“…Such language may bias diagnostic and intervention processes (Simeonsson & Scarborough, 2001), Language may reveal our attitudes toward people with disabilities (Häuser, Maxwell-McCaw, Leigh, & Gutman, 2000), Excessively positive language (e,g,, "heroic," "despite his disability," or references to "overcoming disability") or excessively negative language (e,g,, "afflicted with," "suffering from," or "confined to a wheelchair") regarding people with disabilities focuses on stereotypes, rather than individuals (Katz, Hass, & Bailey, 1988), People-first language (e,g,, "a woman with multiple sclerosis," "a student who is depressed") is typically used to maximize focus on the person (APA, 2010), However, other individuals prefer disability-first language (National Federation of the Blind, 1993;Sinclair, 2007), It is important to avoid stereotypical or derogatory phrases that imply deficiency or inadequacy such as "deaf mute" since a deaf person is perfectly capable of intelligent communication (Gill et al,, 2003;Khubchandani, 2001;Olkin, 2002), Even though we assume that communication is mostly verbal (i,e,, spoken, signed, and written language), approximately 70%-80% of communication is nonverbal, including facial and body language, personal mannerisms, and style-anything that adds meaning to a message (Mehrabian, 1968a(Mehrabian, , 1968b, As such, it is a powerful tool for shaping the context of the client-psychologist dialogue, A psychologist who responds appropriately validates the client and minimizes possible bias and misperception about the client's disability (Khubchandani, 2001;Kosciulek, 1999;Olkin, 1999b), Examples of appropriate responses include sustaining eye contact with a client who uses a sign language interpreter to communicate, rather than shifting to the interpreter. You may also ask if a client who has a disability needs assistance with a task, but do not volunteer to help without permission.…”