Purpose: Using a sample of culturally/linguistically diverse children, we present data to illustrate the value of empirically derived combinations of tools and cutoffs for determining eligibility in child language impairment. Method: Data were from 95 4- and 6-year-olds (40 African American, 55 White; 18 with language impairment, 77 without) who lived in the rural South; they involved primarily scores from the Comprehension subtest of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale--Fourth Edition (CSSB; R. Thorndike, E. Hagen, & J. Sattler, 1986), but scores from an experimental nonword repetition task (NRT; C. Dollaghan & T. Campbell, 1998) were also included as supplements to these scores. Results: Although the CSSB led to low fail rates in children without impairment and a statistically reliable group difference as a function of the children's clinical status but not their race, only 56% of children with impairment were accurately classified when -1 SD was employed as the cutoff. Diagnostic accuracy improved to 81% when an empirically derived cutoff of -0.5 SD was used. When scores from the NRT were added to those from the CSSB, diagnostic accuracy increased to 90%. Implications: This illustrative case adds to the growing number of studies that call for empirically derived combinations of tools and cutoffs as one option within an evidence-based practice framework.