What We Need to Know About Responsiveness To Intervention (and Shouldn't Be Afraid to Ask)

During the past several years, one of the most frequently addressed topics at conferences and in professional journals is responsiveness to intervention (RTI). This is because it is viewed by many as a new way to think about both early intervention and disability identification. Despite its relative newness, a subset of RTI proponents contend researchers and practitioners know everything they need to know to implement it effectively. We disagree and argue that the smartest and most responsible way to move forward with RTI implementation is to recognize what all of us collectively do know and do not know. In this article, we identify unresolved issues—general and specific—important to RTI implementation, teacher effectiveness, and student achievement.     

Extending Responsiveness to Intervention to Mathematics at First and Third Grades

Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is an innovative approach to the identification of learning disabilities (LD). The central assumption is that RTI can differentiate between two explanations for low achievement: poor instruction versus disability. If the child responds poorly to validated instruction, then the assessment eliminates instructional quality as a viable explanation for poor academic growth and instead provides evidence of a disability. For children who do respond nicely, RTI serves a critical prevention function. Most of RTI research has been focused on early reading. In this article, we describe two ongoing programs of research on RTI in the area of mathematics: one on a comprehensive mathematics curriculum at first grade and the other focused on word problems at third grade. For each research program, we describe the sample, explain how students are identified as at risk for mathematics disability, provide an overview of the interventions to which responsiveness is gauged, and describe some results to date.     

Teachers' perceptions and attitudes about Response to Intervention (RTI) in their schools: A qualitative analysis

As Response to Intervention (RTI) models are increasingly implemented in United States' schools, it is important to consider the perceptions of those directly involved. The current study assessed teachers' perceptions of RTI and utilized qualitative methodology and a computer-based text search program to explore teachers' perceptions of RTI. Constant comparison analysis yielded four emergent themes related to teacher perception of RTI: (a) overall understanding of RTI, (b) teachers' perceptions of barriers to RTI in their schools, (c) teachers' suggestions to improve RTI, and (d) teachers' suggestions for making paperwork more efficient. We conclude with implications for training and RTI implementation.     

Considering Identification and Service Provision for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders within the Context of Response to Intervention

The Response to Intervention (RTI) framework, a preventive model of universal screening, tiered interventions, and ongoing progress monitoring, poses an interesting consideration for identification and service delivery for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Upon examination of the existing literature, paucity exists regarding how RTI might guide identification and service delivery for students with ASD; however, the authors consider core tenets of RTI and how they are relevant for students with ASD given what is known about this unique population. Due to the importance of early identification and interventions for individuals with ASD, the RTI framework could be problematic if used to delay education eligibility. Thus, two routes of identification are outlined by the authors, one of which expedites evaluation based on pervasive symptomatology, while the other route uses a form of universal screening to assist in moving toward evaluation for those suspected of ASD. The use of tiered interventions for prevention or service delivery could cause potential complications given the need for early identification and individualized intensive programming. However, there is a clear match for several instructional RTI components and ASD, specifically for evidence-based interventions that are implemented with fidelity and monitored frequently, and other aspects such as family involvement, which could improve programming for students with ASD.     

A contemporary review of the definition,prevalence, identification and support of learning disabilities in Australian schools

Learning disabilities (LDs) are associated with underachievement in one or more areas such as reading, spelling, writing and/or mathematics. In general, it is assumed that LDs are neurological in origin, permanent in nature and resistant to intervention. Moreover, LDs are not considered the result of intellectual, physical or sensory disabilities, emotional disturbance, cultural or economic disadvantage or inappropriate teaching. The purpose of this review was to provide school communities including principals, classroom teachers, other professionals, parents and students with a contemporary review of the definition, prevalence, identification and support of LDs. In particular, this review highlights the confusion surrounding the definition of LDs and how this has impacted on estimates of the prevalence of LDs, as well as current identification methods used in Australian schools. The various methods used to support students with LDs in schools are discussed.     

Examining School Psychologists' and Teachers' Application of Approaches Within a Response to Intervention Framework

Approaches consistent with a Response to Intervention (RTI) framework are becoming increasingly prominent. The present study is a preliminary investigation aimed at gaining a greater understanding of educators' knowledge of RTI and application of RTI principles. It serves as the first step toward understanding educators' preparation to implement these mandated changes. Educators (308) completed an online study to assess their knowledge of tasks inherent in RTI procedures. Respondents were asked to rate their familiarity with RTI principles. Then, respondents were asked to interpret graphical data that were consistent with RTI screening and progress monitoring approaches. Overall, results indicated that the majority of educators perceived themselves as having the knowledge to implement RTI practices. However, when asked to apply RTI-consistent principles, not all were successful. Specifically, school psychologists were better at interpreting and making decisions based on graphical data relative to general and special education teachers. There may be a disconnect between the expectations inherent in an RTI model and teachers' ability to meet these expectations. School psychologists may be positioned to support teachers in this area. The implications of these results for implementing RTI practices and developing professional development programs for general and special educators in elementary schools are discussed.     

Preservice training in response to intervention: Learning by doing an interdisciplinary field experience

Marking major changes in professional role performance, response to intervention (RTI) is now in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) as a possible method to improve the identification of specific learning disabilities. Moreover, RTI and related concepts and initiatives have fundamentally influenced more general methods of prevention, instruction and intervention services, and decision making in schools. Although RTI will continue to evolve, core characteristics of RTI that form the basis of state initiatives are well founded in intervention and instructional research and practice. These core characteristics (i.e., data‐based decision making, evidence‐based intervention, teaming, and problem solving) represent skills immediately needed by professionals‐in‐training. This article reports collaboration between school psychology and special education faculty in designing and implementing an integrative field experience in RTI. Training, student, and program outcomes are used summatively for accountability. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Integrating Response to Intervention (RTI) with neuropsychology: A scientific approach to reading

This article integrates the fundamental components of both Response to Intervention (RTI) and cognitive neuropsychology when identifying reading disorders in children. Both proponents of RTI and cognitive neuropsychology agree the discrepancy model is not a reliable or valid method to identify learning disorders in school. In addition, both proponents of RTI and cognitive neuropsychology agree that earlier intervention and the use of evidence‐based intervention techniques must permeate the thinking behind any educational reform. Lastly, both proponents of RTI and cognitive neuropsychology concur with the National Reading Panel's (2000) five core components of the reading process. Given the similarities between RTI and neuropsychological models of reading, a more integrative assessment model will be introduced to better diagnose and remediate subtypes of reading disorders in children. In summary, it is the author's belief that cognitive neuropsychology will emerge as the leading discipline in forging the inevitable alliance between science and education. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Response to intervention: Accountability in action

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a popular if controversial initiative developed largely in the USA, but which is, as yet, little known in general education in Australia. However, this may change given the increased attention to accountability in recent times. The national NAPLAN and international PISA assessments are leading to pressure being placed on schools to lift student performance. It is possible that RTI may be seen by school systems as a means of providing data demonstrating effectiveness, and also a way of providing a direction for schools' responses to that data. The expectation that general education teachers provide evidence-based instruction and regular progress monitoring would, however, represent a significant change when compared to current practice in Australia. This paper presents a brief history of the development of RTI, an introduction to the RTI framework and its application in regular and special education. It also examines some of the issues that would arise if it were to be introduced into Australian mainstream education.     

Response-to-intervention (RTI) as a model to facilitate inclusion for students with learning and behaviour problems

Many students with learning and behaviour problems are routinely excluded from regular education. Although calls have been made to educate students with these problems in the same settings as their typically developing peers, it remains unclear how best to support their needs for academic and behavioural support. We address this question first by describing response-to-intervention (RTI), a specific model of prevention and early intervention for learning and behaviour problems. A comprehensive summary of the RTI literature is provided. Second, we will discuss the feasibility and applicability of RTI as one approach to facilitate inclusion of students with learning and behaviour problems. Specifically, we will demonstrate how RTI can be used to address at least four barriers to inclusion by (1) providing a clear implementation strategy for inclusion practices; (2) clearly defining the roles, responsibilities and collaboration of general and special education teachers; (3) enabling the allocation of resources for instruction and intervention; and (4) avoiding early and unnecessary labelling of students with learning and behaviour problems. Third, limitations of RTI as a model to facilitate inclusion will be discussed.     

Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: prevention outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns

Response to Intervention (RTI) models have attracted great attention as an alternative to traditional methods used for identifying students with learning disabilities. A major feature of this approach is the implementation of academic interventions in general education and measuring the student's response to those interventions. A common question that needs to be addressed is the number of stages or tiers of intervention necessary in the Response to Intervention model. This article reviews three studies of RTI that investigate the RTI tiers. Sharon Vaughn and Rollanda O'Connor report on studies using the Standard Protocol approach to RTI. David Tilly reports on using the Problem Solving Model as an RTI model. This article summarizes the results of these three investigations.     

Response to Intervention in Middle Schools: Practices and Outcomes

Response to intervention (RTI) is advocated in elementary school as a system‐wide, multitiered model of academic and behavioral interventions. Middle schools have begun adopting RTI models based on these existing elementary models. This investigation into current middle school RTI practices describes technical aspects as well as some of cultural and contextual issues surrounding implementation. The study included multiple data collection procedures including surveys, discussion groups, phone interviews, and site visits. Although many schools reported substantial progress with implementation, they recognized rigorous implementation of RTI posed such on‐going challenges as changes in staffing, curricular realignments, very limited selections of screening and progress monitoring tools aligned with their curriculum, and scheduling of secondary and tertiary level interventions.     

The Insufficiency of Response to Intervention in Identifying Gifted Students with Learning Disabilities

Many states are implementing response‐to‐intervention (RTI)–based assessment as the sole means of identifying students with specific learning disabilities (SLDs). Although RTI is often hailed as an improved model of identification, concern for the possibility of this model elevating false positives has been examined. The risk of RTI producing a second form of diagnostic error, however, has received relatively little attention, namely, false negatives. The widespread implementation of RTI necessitates an analysis of its ability to identify students who are most vulnerable to be inaccurately judged as responsive to instruction, namely, students with coexisting intellectual talent and SLDs.     

Smart RTI: A Next-Generation Approach to Multilevel Prevention

During the past decade, responsiveness to intervention (RTI) has become popular among many practitioners as a means of transforming schooling into a multilevel prevention system. Popularity aside, its successful implementation requires ambitious intent, a comprehensive structure, and coordinated service delivery. An effective RTI also depends on building-based personnel with specialized expertise at all levels of the prevention system. Most agree on both its potential for strengthening schooling and its heavy demand on practitioners. In this article, we describe Smart RTI, which we define as making efficient use of school resources while maximizing students' opportunities for success. In light of findings from recent research, we discuss three important features of Smart RTI: (a) multistage screening to identify risk, (b) multistage assessment to determine appropriate levels of instruction, and (c) a role for special education that supports prevention.     

From IDEA to Implementation: A Discussion of Foundational and Future Responsiveness‐to‐Intervention Research

The IDEA reauthorization of 2004 highlights the application of responsiveness to intervention (RTI) to both early intervention (EI) service delivery and learning disabilities (LD) identification practices, creating the potential for wide‐scale execution. Implementation of any educational reform necessitates more than simply changing practices: It is important to understand the foundation upon which the reform stands, as well as the questions yet unanswered by research. This review of literature, therefore, emphasizes what is known about RTI as well as what remains to be learned, beginning with foundational concepts—model iterations—and moving to applications—EI and LD identification. Ultimately, the complexities of the RTI construct, with its potential for systemic change, necessitate a partnership between researchers and practitioners to both implement and further investigate RTI on a wide scale.     

Effects of a Mindfulness-Based Intervention on the Perception of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction among Special Education Students

Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs) have been increasingly implemented in schools to foster better emotional regulation skills for students with special education needs such as learning disabilities (LDs). This pilot study aimed to evaluate the impact of a MBI on the need satisfaction of elementary students with severe LDs. A prospective quasi-experimental design involving one group and two time points was employed. A sample of 14 elementary school students from a severe LDs special education class participated in this project. Repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted and revealed a significant reduction in need satisfaction, with a large effect size (η² = .35). Contrary to our hypothesis, the MBI appeared to be negatively related to need satisfaction among participants. These results indicate that MBIs could be linked with better self-evaluation skills in students with severe LDs, which, in turn, may change (or increase the accuracy of) the perception that children have of their own need satisfaction.     

Response to intervention for reading difficulties in the primary grades: some answers and lingering questions

The purpose of this article is to describe the current research base and identify research needs related to response to intervention (RTI) frameworks in primary-grade reading. Research is reviewed on early reading instruction and intervention, the implementation of multitiered reading interventions, and the determination of intervention responsiveness. Areas identified as in need of research include (a) the conditions under which early reading interventions are most effective in RTI contexts, (b) multitiered interventions for students with limited English proficiency, (c) reading instruction for students who make limited progress in Tier 3 intensive interventions, (d) criteria for determining intervention responsiveness, and (e) the effects of fully implemented RTI frameworks. Although RTI research may be expensive and difficult to implement, it may contribute to improved reading outcomes for many students who are otherwise at risk of serious negative life consequences.     

Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers

Recent consensus reports concur in suggesting major changes in the federal regulatory approach to the identification of learning disabilities (LD). These reports recommend abandoning the IQ-discrepancy model and the use of IQ tests for identification, and also recommend incorporation of response to instruction (RTI) as one of the identification criteria. These changes are also recommended to states in the current reauthorization of the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). While not mandatory, states that follow these recommendations will experience major changes in identification and treatment of students served under the LD category. This paper reviews the basis for these recommendations, summarizing four recent consensus group reports on special education that concur in suggesting these changes. Seventeen commonly asked questions about these changes are presented, with responses. In order to ensure adequate instruction for students with LD, it is essential that identification practices focus on assessments that are directly related to instruction, that any services for students who are struggling prioritize intervention over eligibility, and that special education be permitted to focus more on results and outcomes and less on eligibility and process. Identification models that incorporate RTI represent a shift in special education toward the goals of better achievement and behavioral outcomes for students identified with LD, as well as those students at risk for LD. Supported by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, HD25802-13, “Center for the Study of Learning and Attention Disorders” (JMF); and the Office of Special Education Programs: H326Y02002, National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (WAC); H324U010004, National Research Center for Learning Disabilities (DJR), and H324X010013, Preventing Reading Difficulties: A Three-Tiered Intervention Model (SRC). The National Center for Learning Disabilities also provided support for the development of this paper. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be viewed as necessarily representative of others associated with the centers listed or the funding agencies supporting these centers.