Remote Assessment Administration: What Publishers Permit
You have a family three hours away who want to start, a student who tests better at their own kitchen table than in your office, and a standardized battery sitting in a box. The question is whether you can give it over video, and you have probably discovered that nobody will answer it in one sentence.
They will not, and it is worth understanding why before you go looking again. Remote assessment administration is governed by at least three separate surfaces that were written by different people for different reasons, and none of them refers to the others.
There is what the test publisher says about its own instrument. There is what your professional body says about practising through a screen. And there is law, which is not what this article is about.
Nothing here is legal advice. Where a question turns on what a statute, a licensing board or a payer requires of you, this article quotes the source and stops, and the person to ask is an attorney licensed where you and your client are.
What follows is the published record on the first two surfaces, as of September 2026, with every requirement attributed to the body that issued it.
The short version, before the detail
Six test publishers have published six different positions on remote administration. Two of the largest take positions that are close to opposite.
Pearson publishes a telepractice guidance document for each individual test and states plainly that the test was not standardized that way. Riverside Insights publishes an equivalence study concluding that remote and in-person administration of the Woodcock-Johnson V produce statistically equivalent results.
WPS, PRO-ED and MHS each publish a general statement rather than per-test guidance. PAR publishes per-instrument papers and says something different again, because two of its instruments were standardized digitally in the first place.
And the Association of Educational Therapists, whose Code of Ethics binds e-practice in ten separate places, never once connects e-practice to assessment.
Remote administration is not one permission. It is a per-instrument question, asked of a publisher, and a separate per-practitioner question, asked of your own competence and your own contract.
What Pearson publishes, and it is the most detailed record in the field
Pearson's telepractice products page lists individual guidance documents for more than a hundred instruments across four categories: clinical assessments, questionnaires, interventions and classroom assessments. The clinical list alone includes the WIAT-4, WISC-V, WAIS-5, KTEA-3, KABC-II NU, WRAT5, WRMT-III, KeyMath-3 DA, NEPSY-II, D-KEFS, CELF-5, PPVT-5 and EVT-3.
That is the single most useful fact in this article. If you administer a Pearson instrument, there is very likely a document for that specific test, and it is free to read. There are separate documents for the WISC-V, the WIAT-4, the WAIS-5, the WRAT-5, the PPVT-5, the CELF-5 and the WAIS-IV, among many others.
The standardization sentence, which appears on every one
The WISC-V telepractice page states it directly: "the normative data were collected via in-person assessment. Telepractice is a deviation from the standardized administration." And separately: "This test was not standardized in a telepractice mode, and this should be taken into consideration when utilizing this test via telepractice."
The same two sentences appear in the WIAT-4 guidance document. This is not a disclaimer buried in a footer. It is the frame Pearson puts around the whole practice, and it is the reason the guidance documents are as long as they are: they describe how to adapt an administration, not how to reproduce one.
The facilitator distinction, which is the part practitioners get wrong
Pearson's guidance distinguishes a professional facilitator from a non-professional one, and the distinction changes what you can give. On Block Design, the WISC-V guidance says a professional facilitator can assist with telepractice administration of the subtest, and then:
"It is not recommended to allow a nonprofessional facilitator to present blocks for Block Design nor to attempt to have the examinee scramble or present their own blocks." Followed by the consequence: "If a professional facilitator is not used, Block Design is not feasible for telepractice."
So the answer to "can I give the WISC-V remotely" is not yes or no. It is: which subtests, and who is in the room with the student. A parent at the kitchen table is not a professional facilitator, and that single fact removes subtests from the battery.
The WIAT-4 document takes the same line, describing a facilitator who is well trained and in a professional role, and confining the facilitator's job to technological and administrative tasks rather than rapport or engagement management.
The equipment floor
The WIAT-4 guidance specifies two computers with stable internet connectivity, webcams, microphones and speakers or headphones at both ends, and teleconferencing software with screen sharing for non-verbal stimulus items. It also sets a screen size floor: "The digital image of the visual stimuli on the examinee's screen should be at least 9.7" measured diagonally."
That rules out a phone. It probably rules out a small tablet held at arm's length. It is a concrete, checkable specification, and it is the kind of detail that only exists because somebody wrote a document for that specific test. The Kennedy Krieger Institute's remote evaluations guide is a useful practitioner-facing companion to the publishers' documents on setup questions of this kind.
The other five publishers, and how far apart they are
WPS
The WPS tele-assessment statement opens by naming its own position in the system: "Our role as a test publisher is to support practitioners while also balancing the need to ensure the integrity and security of our tests." WPS also maintains a broader telepractice resources hub.
On standardization it is explicit and general rather than per-test:
All of our current individually administered assessments ("performance tests") were standardized using in-person administration. For these tests, tele-assessment methods would be considered an adaptation of the standardized administration and should be taken into consideration when reporting and interpreting the results of a remote administration.
Note the word adaptation where Pearson says deviation. They are close, and they are not identical, and neither publisher defines the term.
PRO-ED
PRO-ED's statement on tele-assessment takes the same general shape and states that all of PRO-ED's individually administered tests were standardized using in-person administration.
It grants qualified professionals permission to use teleconferencing and screen sharing for appropriate PRO-ED assessment content, subject to restrictions on recording and duplication, and it does not name which instruments are appropriate. That word is doing a great deal of work and PRO-ED leaves it to you. The document carries no date, which matters if you are relying on it.
If you give the GORT-5 or the TOWL-4, this is the statement that governs them, and it is worth reading alongside what we found about the same test carrying different qualification letters at different distributors.
MHS
MHS publishes remote administration guidelines that enumerate which measures are covered: seventeen youth measures and seven adult measures, plus specific guidance for the Ortiz PVAT, the PdPVTS and the TOMM.
MHS also makes a distinction none of the other publishers make, because its norming was mixed:
Adult online rating scales were standardized using a mix of online in-person and remote administration ... youth self-report rating scales and all performance-based tests were standardized using in-person administration
So within one publisher's catalogue, the standardization answer differs by form and by age band. If you use the Conners 4, the relevant sentence is about youth self-report, not about the adult scales, and the administration chapter of its manual is the place to confirm the current procedure.
MHS is also the most explicit on documentation. It requires that the remote nature of the administration and any modifications to standard administration should be clearly documented and stated in any report, and it requires documented agreement from the examinee or their parent that the session will not be recorded, reproduced or published.
Separately: "Screen capture or video/audio recording of any test materials or stimuli is strictly prohibited and is a violation of copyright law(s)."
PAR
PAR publishes per-instrument papers rather than a single statement, and the RAIT and TOGRA paper by Cecil R. Reynolds and PAR staff makes a claim no other publisher in this survey can make: "The RAIT and the TOGRA are ideal instruments for remote administration since both were standardized through digital administration on the internet using PARiConnect." There is a companion paper for the RIAS-2 and RIST-2.
That is the exception that proves the rule. Where an instrument was normed digitally, the deviation problem does not arise, and PAR says so. For everything else, PAR puts the burden squarely on the examiner:
You must describe and disclose any modifications or alterations made to the standardization procedures and consider the impact of these differences on the reliability, validity, and interpretation of the client's test scores.
And on who is present, PAR states that you or a qualified proctor should be present with the client during remote administration of those two instruments. The platform's own terms and conditions and digital materials FAQ are separate documents again, and they govern what you may display on a shared screen.
Riverside Insights
Riverside is the outlier, and it is the most interesting position in the set.
Rather than warn that the norms were collected in person, Riverside commissioned an equivalence study for the Woodcock-Johnson V. Its whitepaper describes a matched case-control design with 300 participants aged 5 to 18, matched on age, gender and ethnicity, assessed by 44 trained examiners across US regions, covering cognitive and achievement tests. Its conclusion:
P-values are greater than 0.05 and all the estimated effect sizes are less than 0.03 indicating the in-person and remote administration methods are statistically equivalent.
Read the next sentence too, because it is the one that binds you: "the results of this study should only be applied to remote testing scenarios that follow the specific fidelity standards used in the research."
Those standards include controlled equipment, a controlled environment, examiner training and proctoring conditions. An equivalence finding obtained under proctored, controlled conditions is not a finding about an unproctored session in a family's living room, and Riverside says so itself. Riverside publishes a separate remote assessment protocol document for its clinical products, and an older note on remote administration of the WJ IV, Bateria IV and WMLS III.
Riverside also announced, on 10 September 2025, an exclusive partnership with Presence enabling administration of the fully digital WJ V through that provider's teletherapy platform. The announcement describes an exclusive collaboration with that provider. It does not say that Presence is the only route to remote WJ V administration, and you should not read it as saying so.
The sentence every publisher writes, and what it is doing there
Every publisher in this survey closes with a version of the same sentence. Pearson's telepractice materials carry it as their headline: "Remember that local laws and regulations apply and must be considered first."
The WIAT-4 guidance expands it into a list: follow telepractice regulations and legal requirements from federal, state and local authorities, licensing boards, professional liability insurance providers, and payors.
WPS asks you to review your local laws and regulations, including any changes resulting from a current state of emergency, regarding this type of assessment. PRO-ED uses near-identical wording. PAR frames it as your professional judgment along with state, local, and other regulatory agencies determining whether you use videoconferencing technology as part of your practice. MHS puts it as a limit on its own guidance:
"No recommendation provided here should be followed if it contradicts federal, state, or local laws overseeing the practice of psychologists providing assessment services."
That is where this article stops on the legal surface, and it is where the publishers stop too. They are not telling you what the law requires. They are telling you that their document is not a substitute for finding out, and that finding out is not something an article can do for you.
Two practical notes that are not legal advice. The MHS sentence is scoped to psychologists providing assessment services, which is not the population reading this. And if you work with families across a state line, the question of where you need to be authorised to practise is a question for counsel and for your own licensing or credentialing body, before the first session, not after.
What the independent research shows, with its boundary stated
There is published equivalence research beyond the publishers' own, and it is worth knowing because it is the evidence a referring professional may cite at you.
Hamner, Salorio, Kalb and Jacobson (2022), in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 28(8), 835 to 844, doi 10.1017/S1355617721001053, conducted a retrospective cross-sectional chart review of 893 clinically referred children and adolescents aged 4 to 17, of whom 285 were tested remotely and 608 in person, analysing seven subtests with inverse probability weighting. The record is also indexed on PubMed. Their results:
Only two significant differences were found, such that WISC-V Visual Puzzles (p < .01) and KTEA-3 Math Concepts (p = .03) scores were slightly higher in the teletesting versus in-person groups. However, these differences were quite small in magnitude (WISC-V Visual Puzzles, d = .33, KTEA-3 Math Concepts, d = .18).
And their conclusion: "Findings indicate equivalency across methods of service delivery without clinically meaningful differences in scores among referred pediatric patients."
Here is the boundary, and it has to be in the same breath as the finding. This is a chart review of assessments conducted in a clinical setting by that clinic's examiners, not a randomised comparison, and not a study of assessments conducted by a solo practitioner with a parent facilitating at home.
It says that in that clinic, under those conditions, the two delivery methods produced comparable scores on those seven subtests. It does not say that remote administration is equivalent in general, and the authors do not claim that it does. A companion paper on teletesting and ADHD from the same group reports in the same register.
You may not use this study, or Riverside's, to conclude that remote administration of any instrument in any setting is equivalent to in-person administration. That claim is not in the published record, and the same discipline applies here that applies across the whole question of what educational therapy can claim as evidence.
AET binds e-practice in ten places and never mentions remote testing
This is the finding that surprised us, and it took a full read of the document to see it.
The AET Code of Ethics, Revision #9, 2025, uses the term e-practice ten times. It contains an entire principle on technology. It defines e-practice formally, sets competence requirements for it, sets informed-consent requirements for it, sets security requirements for it, and requires you to evaluate whether it is working.
It never once says anything about administering an assessment remotely.
The assessment clauses and the e-practice clauses sit in the same numbered list, Section Two, subsection I, a few letters apart. The assessment clauses are A through E. The e-practice clauses are F, H, K, L and M. The only sentence in the entire Code containing both an assessment word and a technology word is II.I.F, and it is about assessing your own technological competence, not about assessing a client.
Two compliance surfaces, written by different people for different reasons, and neither one refers to the other. That gap is yours to close, in your own file, in writing.
What AET's Code does say, clause by clause
Since the Code is the binding document for AET members, here is what it actually requires of anyone working through a screen. Every one of these is quoted from Revision #9.
Principle VI, the technology principle
"Educational Therapists acknowledge that technology is a rapidly evolving field and understand how to use technology ethically and responsibly to meet clients' goals and needs."
I.I.B, scope of practice
provide professional services only within the boundaries of their competence based on their education, training, supervised and professional experience while operating within the scope of practice and ethics of the Association of Educational Therapy. Those engaged in e-practice operate within the scope of practice and ethics of the Association of Educational Therapists, as when providing services to clients in-person.
The mismatch between "Educational Therapy" and "Educational Therapists" in that clause is in the source document. The substance is plain: e-practice does not create a different scope of practice. Whatever you may not do in a room, you may not do on a screen, which is the same boundary our practitioner scope map sets out for in-person work.
I.I.E, the definition
This is the clause almost nobody quotes, and it is the one that tells you how wide the net is.
follow specialized standards when engaged in e-practice.
Its three sub-clauses, quoted in full:
1. E-practice is defined as services using telecommunication technologies which include the preparation, transmission, communication, or related processing of information (writing, images, sounds, or other data) by electrical, electromagnetic, electromechanical, electro-optical, or electronic means.
2. Telecommunication technologies include but are not limited to telephone, mobile devices, interactive videoconferencing, e-mail, chat, text, and Internet (e.g., self-help websites, blogs, and social media). Services may be synchronous or asynchronous (e.g., e-mail, online bulletin boards, storing and forwarding of information).
3. Technologies may augment traditional in-person services or be used as a standalone service model.
Read that and then look at your own practice. Emailing a parent a progress summary is e-practice under this definition. Texting a student a reminder is e-practice. A shared folder of worksheets is e-practice. The Code is not describing a video-only mode of delivery; it is describing almost everything that is not face to face in a room, and clause 3 says so explicitly.
I.II.A, competence with the technology itself
"Those engaged in e-practice strive to take reasonable steps to ensure their competence with both the technologies used and the potential impact of the technologies on clients, their families, supervisees, or other professionals."
Two competences, not one. The platform, and what the platform does to the people using it.
I.II.B, the informed-consent clause
As part of this informed consent contractual process, Educational Therapists shall explain to clients whether and how they intend to use electronic devices or communication technologies to gather, manage, and store client information.
This is the clause that should change your paperwork. It is not enough to practise ethically online; the Code requires you to have explained, before services begin, whether and how you will use technology to gather, manage and store client information. If your service agreement does not have that paragraph, it is missing a requirement. Our private-practice guide covers the contract that carries it.
II.I.F and II.I.H, the fitness assessment
II.I.F asks you to assess and continuously evaluate your technological competencies, training, consultation, experience, and risk management practices to assure competency when engaging in e-practice.
II.I.H then asks you to recognise that additional factors must be examined when considering providing services via e-practice, including consideration of:
1. the appropriateness, benefits, and limitations of e-practice and whether or not it is appropriate for the client before initiating e-services.
2. the client's culture, education level, age, and other relevant characteristics including the individual's familiarity, comfort with technology, and access to the internet.
3. the client's remote environment where e-services would take place, including regular monitoring of said environment as it might change.
Clause 3 is the one with teeth and the one most likely to be skipped. It is not a box you tick at intake. It asks for regular monitoring of the client's remote environment, because that environment changes. The corner of the dining room that worked in September has a toddler in it by March.
II.I.K, II.I.L and II.I.M, the security clauses
II.I.K requires adequate security and security controls for client information and data within information systems when engaging in e-practice, and then does something unusual for a professional code: it borrows its definitions from the Committee on National Security Systems, defining security controls as "the management, operational, and technical controls (i.e. safeguards or countermeasures) prescribed for an information system to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the system and its information."
II.I.L is one sentence and worth memorising: recognise the possibility that any electronic communication can have a high risk of public discovery.
II.I.M asks you to educate yourself about risks to privacy and confidentiality and to consider using all available privacy settings, with four sub-clauses covering periodic review of precautions, compliance with HIPAA and other relevant federal and state laws when using cloud storage, notifying clients as soon as possible after a breach of unencrypted data, and following record-retention and disposal requirements when disposing of electronic devices.
On record retention the Code defers to statute rather than setting a period, so that is a question for counsel in your state and not one this article will answer.
II.I.N.2, the one that closes the loop
"be especially cognizant about determining whether e-practice is achieving those goals."
That is the whole clause. The Code does not only ask whether e-practice is appropriate at intake; it asks you to keep checking whether it is working. That is a progress-monitoring requirement in all but name, and it pairs directly with the four progress-monitoring systems and their four different decision rules.
The AI clauses, which are new and which nobody is discussing
Revision #9 contains something the published discussion of this Code has not caught up with. Clause I.II.D, on recognising that technology is a rapidly evolving field, carries five sub-clauses, and three of them are about artificial intelligence.
3. adhere to and educate clients about copyright laws, attribution protocol, and citation style, and guidelines pertinent to the use of technology, including artificial intelligence (AI).
4. work to educate clients to understand that AI sources are not always credible, equitable, or inclusive. Neither are such platforms necessarily a safe and secure exchange of information.
5. empower clients to discern the appropriate use of technology, including credible sites for learning and research.
Note the direction of these. They are not restrictions on your use of AI. They are affirmative duties to educate the client about credibility, equity, inclusion and security. If you work with students who draft with a chatbot, and most of you now do, clause 4 places that conversation inside your ethical obligations rather than outside them.
Administering is not interpreting, and a screen does not change that
Everything above concerns administration. Interpretation is a separate question with a separate answer, and remote delivery does not move the line.
The AET Fact Sheet DO NOT list is unchanged by the delivery mode, including its instruction that educational therapists do not administer cognitive, intelligence, or psychological tests (unless otherwise qualified to do so). The parenthetical matters and should always be quoted with the clause.
II.I.C limits you to instruments for which you have been adequately trained. II.I.B requires you to recognise an instrument's limitations with respect to reliability, validity and bias, and a publisher's own statement that the instrument was not normed in your delivery mode is exactly such a limitation. II.I.D directs you to seek interpretation of assessment data from professionals in related fields.
Can you use a remotely administered battery to identify a disorder? No. That answer is the same as it is in person, and it is the same answer we gave when comparing executive function assessment tools.
Remote intervention is a different question, and the record is thinner
Remote testing has a documented record. Remote delivery of intervention programs mostly does not.
We searched the publishers of the major structured literacy programs for a published position on remote or online delivery. Barton's tutor support page mentions only that some certified tutors are available for remote instruction, with no statement about how the system is delivered remotely or what materials are required.
No comparable policy statement was found on the Wilson Reading System, Take Flight or S.P.I.R.E. publisher pages as of 20 September 2026, and that search was not exhaustive.
The clear exception is Lindamood-Bell, which sells online delivery as a product. Its online instruction page states that its Learning Ability Evaluation and instruction for reading, comprehension and math are available live online, with 100% live, face-to-face engagement with instructors and a 1:1 student-instructor ratio.
The same page presents outcome charts for students in live-online and in-person instruction from 2017 to 2025. Those charts do not carry stated methodology or sample sizes on that page, so treat them as the vendor's own outcome reporting rather than as independent evidence.
There is a second reason remote intervention is harder than it looks, and it is arithmetic rather than ethics. The published dosage specifications do not change because you moved online, and several of them are already out of reach of a weekly private caseload.
That is the whole subject of our piece on what published program dosage actually specifies, and none of the manuals we read there offers a reduced remote specification. The same holds across the reading intervention programs we compared.
A related trap: credentialing bodies specify delivery conditions for practicum hours. The Center for Effective Reading Instruction requires, for its structured literacy practicum, a student available for a minimum of three to four 45-minute lessons or two to three 60 to 90 minute lessons per week, one on one.
Whether hours delivered remotely count toward a given credential is a question for the issuing body, in writing, before you begin, and we set out how differently the six bodies define an hour in our piece on supervised hours.
When several organisations share a vocabulary
The word remote is doing different work in each of these documents, and so are several others.
Pearson uses telepractice to mean a deviation from standardized administration. WPS uses tele-assessment for the same act and calls it an adaptation.
ASHA's practice portal defines telepractice as the application of telecommunications technology to the delivery of speech language pathology and audiology professional services at a distance, and states that use of telepractice must be equivalent to the quality of services provided in person and consistent with adherence to the Code of Ethics. AET uses e-practice, and defines it far more broadly than any of them, to include email and text.
This is the same pattern we have found in every area we have examined. A CEU means ten contact hours to one body and one clock hour to another, which is why continuing education cannot be compared across credentials. A qualification level letter is a purchasing rule for one storefront rather than an industry scale.
Supervised hours means six different units in six different systems. And "Orton-Gillingham based" is a claim no organisation adjudicates. Even the role names themselves split three ways, which is where our comparison of the three roles starts.
Shared vocabulary across bodies that do not coordinate is the defining feature of this profession's published record, and it is why the answer to almost every compliance question begins with "which body are you asking."
A sequence for deciding, not a decision
We are not going to tell you whether to test a particular student remotely. That is a judgement about a specific person that depends on facts we do not have. What we can offer is the order in which the questions have answers.
Find the publisher's document for that specific instrument, not for the publisher generally. Pearson has one per test. MHS names its covered measures. PAR publishes per-instrument papers. If the publisher only has a general statement, that statement is your answer and it will be less specific than you want.
Read what the document says about standardization, and write that sentence down, because it is going in your report.
Check whether the instrument requires a facilitator, and whether it requires a professional one. Then establish honestly whether you will have one. If not, identify which subtests drop out.
Check the equipment floor, including screen size, at the client's end rather than yours.
Work through AET II.I.H before you commit: is e-practice appropriate for this client, given their age, their comfort with technology, their internet access and their physical environment.
Take the legal and payer questions to an attorney and to your own credentialing or licensing body, in writing, before the first session.
Decide what you will and will not claim from the resulting scores, and write that down before you administer anything.
Step 7 is the one that protects you. Everything in the record above points the same way: the scores are usable, and what they are usable for is narrower than a standard score makes it look.
What to document
Every publisher in this survey asks for the same thing in different words, and only MHS and PAR say it outright. Put it in the report.
That the administration was remote, named as such, in the methods or procedures section rather than in a footnote.
The specific platform and the setup at both ends, including the facilitator, who they were, and what role they played.
Every modification to standardized procedure, itemised. PAR's wording is the standard to write to: describe and disclose any modifications or alterations made to the standardization procedures and consider the impact on reliability, validity and interpretation.
The publisher's own sentence about standardization for that instrument, quoted.
The consent you obtained, including the no-recording agreement MHS requires.
Your II.I.H reasoning, briefly, on why e-practice was appropriate for this client.
What you concluded, and explicitly what you did not conclude.
That last line is the difference between a defensible remote report and an indefensible one, and it costs two sentences. It is the same discipline that belongs in a treatment plan, and for the same reason.
Where the published record runs out
Being clear about what we could not verify is more useful than filling the gaps with confident sentences.
PRO-ED's tele-assessment statement carries no date, and we located it on a third-party association's resource library rather than on PRO-ED's own site. If it is load-bearing for a decision, request the current statement from PRO-ED directly.
PRO-ED does not name which of its instruments are appropriate for remote administration. The word appropriate is undefined.
No publisher in this survey defines the difference between a deviation and an adaptation, and two of them use different words for what appears to be the same act.
The ITC and ATP released Guidelines for Technology-Based Assessment, published in the International Journal of Testing, and the ATP announcement states that they are publicly available on the ATP website. We could not confirm their section structure or their provisions on supervised versus unsupervised administration from that announcement, and we will not characterise them from a press release. The International Test Commission publishes its guideline library directly.
Wilson, Take Flight and S.P.I.R.E. were searched for a published remote-delivery position and none was found as of 20 September 2026. That is a search finding, not proof that no policy exists. Ask the publisher.
Whether hours delivered remotely count toward any particular credential's practicum is not published in a form we could verify across bodies. Ask the issuing body in writing.
AET publishes nothing connecting e-practice to assessment administration. That is an absence in the document, confirmed by a full-text read of Revision #9, not an oversight we are alleging.
The Inter Organizational Practice Committee publishes setup guidance for teleneuropsychology, including on defining a facilitator's role in advance and avoiding hinting or helping. It is written for neuropsychologists, so read it as adjacent practice rather than as guidance addressed to you.
Nothing in this article establishes what any law requires of you. The publishers say so about their own documents, and we say it about this one.
Frequently asked questions
Can an educational therapist administer standardized tests remotely?
It depends on the instrument, not on the delivery mode in general. Each publisher sets its own position: Pearson publishes per-test telepractice guidance for more than a hundred instruments, MHS names the measures it covers, PAR publishes per-instrument papers, and WPS and PRO-ED publish general statements covering their catalogues.
Separately, AET's Code limits you to instruments for which you have been adequately trained, and the AET Fact Sheet's DO NOT list applies unchanged.
Do remote scores mean the same thing as in-person scores?
The publishers say not necessarily. Pearson states that its normative data were collected in person and that telepractice is a deviation from the standardized administration. WPS calls remote delivery an adaptation of the standardized administration that should be taken into consideration when reporting and interpreting results.
The exceptions are instruments normed digitally in the first place, such as PAR's RAIT and TOGRA, and the Woodcock-Johnson V, for which Riverside published an equivalence study under controlled fidelity conditions.
Does a parent count as a facilitator?
Not as a professional one, and the distinction has consequences. Pearson's WISC-V guidance states that if a professional facilitator is not used, Block Design is not feasible for telepractice, and advises against a nonprofessional facilitator presenting blocks. Check the facilitator requirements in the guidance document for your specific instrument before assuming a battery is complete.
What does AET's Code of Ethics require for online sessions?
Revision #9 defines e-practice broadly, covering telephone, mobile devices, videoconferencing, email, chat, text and internet services, whether synchronous or asynchronous. It requires that e-practice operate within the same scope of practice as in-person work under I.I.B, competence with both the technology and its impact on clients under I.II.A, and explanation at informed consent of whether and how you will use technology to gather, manage and store client information under I.II.B.
It further requires continuous evaluation of your technological competence under II.I.F, consideration of the client's suitability and remote environment with regular monitoring under II.I.H, security controls under II.I.K, and ongoing determination of whether e-practice is achieving the goals under II.I.N.2.
Does AET say anything specific about testing remotely?
No. A full-text read of Revision #9 found ten uses of the term e-practice and five clauses on assessment, sitting in the same numbered list, with no clause connecting them. The only sentence containing both an assessment word and a technology word is II.I.F, which concerns assessing your own technological competence rather than assessing a client.
Can I deliver a structured literacy program remotely?
Most publishers do not publish a position. Barton's tutor support page mentions only that some certified tutors offer remote instruction. Lindamood-Bell is the clear exception and sells live online delivery directly. Separately, the published dosage specification for a program does not change because delivery moved online, and none of the manuals we have reviewed offers a reduced remote specification.
What about working with a family in another state?
That is a legal and credentialing question rather than a publisher question, and it is outside the scope of this article. Take it to an attorney licensed where you and the client are located, and to your own licensing or credentialing body, in writing, before the first session.
ASHA, for its own profession, states that telepractitioners must be licensed in both the state from which they provide services and the state where the client is located at the time of service. That is ASHA's position about speech-language pathologists and audiologists, and educational therapy is not a licensed profession in the same sense.
Where this leaves you
The honest summary is that the record is better than practitioners think on testing and worse than they think on intervention.
On testing, there is a large, free, specific, per-instrument literature that most educational therapists have never opened, and Pearson's collection alone would answer the majority of questions people ask in professional groups. On intervention, there is almost nothing, and the dosage arithmetic gets no easier online.
And in the middle sits a gap that no organisation has closed: your professional body has written ten clauses on practising through a screen and not one on testing through it. Until that changes, the person joining the two documents together is you, in your own file, in writing, before the session rather than after.
If you found this useful and you work with students who need more than tutoring, we maintain a list of educational therapists, learning specialists and executive function coaches for referrals and collaboration. Join the educator list.
Comments