Which practice best supports transparency and informed decision-making when multiple data sources show different patterns?

• A. Ignore discrepancies between data sources to avoid confusion.
• B. Choose a single data source and disregard others.
• C. Present data sources separately without an integrated interpretation.
• D. Consolidate findings, explain discrepancies, cite data sources, and link findings to PLAAFP and measurable goals.

Answer: (D)

When different data sources show divergent patterns, the best approach is to consolidate findings, explain the discrepancies, cite where each piece of information came from, and connect the overall interpretation to the student’s PLAAFP and measurable goals. This approach promotes transparency by making how each source informs the current level of functioning clear, and it helps stakeholders understand why conclusions may differ across measures.

Think about why this matters: evaluations inform where a student excels and where support is needed. By bringing together formal tests, curriculum-based measures, observations, and input from teachers and families, you get a fuller picture. Explaining discrepancies helps you address questions like whether results vary by setting, task demands, or context, and it shows you considered the quality and relevance of each data source. Citing sources ensures accountability and traceability, so anyone reviewing the IEP can see exactly how conclusions were reached.

Linking the integrated findings to PLAAFP and measurable goals is essential because it shows how the current performance informs the need for specific supports and the targets the student will work toward. This creates a coherent, evidence-based basis for the IEP.

The other options fall short because ignoring discrepancies hides important information, selecting only one data source ignores the breadth of evidence, and presenting results without integration or interpretation fails to guide decision-making or goal setting.