Children with specific learning disabilities (SLD) have deficits in the basic psychological processes that interfere with learning and academic achievement, and for some SLD subtypes, these deficits can also lead to emotional and/or behavior problems. This study examined psychosocial functioning in 123 students, aged 6 to 11, who underwent comprehensive evaluations for learning and/or behavior problems in two Pacific Northwest school districts. Using concordance-discordance model (C-DM) processing strengths and weaknesses SLD identification criteria, results revealed working memory SLD (n = 20), processing speed SLD (n = 30), executive SLD (n = 32), and no disability groups (n = 41). Of the SLD subtypes, repeated measures MANOVA results revealed the processing speed SLD subtype exhibited the greatest psychosocial and adaptive impairment according to teacher behavior ratings. Findings suggest processing speed deficits may be behind the cognitive and psychosocial disturbances found in what has been termed "nonverbal" SLD. Limitations, implications, and future research needs are addressed.

Focusing on behavioral criteria for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosis leads to considerable neuropsychological profile heterogeneity among diagnosed children, as well as variable response to methylphenidate (MPH) treatment. Documenting "cold" executive working memory (EWM) or "hot" self-regulation (SR) neuropsychological impairments could aid in the differential diagnosis of ADHD subtypes and may help to determine the optimal MPH treatment dose. In this study, children with ADHD inattentive type (n = 19), combined type (n = 33), and hyperactive-impulse type (n = 4) underwent randomized controlled MPH trials; neuropsychological, behavioral, and observational data were collected to evaluate the children's responses. Those with moderate or significant baseline EWM/SR impairment showed robust MPH response, whereas response for those with lower baseline impairment was equivocal. Implications for medication use and titration, academic achievement, and long-term treatment efficacy are examined.

In this issue, Professor Perry Zirkel argues that the points presented in the Dixon, Eusebio, Turton, Wright, and Hale treatise of the Forest Grove School District v. T.A. Supreme Court case confuses "legal requirements with professional norms." Although we appreciate Zirkel's acknowledgment that our position reflects the professional norm-that comprehensive evaluation of psychological processes is critical for identifying children with learning and other disabilitiesthis position does not equate with "confusion" regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act statutory or regulatory requirements, or legal precedents, presented in Dixon et al. On the contrary, Dixon et al. specifically address all three requirements in their article, suggesting Zirkel's rebuttal is not supported. The resultant effects of Zirkel's arguments on public opinion, professional conduct, and individual children served by the law will be elucidated in this rebuttal.