Over the last several years, substantial dissatisfaction has emerged with the use of norm-referenced, standardized tests for evaluating the academic performance of students. In particular, dissatisfaction has stemmed from concerns including the lack of overlap between the content of tests and the curriculum, the limited sensitivity of norm-referenced tests to index short-term academic progress, and the lack of relationship between test results and instructional decision-making. In this study the acceptability, as rated by school psychologists, of using curriculum-based assessment and standardized, norm-referenced assessment measures for evaluating academic performance was examined. Using a random survey of 1989-90 members of the National Association of School Psychologists, 249 participants completed the Assessment Rating Profile (ARP) after reading a description of assessment data collected on a hypothetical 4th-grade student with academic difficulties. Participants in each condition were presented with data from one of two different scripts: the curriculum-based assessment and the standardized testing assessment. Each participant was exposed to only one condition. Following these scripts, participants completed the Assessment Rating Profile, a measure designed to assess the acceptability of the assessment method described in the script. Results indicated that although both assessment methods were found to be acceptable, curriculum-based assessment was rated significantly and consistently as more acceptable than standardized assessment practices. (ABL)