In this rejoinder, the authors describe the aim of the original study as an effort to conduct a critical test of an important postulate underlying the Cross-Battery Assessment PSW approach (XBA PSW; Kranzler, Floyd, Benson, Zaboski, & Thibodaux, this issue). The authors used classification agreement analysis to examine the concordance between the cognitive abilities of children and adolescents with and without academic weaknesses within an otherwise normal cognitive profile according to predictions based on McGrew and Wendling (2010). The original study was essentially an attempt to replicate a simulation study by Stuebing et al. (2012) with real-world data. In their commentary, Flanagan and Schneider (this issue) addressed a number of perceived limitations of that original study. This rejoinder responds to each of their criticisms. While no study is without limitations, this reply argues that those criticisms do not detract from the substantive conclusions of the original study. Finally, the question of whether the XBA PSW approach should be considered an evidence-based practice or pseudoscience is addressed.