In August 2015, in an article entitled "Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychology Science," the journal "Science" reported the findings of a comprehensive collaboration of social scientist researchers, collectively described as the "Open Science Collaboration" (OSC), who replicated the findings of 100 experiments that were published in three well regarded peer-reviewed journals in psychology (OSC, 2015). The opening sentence of the abstract was telling: "Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown" (p. 943). The OSC reported that while 97% of original research yielded significant findings, only 36% of their replications did so. The concern for school psychology is how valid recommendations are for practice generated out of its research base. Although it appears that findings from the OSC (2015) excluded any study directly related to school psychology practice, the overall cross-disciplinary trend is clear: It is likely that all branches of psychology contain a large proportion of nonreplicable findings in their published literature, which raises questions regarding the validity of the original research. Peer review is one way scientific communities weed out poor research, although this study shows that it is an imperfect process. In this article the author discusses a basic set of such tools and their potential implications for school psychologists as consumers of research.