Responsiveness‐to‐Intervention: Definitions,Evidence, and Implications for the Learning Disabilities Construct

Longstanding concern about how learning disabilities (LD) are defined and identified, coupled with recent efforts in Washington, DC to eliminate IQ‐achievement discrepancy as an LD marker, have led to serious public discussion about alternative identification methods. The most popular of the alternatives is responsiveness‐to‐intervention (RTI), of which there are two basic versions: the “problem‐solving” model and the “standard‐protocol” approach. The authors describe both types, review empirical evidence bearing on their effectiveness and feasibility, and conclude that more needs to be understood before RTI may be viewed as a valid means of identifying students with LD.     

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.     

Alternative models of learning disabilities identification: considerations and initial conclusions

The final session of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD) Responsiveness-to-Intervention (RTI) Symposium, "What are alternative models to LD identification other than RTI?" included four papers that discussed concerns over the exclusive reliance on an RTI approach to learning disability identification, considerations for analyzing proposed LD identification models, and various alternatives to LD identification. The work of the participating panelists is summarized in this discussant paper, and next steps for the NRCLD in light of these presentations are suggested.     

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.     

Solomon Islands school leaders readiness for inclusive education

In this paper, I critically examine the discourse surrounding response to intervention (RTI), a US-based education reform that has garnered a considerable amount of attention (as well as controversy) in a very short amount of time. A multi-pronged reform effort, RTI is a tiered approach to delivering instructional intervention to students at risk, an on-going and systematic model of monitoring student performance, as well as an alternative to the ability/achievement discrepancy model for identifying learning disabilities. In this paper, I argue, however, that RTI is not so much a reform but a tactic, aimed at returning to the status quo of segregated special education and reinvigorating many of the foundational assumptions of traditional special education practice.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Early intervention practitioners’ self-efficacy: a measure and its applications

Teacher efficacy is linked to student achievement and classroom practices in general and special education, but has not been explored in early intervention (EI). Based upon the work of Gibson and Dembo [Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A contrast validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4) 569–582], a 15-item early interventionist self-efficacy scale (EISES) was developed for use in understanding child and program outcomes, as well as for use in evaluating interventionist training and practices. Analysis of the internal consistency reliability of the scale was adequate. Factor analysis indicated a personal self-efficacy component (internal consistency reliability was good) and a general self-efficacy component (internal consistency reliability was poor). This two-component solution explained 41% of the variance. Further analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between EI practitioners’ overall self-efficacy with years of intervention experience. There was also a significant positive correlation between personal self-efficacy and years of experience in early intervention. Implications for the application of the EISES are discussed in terms of the relationships between provider beliefs, implementation of practices, child and family outcomes, as well as effective components of early intervention personnel preparation programs.     

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.     

How should "unresponsiveness" to secondary intervention be operationalized? It is all about the nudge

In the fourth session of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium in 2003, Good, Vellutino, and Torgesen presented papers that addressed the question, "How should unresponsiveness to secondary intervention be operationalized in an RTI approach to LD identification?" In this commentary, I highlight important areas in which ideas converge across the three presentations. I argue that it will be important, as the field begins to grapple with a definition of "unresponsiveness" to secondary intervention, that we also specify who should get the intervention, what the intervention should consist of, when the intervention should occur, how long the intervention should last, and by whom the intervention should be applied. Only then can we accurately assess the merits of competing definitions of unresponsiveness.     

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.     

阅读困难诊断标准与模式的“后智力—成就差异”趋势

阅读困难是学习困难研究中最受关注的一个领域,对整个学习困难研究领域具有重要影响。对阅读困难的有效诊断是阅读困难的研究和干预的基础。在阅读困难的诊断中,曾经广泛应用的智力—成就差异标准与模式在有效性、敏感性以及对干预的指导意义等方面存在严重不足,受到越来越多研究者和实践者的屏弃。目前,核心技能缺陷和干预—应答两类诊断标准和模式日益受到关注和采纳。我国迄今较少系统研究阅读困难的诊断标准与模式,不过,有关汉语阅读困难的初步研究鉴别出语音缺陷、快速命名缺陷和语素技能缺陷,为发展和应用核心技能标准和模式提供了重要基础,也为建立干预—应答模式提供了参考。确立汉语阅读困难诊断的核心技能与干预—应答标准与模式还有待系统和深入的研究。     

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.     

Response‐to‐intervention in high‐risk preschools: Critical issues for implementation

This article summarizes the current knowledge of response‐to‐intervention (RTI) models in preschool settings, with an emphasis on evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of our current research base. Particular attention is given to the unique challenges of high‐risk preschool settings. Presently, sufficient empirical support exists to begin establishing tiered intervention systems and building teacher capacity. Lacking, however, are valid and reliable assessment tools and insufficiently trained personnel to support a data‐based decision‐model within high‐risk preschools. We conclude that organizational development should focus on building teacher capacity, establishing high‐quality classroom instruction, and planning for sustainable programs, with adoption of a full RTI service delivery model serving as a long‐range aspirational goal. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

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.     

Is Response to Intervention Good Policy for Specific Learning Disability?

Abstract The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act ( IDEA ) established new provisions for specific learning disability (SLD) identification, including: (a) no longer requiring consideration of IQ–achievement discrepancy and (b) permitting response to intervention (RTI) as part of SLD evaluation procedures. We discuss several policy implications of these new regulations by considering the original construct of SLD, the still “experimental” status and implementation of RTI, the closer alignment of RTI objectives with No Child Left Behind than former IDEA regulations, and the shift in focus from serving as a special education identification procedure to a general education instructional procedure. We conclude by proposing several recommendations for the appropriate inclusion of both RTI and psychometric evaluation within the continuum of SLD identification procedures.     

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.     

Evidence‐based early reading practices within a Response to Intervention system

Many students who experience reading failure are inappropriately placed in special education. A promising response to reducing reading failure and the overidentification of students for special education is Response to Intervention (RTI), a comprehensive early detection and prevention system that allows teachers to identify and support struggling readers early, before they fail. A key component of RTI is the implementation of evidence‐based reading practices within a multitiered framework. School psychologists are increasingly being asked to lead or be members of RTI building teams. As such, they can play an important role in assuring that evidence‐based practices in reading are implemented with integrity. The purpose of this article is to provide a framework for judging the extent to which early reading instruction within a multitier RTI system is evidence based. Key evidence‐based practices related to the content, design, and delivery of early reading instruction are described. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.