Results from psychoeducational and neuropsychological assessments are relied upon frequently to determine disability status or confirm access to disability-related services and supports both in postsecondary education and on high-stakes exams. Sadly, research shows that many clinicians make these diagnoses using flexible diagnostic criteria and a looser conception of disability that includes otherwise normal test scores. Given the tangible academic, economic and social benefits that can be obtained for students given these disabilities, it is no wonder that the rates of non-visible disabilities have skyrocketed in the past 20 years. Research shows that these types of diagnoses have risen mainly in higher-income families, which suggests inequity in how these diagnoses are being made. What is more difficult to understand are the reasons why clinicians are increasingly ignoring or loosening published diagnostic criteria to make such diagnoses, and failing to investigate performance and symptom credibility. This special issue of Psychological Injury and Law offers insights from clinicians regarding why these and other issues are occurring more frequently, outlines the harm that occurs when disability diagnoses become incentivized and encouraged, and makes recommendations for how assessment practices must change. If things remain the same, psychologists risk losing credibility and input into the accommodation decision-making process.