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.     

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.     

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.     

On the importance of a cognitive processing perspective: an introduction

Children with learning problems require early intervention. If it is evidence based and implemented with integrity and intensity, it will accelerate the academic progress of many students. This is the hope and expectation of the many supporters of responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI). A minority of children, however, will not respond sufficiently to such intervention because of learning disorders like specific learning disabilities (SLD). Some RTI models do not include research-backed methods to identify these children, nor do RTI practitioners often produce the data necessary to develop individualized instruction for them. The authors suggest practitioners go beyond typical RTI assessment data documenting responsiveness/ unresponsiveness to conduct comprehensive evaluations of these most difficult-to-teach students and to include in their evaluations carefully chosen cognitive measures. This special issue presents the work of teams of researchers, which suggests that cognitive and neuropsychological assessments can provide information to further understand SLD, which in turn can guide development of promising interventions.     

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.     

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.     

The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption

A core assumption of response to instruction or intervention (RTI) models is the importance of measuring growth in achievement over time in response to effective instruction or intervention. Many RTI models actively monitor growth for identifying individuals who need different levels of intervention. A large-scale (N=23,438), two-year longitudinal study of first grade children was carried out to compare the predictive validity of measures of achievement status, growth in achievement, and their combination for predicting future reading achievement. The results indicate that under typical conditions, measures of growth do not make a contribution to prediction that is independent of measures of achievement status. These results question the validity of a core assumption of RTI models.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Response to Intervention Screening and Progress‐Monitoring Practices in 41 Local Schools

This study describes response to intervention (RTI) screening and progress‐monitoring instruments and procedures in 41 local school settings. For screening the schools most often used published reading assessments or commercial products; a three‐times‐per‐year screening schedule was most prevalent. For progress monitoring schools most often relied on published reading assessments; a weekly progress monitoring schedule was most prevalent. The variability between local school practices is discussed with regard to efficiency, equity, and viability of RTI.     

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.     

Just‐in‐time pedagogy: teachers' perspectives on the response to intervention framework

The purpose of this mixed methods research is to examine teachers' perspectives on the response to intervention (RTI) framework and its implementation in Michigan and Texas schools. Both states have been leaders in literacy, increasing preservice and in‐service teacher certification standards and developing similar batteries for assessing literacy skills. Using the International Reading Association's RTI principles, the following question directed this inquiry: what are the perspectives of teachers in various educational, geographic, economic and cultural settings of the RTI? The research was developed through questionnaires, focus groups and semi‐structured interviews. Findings revealed that teacher professional development, assessments and collaboration for instruction were highly integrated themes when developing RTI strategies as reforming practice and increasing student literacy. Michigan and Texas teachers were more confident and comfortable in measuring and identifying students with reading difficulties over their ability to prevent learning disabilities through their instruction.     

RTI models as alternatives to traditional views of learning disabilities: Response to the commentaries

Two commentaries in this issue, one by Torgesen and one by Fuchs and Fuchs, are largely supportive of our views of the value of implementing response to intervention (RTI) models in schools. In contrast, Reynolds and Shaywitz's criticisms of RTI represent traditional and often nonempirical views of learning disabilities (LDs). The evidence base on RTI is not empty, and Reynolds and Shaywitz fail to provide research support for their views of either LDs or RTI.     

Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities

This paper provides a response to the thoughtful paper presented by Gerber in this issue and at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium in Kansas City with guidance from five major questions posed by the organizers of the symposium. Gerber's paper provides interesting perspectives regarding the alternative approach to identification of learning disabilities (LD) or the "response to intervention" (RTI). Gerber raises questions and concerns about the theoretical and practical aspects of a response-to-intervention model on either a small- or large-scale basis. Guiding questions for this response include an examination of (a) changing roles of teachers and diagnosticians; (b) responsibility for fidelity of treatment implementation; (c) applications in secondary settings; (d) consistency of implementation from local to state to national levels; and (e) differentiation of LD from other disabilities. An alternative to both RTI and present procedures is proposed. Conclusions are discussed with respect to existing research-based evidence.     

Predicting First Grade Reading Performance from Kindergarten Response to Tier 1 Instruction

Many schools are beginning to implement multi-tier response to intervention (RTI) models for the prevention of reading difficulties and to assist in the identification of students with learning disabilities (LD). The present study was part of our larger ongoing longitudinal RTI investigation within the Florida Learning Disabilities Center grant. This study used a longitudinal correlational design, conducted in 7 ethnically and socio-economically diverse schools. We observed reading instruction in 20 classrooms, examined response rates to kindergarten Tier 1 instruction, and predicted students' first grade reading performance based upon kindergarten growth and end of year reading performance (n = 203). Teachers followed an explicit core reading program and overall, classroom instruction was rated as effective. Results indicate that controlling for students' end of kindergarten reading, their growth across kindergarten on a variety of language and literacy measures suppressed predictions of first grade performance. Specifically, the steeper the students' trajectory to a satisfactory outcome, the less likely they were to demonstrate good performance in first grade. Implications for future research and RTI implementation are discussed.