Treatment utility is defined as the degree to which an assessment method contributes to positive treatment outcomes (Hayes, Nelson, & Jarrett, 1987). An assessment is said to have treatment utility when positive outcomes occur during the treatment process, which are linked to the assessment method or procedure. Evaluating the treatment utility of an assessment method is critical because it helps clarify the value of different assessment methods used in schools.

Although the issue of how assessment information contributes to effective treatment outcomes is critical, few research investigations have evaluated the assessment-treatment link. Concerns, however, have been raised in recent years that traditional assessment methods (e.g., standardized measures of cognitive ability) are lacking in treatment utility and do not improve instruction or promote positive outcomes for learners (Gresham & Witt, 1997). Despite these concerns, school psychologists continue to use standardized cognitive and achievement batteries more often than other assessment technologies to evaluate children's learning problems and to develop interventions (Fagan & Wise, 1994; Reschly & Wilson, 1995). Currently, it is unclear whether alternative assessment methods (e.g., behavioral, performance, functional, and curriculum-based) have stronger treatment utility.

Therefore, this study was designed to help determine which of the three assessment methods (i.e., traditional, functional, and empiric) contributes to treatment generation, selection, effectiveness for children referred for reading problems. In addition, we are interested in understanding the degree to which the different assessment approaches are cost and time efficient, and how those methods impact treatment integrity and consumer satisfaction.