From its inception as a disability category in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, serving students under the special education category Emotional Disturbance (ED) has been a challenging task for school psychologists. In particular, the vague and ambiguous federal definition has created an environment in which inconsistent assessment practices and decision making are almost inevitable. In this study, we examined school psychologists' ( N = 214) assessment practices when determining initial eligibility for ED, as well as their perceptions regarding the language contained within the federal ED definition. Findings indicated that although school psychologists recognize the need for a multimethod, multisource assessment model when ED is a classification consideration, in many instances, their actual assessments are missing commonly recommended sources of data for making eligibility decisions, including classroom observations; parent, teacher, and student interviews; and behavior rating scales. The results from the study provide a useful overview of school psychologists' assessment practices and are couched within the questions and confusion that have surrounded the federal ED definition since its codification into law.