaf culture, not rude. Social subtleties that neurotypical hearing people pick up implicitly often need to be directly taught.
Identity:Many Deaf individuals (particularly those who use ASL as a primary language) identify as culturally Deaf rather than as disabled. Be aware of this when communicating with families and students.
🌱 Developmental Delay — Eligibility Criteria
Federal (IDEA):34 CFR §300.8(b) — states may use for ages 3–9
Texas:TAC §89.1040(c)(4) — ages birth through 9
Texas Definition: A student ages birth through 9 who has been evaluated and found to have a delay in one or more of the following developmental areas: physical development, cognitive development, communication development, social or emotional development, or adaptive development — and who, because of those delays, needs special education and related services.
📏
Texas eligibility thresholds (TAC §89.1040(c)(4)): A delay of 2.0 standard deviations or more below the mean in one developmental area, OR a delay of 1.5 standard deviations or more below the mean in two or more developmental areas. Must be measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures.
⏰
Age-9 sunset — the clock is always running. DD eligibility expires when a student turns 9 years old (or at the end of the school year in which they turn 9, per district practice). A re-evaluation must be completed before that birthday to determine whether the student meets criteria for a specific disability category. This is not optional — the team cannot simply continue DD services past age 9.
📋 DD Evaluation Considerations
Instruments:Use developmental batteries appropriate for the age and referral concern. DAYC-2, DP-4, BBCS-4:R, PLS-5, and Vineland-3 are commonly used in Texas EC evaluations. For students in low incidence settings, DASH-3 may be appropriate for students with mild-to-moderate disabilities or single disabling conditions.
Domain coverage:You must assess all five developmental domains — physical, cognitive, communication, social-emotional, and adaptive. A single-domain delay requires a score ≥2.0 SD below mean. Two-domain delays require scores ≥1.5 SD below mean in each qualifying domain.
Low incidence settings:Many students in substantially separate EC classrooms carry DD eligibility. These are often your students with the most complex needs — global delays, multiple involved domains, and significant adaptive deficits. The functional data from the classroom is especially important because standardized scores may hit floor effects on some instruments.
Floor effects:For students with significant global delays, standardized instruments may produce floor scores (all subtests at the lowest possible score). Document this explicitly — a floor score is still a data point, but narrative observation and functional/criterion-referenced data become essential for a complete picture.
Etiology:Document known medical diagnoses, genetic syndromes, or neurological conditions that may be contributing to the developmental delay. Known etiology often informs the age-9 transition planning — a student with Down syndrome is unlikely to exit DD into "no eligibility."
🤝
Team evaluation is the norm in EC/low incidence settings. The diagnostician is one piece. OT, PT, SLP, ECSE teacher, and sometimes vision/hearing specialists all contribute. Coordinate the FIE sections carefully — avoid redundancy and make sure domain responsibilities are clearly assigned. The
Evaluation Coordination Tracker is useful here.
🔄 The Age-9 Sunset Re-Evaluation
This is one of the most consequential re-evaluations a diagnostician conducts. The team must determine whether the student qualifies under a specific disability category — or whether they no longer need special education services at all (rare in a low incidence setting, but legally possible).
Timeline:Must be completed before the student's 9th birthday. Build in lead time — you need parental consent, a 45-school-day evaluation window, and an ARD meeting before the deadline. Don't wait until spring of the year they turn 9.
Most common outcomes:Transition to ID (most common in low incidence settings with global delay), AU, Multiple Disabilities, OHI, or SLI. Occasionally SLD in students who were delayed but have made significant progress in core academic areas.
What to assess:Full cognitive evaluation (norm-referenced), adaptive behavior (ABAS-3 or Vineland-3), academic achievement if appropriate for the student's level, current developmental status across domains, behavior rating scales if AU or ED is a consideration, and updated medical/health information.
When ID criteria aren't met:If cognitive scores are above the ID threshold but the student still has significant needs, consider Multiple Disabilities, OHI, or SLI as appropriate. The student's documented functional needs and educational impact still drive the eligibility determination — the goal is to find the accurate category, not to shoe-horn them into ID.
⚠️
Do not prematurely determine eligibility. Some students who have carried DD through early childhood show cognitive scores in the 70s at age 9 — the SEM window matters here just as much as in a new ID referral. Document the confidence interval, use clinical judgment, and ensure adaptive behavior data is thorough before making the call.
✍️ FIE Language Starters
[Student] demonstrates delays of 1.5 standard deviations or more below the mean in two or more developmental areas. Specifically, delays were documented in [Domain 1] (standard score [X], [X]th percentile) and [Domain 2] (standard score [X], [X]th percentile). These delays adversely affect [Student]'s educational performance and indicate a need for special education and related services consistent with the criteria for Developmental Delay under TAC §89.1040(c)(4).
[Student] is approaching age 9, at which time Developmental Delay eligibility expires under TAC §89.1040(c)(4). This re-evaluation was conducted to determine eligibility under a specific disability category. Results indicate that [Student] continues to demonstrate significantly sub-average intellectual functioning (overall cognitive composite of [score]; confidence interval [low]–[high]) and concurrent deficits in adaptive behavior in the areas of [Domain 1] and [Domain 2]. [Student] meets the criteria for Intellectual Disability under TAC §89.1040(c)(7) and will transition from Developmental Delay to Intellectual Disability eligibility effective [date].
On several subtests of the [instrument name], [Student] obtained scores at the floor of the normative range, meaning [he/she/they] was unable to obtain a score above the lowest possible value. These floor scores indicate that the instrument does not fully capture the lower end of [Student]'s current performance range and should be interpreted descriptively rather than as precise normative comparisons. Observational data, functional performance data from the classroom setting, and adaptive behavior ratings are weighted heavily in this evaluation to supplement the standardized scores and provide a complete picture of [Student]'s current developmental status.
This re-evaluation was conducted in anticipation of [Student]'s 9th birthday and the expiration of Developmental Delay eligibility. Current evaluation results indicate that [Student] does not meet the criteria for any specific disability category under TAC §89.1040 at this time. Cognitive functioning falls within the [low average / average] range (overall composite of [score]), and adaptive behavior deficits do not meet the threshold for Intellectual Disability. [Student]'s current educational performance [does / does not] indicate a continued need for special education services. The ARD committee will convene to review these findings and determine the appropriate next steps, including [continued services under [category if applicable] / transition to general education supports / 504 consideration].
🔗 Multiple Disabilities — Eligibility Criteria
Federal (IDEA):34 CFR §300.8(c)(7)
Texas:TAC §89.1040(c)(10)
Federal Definition: Concomitant impairments (such as intellectual disability with blindness, or intellectual disability with orthopedic impairment) the combination of which causes such severe educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in programs designed solely for one of the impairments. The term does not include deaf-blindness.
⚠️
MD is not a catch-all or a default. MD eligibility requires that the student has concomitant impairments — meaning multiple documented disabilities present simultaneously — and that the combination creates educational needs that cannot be addressed by a single-disability program. If a student meets criteria for one category, that category should be used. MD is appropriate when the combination of needs truly drives the educational picture in ways a single category cannot capture.
🚫
Deaf-Blindness is explicitly excluded. Students with both significant hearing loss and significant visual impairment qualify under Deaf-Blindness (DB), not Multiple Disabilities — even though they technically have two disabilities. If you suspect DB, coordinate with your district's low incidence specialist or regional ESC immediately, as DB has its own specialized evaluation and service requirements.
📋 When MD Is the Right Call
Common combinations:ID + orthopedic impairment, ID + AU (though dual AU/ID is also valid — see AU tab), ID + VI, ID + OHI/health condition, AU + physical disability, TBI + OHI. The student's educational needs must reflect both disabilities simultaneously.
Educational impact test:Ask the ARD team: could this student's IEP needs be fully addressed in a program designed for only one of their disabilities? If the answer is no — if the combination creates a unique profile that requires cross-disability expertise and services — MD is likely appropriate.
Documentation required:Each disability in the combination must be individually documented and meet its own eligibility standard. You cannot use MD as a workaround when a student doesn't quite meet the threshold for a specific category. Both (or all) impairments must be separately established through evaluation.
Low incidence settings:MD is one of the most common eligibility categories in substantially separate and self-contained low incidence classrooms. Students in these settings often have ID as the anchor disability combined with AU, OHI, or physical disability. The MD category reflects the reality of their service needs more accurately than any single category alone.
🧩
MD vs. dual eligibility: Some districts document two separate eligibility categories (e.g., AU + ID) rather than MD. Others use MD to capture the same combination. Know your district's practice and the PEIMS reporting implications. Either approach is legally defensible if each disability is individually documented — but be consistent and intentional about which you use and why.
🔬 Evaluation Considerations for MD Students
Scope:You are evaluating for each disability separately. The FIE must document the eligibility criteria met for each condition. Don't compress this — each disability needs its own findings section with the supporting data.
Assessment access:Students with MD often have the most significant access barriers to standardized assessment. Physical disabilities may limit response mode. Communication impairments may require AAC (coordinate with SLP for AAC assessment — this is their domain). Cognitive disabilities require language-reduced or nonverbal instruments. Plan accommodations carefully and document all modifications.
Functional data:For students with profound or multiple disabilities, functional assessment data frequently carries more weight than standardized scores. Classroom observation, teacher interview, family input, criterion-referenced data (DASH-3, ABLLS-R), and adaptive behavior scales are essential components — not optional supplements.
AAC note:Many students with MD use AAC systems (high-tech devices, PECS, core vocabulary boards). The SLP leads AAC assessment and the communication components of the FIE. The diagnostician's role is to document how the student's communication profile affects cognitive and academic assessment validity — not to assess the AAC system itself.
IEP implications:MD eligibility typically points toward highly individualized, functional, and life-skills-focused IEP goals. The PLAAFP should explicitly describe how the combination of disabilities affects the student's educational performance — not just each disability in isolation.
👥
Team evaluation is essential — and complex. MD evaluations frequently involve the largest evaluation teams: diagnostician, school psychologist, SLP, OT, PT, vision specialist, hearing specialist, ECSE/special education teacher, and sometimes a physician or neuropsychologist report. Coordination is critical. Use the Evaluation Coordination Tracker to assign domains and avoid gaps.
✍️ FIE Language Starters
[Student] demonstrates concomitant impairments that, in combination, create educational needs that cannot be fully addressed by programs designed solely for either disability. Specifically, [Student] meets the criteria for [Disability 1, e.g., Intellectual Disability] and [Disability 2, e.g., Orthopedic Impairment], as documented in the respective sections of this report. The combination of these impairments results in educational needs that require cross-disability services and supports, consistent with the criteria for Multiple Disabilities under TAC §89.1040(c)(10).
[Student]'s [physical disability / motor impairment / orthopedic condition] significantly affected the administration and interpretation of standardized cognitive and academic assessments. Subtests requiring fine motor manipulation, timed responses, or written output were modified or omitted as indicated. All modifications are documented in the assessment section of this report. Results reflect [Student]'s performance under these adapted conditions and should be interpreted as estimates of current functioning rather than precise normative comparisons. Functional performance data, classroom observation, and adaptive behavior ratings are integrated throughout this report to supplement the standardized findings.
[Student] uses [his/her/their] [AAC device / communication system] as the primary means of expressive communication. Assessment of the AAC system, feature matching, and communication competency was conducted by the speech-language pathologist and is documented in the SLP's section of this evaluation report. For the purposes of cognitive and academic assessment, [Student]'s communication support needs were accommodated by [describe accommodations — e.g., allowing AAC-supported responses, extended response time, modified response format]. These accommodations were planned in advance in collaboration with [Student]'s SLP and teacher.
[Student]'s educational performance is significantly affected by the interaction of [his/her/their] multiple disabilities. [Disability 1] impacts [specific area, e.g., cognitive processing, academic skill acquisition, and communication development], while [Disability 2] affects [specific area, e.g., physical access to the environment, written output, and participation in group activities]. The combination of these factors results in [describe combined impact — e.g., a need for a highly individualized, functional curriculum with extensive adult support, assistive technology, and modified participation structures across all academic and non-academic settings].