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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al OtaibaS., & FuchsD. (2003). A longitudinal study of children who do not respond to early literacy intervention. Manuscript in preparation.
2.
AlpertJ. L., & YammerD. M. (1983). Research in school consultation: A content analysis of selected journals. Professional Psychology, 14, 604–612.
3.
BerganJ. R. (1970). Behavioral consultation. Columbus, OH : Charles E. Merrill.
4.
BerganJ. R., & KratochwillT. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New York : Plenum.
5.
BradleyR., DanielsonL., & HallahanD. P. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
6.
CanterA. (2003). Personal communication, February 4.
7.
ChalfantJ. C., PyshM. V., & MoultrieR. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for within–building problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 85–96.
8.
ColesG. (1987). The learning mystique: A critical look at “learning disabilities.” New York : Pantheon.
9.
ConwayS. J., & KovaleskiJ. F. (1998). A model for statewide special education reform: Pennsylvania's Instructional Support Teams. International Journal of Educational Reform, 7, 345–351.
10.
CorpolongoJ., PochowskiA., Lloyd–JonesA., & LenzG. (2002). Report to the NASDE board: Ad–hoc committee on learning disabilities. Unpublished paper.
11.
DenoS., GrimesJ., ReschlyD., & SchragJ. (2001). Minneapolis Public Schools—Problem solving model: Review team report. Unpublished paper.
12.
DickmanE. G., HennessyN. L., MoatsL. C., RooneyK. J., & TomeyH. A. (2002). The International Dyslexia Association response to OSEP Summit on Learning Disabilities. Unpublished paper.
13.
Division of Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children. Response to OSEP's consensus statement. Unpublished paper.
14.
DonovanM. S., & CrossC. T. (2002). Minority students in special education and gifted education. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
15.
ElliottR. (1987). Litigating intelligence: IQ tests, special education, and social science in the courtroom. Dover, MA : Auburn House.
16.
ErchulW. P., & MartensB. K. (2002). School consultation: Conceptual and empirical bases and practices (2nd ed.). New York : Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
17.
FletcherJ. M. (1995). Diagnostic utility of intelligence testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities: Historical perspectives and current research. Paper presented at the IQ Testing and Educational Decision Making Workshop, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.
18.
FletcherJ. M., ShaywitzS. E., ShankweilerD. P., KatzL., LibermanI. Y., StuebingK. K., FrancisD. J.. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 6–23.
19.
FlugumK. R., & ReschlyD. J. (1994). Prereferral interventions: Quality indices and outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 32(1), 1–14.
20.
FoormanB. R., FrancisD. J., & FletcherJ. M. (1995). Growth of phonological processing skill in beginning reading: The lag versus deficit model revisited. Paper presented at the Society for Research on Child Development. India napolis, IN.
21.
FrancisD. J., ShaywitzS. E., StuebingK. K., ShaywitzB. A., & FletcherJ. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 3–17.
22.
FrankenbergerW., & FranzaglioK. (1991). A review of states’ criteria for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 495–500.
23.
FriendM., & CookL. (1992). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. New York : Longman.
24.
FuchsD., & FuchsL. S. (1989). Exploring effective and efficient prereferral interventions: A component analysis of behavioral consultation. School Psychology Review, 18, 260–283.
25.
FuchsD., & FuchsL. S. (1996). Consultation as a technology and the politics of school reform. Remedial and Special Education, 17(6), 386–392.
26.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & BahrM. W. (1990). Mainstream Assistance Teams: A scientific basis for the art of consultation. Exceptional Children, 57, 128–139.
27.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., BahrM. W., FernstromP., & SteckerP. M. (1990). Prereferral intervention: A prescriptive approach. Exceptional Children, 56, 493–513.
28.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., HarrisA. H., & RobertsP. H. (1996). Bridging the research–to–practice gap with Mainstream Assistance Teams: A cautionary tale. School Psychology Quarterly, 11(3), 244–266.
29.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., MathesP. G., LipseyM. W., & RobertsP. H. (2001). Is “learning disabilities” just a fancy term for low achievement? A meta–analysis of reading differences between low achievers with and without the label. Paper written for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, and presented at the OSEP's LD Summit conference. Washington, DC.
30.
FuchsL. S. (1995). Incorporating curriculum–based measurement into the eligibility decision–making process: A focus on treatment validity and student growth. Paper presented at the Workshop on IQ Testing and Educational Decision Making, National Research Council, National Academy of Science. Washington, DC.
31.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & SpeeceD. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–46.
32.
GottliebJ., AlterM., GottliebB. W., & WishnerJ. (1994). Special education in urban America: It's not justifiable for many. Journal of Special Education, 27, 453–465.
33.
GradenJ. L., CaseyA., & BonstromO. (1985). Implementing a prereferral intervention system: Part II. The data. Exceptional Children, 51, 487–496.
34.
GrimesJ. (2002). Responsiveness to interventions: The next step in special education identification, service and exiting decision making. Revision of paper written for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, and presented at the OSEP's LD Summit conference. Washington, DC.
35.
HallahanD. P., & MercerC. D. (2001). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives. Paper written for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, and presented at the OSEP's LD Summit conference. Washington, DC.
36.
HanushekE. A., KainJ. F., & RivkinS. G. (2001). Inferring program effects for specialized populations: Does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities? Unpublished manuscript.
37.
HartmanW. T., & FayT. A. (1996). Cost–effectiveness of instructional support teams in Pennsylvania. Journal of Educational Finance, 21, 555–580.
38.
HorowitzS. H., LichtensteinB., RollerC., ToombsM., & KukicS. (2002). An intervention–oriented, multi–tier approach for identifying and serving students with learning disabilities. Unpublished paper prepared for the Learning Disabilities Roundtable, “Finding Common Ground.”
39.
IkedaM., & Gustafson 1. (2002a). Heartland AEA 11's problem solving process: Impact on issues related to special education (Research Report No. 2002–01). Available from authors at Heartland Area Education Agency 11, 6500 Corporate Dr., Johnston, IA, 50131.
40.
IkedaM., & Gustafson. 1 (2002b). Heartland AEA 11's problem solving process: Impact on issues related to special education (Research Report No. 2002–01). Available from authors at Heartland Area Education Agency 11, 6500 Corporate Dr., Johnston, IA, 50131.
41.
IkedaM. J., TillyD. W., StummeJ., VolmerL, & AllisonR. (1996). Agency–wide implementation of problem–solving consultation: Foundations, current implementation, and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 11(3), 228–243.
42.
KaufmanM. J., KameenuiE. J., BirmanB., & DanielsonL. (1990). Special education and the process of change: Victim or master of educational reform?Exceptional Children, 57(2), 109–115.
43.
KavaleK. A. (1987). Theoretical issues surrounding severe discrepancy. Learning Disabilities Research, 3(1), 12–20.
44.
KovaleskiJ. F. (2002). Best practices in operating pre–referral intervention teams in Pennsylvania. In ThomasA. 1 & GrimesJ. 1 (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-IV (pp. 645–655). Bethesda, MD : National Association of School Psychologists.
45.
KovaleskiJ. F., GicklingE. E., MorrowH., & SwankH. (1999). High versus low implementation of instructional support teams. Remedial and Special Education, 20(3), 170–183.
46.
KratochwillT. R., ElliottS. N., & RottoP. C. (1995). Best practices in school–based behavioral consultation. In ThomasA. 1 & GrimesJ. 1 (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology–III (pp. 519–535). Washington, DC : National Association of School Psychologists.
47.
KratochwillT. R., & Van SomerenK. R. (1985). Barriers to treatment success in behavioral consultation: Current limitations and future directions. Journal of School Psychology, 23, 225–239.
48.
LyonG. R., FletcherJ. M., ShaywitzS. E., ShaywitzB. A., TorgesenJ. K., WoodF. B.. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. Hudson Institute.
49.
MacMillanD. L., GreshamF. M., & BocianK. M. (1998). Discrepancy between definitions of learning disabilities and school practices: An empirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 314–326.
50.
MarstonD. (2001). A functional and intervention–based assessment approach to establishing discrepancy for students with learning disabilities. Paper written for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, and presented at the OSEP's LD Summit conference. Washington, DC.
51.
MarstonD., MuyskensP., LauM., & CanterA. (in press). Problem solving model for decision–making with high–incidence disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice.
52.
McMasterK. L., FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & ComptonD. L. (2003). Identification of treatment nonresponders to generally effective reading instruction: An experimental field trial. Manuscript in preparation.
MedwayF. J., & UpdykeJ. F. (1985). Meta–analysis of consultation outcome studies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 489–505.
55.
MehrensW. A., & LehmannI. J. (1987). Using standardized tests in education (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
56.
MercerC. D., King–SearsP., & MercerA. R. (1990). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 141–152.
57.
MeyersJ., PittN. W., GaughanE. J., & FriedmanM. P. (1978). A research model for consultation with teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 16, 137–145.
58.
Minneapolis Public Schools. (2001). Problem solving model: Introduction for all staff. Minneapolis, MN : Author.
59.
MorrisR. D., ShaywitzS. E., ShankweilerD. P., KatzL., StuebingK. K., FletcherJ. M., LyonR. G.. (1998). Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 347–373.
60.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2002). Draft: NASP recommendations on LD eligibility and identification for IDEA reauthorization. Unpublished paper.
61.
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2002). NCLD calls for national mandate on early intervention. Our World, 7.
62.
Office of Special Education Programs. (2002). Specific learning disabilities: Finding common ground. Washington, DC : Author.
63.
PapandreaJ., WalkleyB., DeLormeL., & McNamaraD. (2001). The 7 Share Initiative: Year 4 program evaluation. Unpublished paper.
64.
PontiC. R., ZinsJ. E., & GradenJ. L. (1988). Implementing a consultation–based service delivery system to decrease referrals for special education: A case study in organizational considerations. School Psychology Review, 17, 89–100.
65.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC : Author.
66.
PugachM. C., & JohnsonL. J. (1989). Prereferral interventions: Progress, problems, and challenges. Exceptional Children, 56, 217–226.
67.
PugachM. C., & JohnsonL. J. (1995). Collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools. Denver, CO : Love.
68.
ReynoldsM. C., WangM. C., & WalbergH. J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391–398.
69.
RutterM., & YuleW. (1975). The concept of specific reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 16, 181–197.
70.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(3), 155–168.
71.
ShepardL., & SmithM. L. (1983). An evaluation of the identification of learning disabled students in Colorado. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 115–127.
72.
SheridanS. M., WelchM., & OrmeS. F. (1996). Is consultation effective? A review of outcome research. Remedial and Special Education, 17(6), 341–354.
73.
SiegelL. S. (1989). I.Q. is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469–478.
74.
SiegelL. S. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 304–319.
75.
SkrticT. M. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver, CO : Love.
76.
SleeterC. E. (1998). Yes, learning disabilities is political; what isn't?Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 289–296.
77.
SpeeceD. L., & CaseL. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735–749.
78.
SpeeceD. L., CaseL. P., & MolloyD. E. (in press). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice.
79.
SpeeceD. L., & ShekitkaL. (2002). How should reading disabilities be operationalized? A survey of experts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(2), 118–123.
80.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.
81.
StanovichK. E. (1999). The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 350–361.
82.
StanovichK. E., & SiegelL. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression–based test of the phonological–core variable–difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24–53.
83.
TelzrowC. F., McNamaraK., & HollingerC. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem–solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29(3), 443–461.
84.
TharpR. G., & WetzelR. J. (1969). Behavior modification in the natural environment. New York : Academic Press.
85.
TorgesenJ. K., MorganS. T., & DavisC. (1992). Effects of two types of phonological awareness training on word learning in kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 364–370.
86.
TorgesenJ. K., WagnerR. K., RashotteC. A., LindamoodP., RoseE., ConwayT.. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593.
87.
VaughnS., & Linan–ThompsonS. (2003). What's special and effective in reading instruction for students with LD?Paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Pacific Coast Research Conference. La Jolla, CA.
88.
VellutinoF. R., ScanlonD. M., SipayE. R., SmallS. G., PrattS., ChenR.. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult–to–remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601–638.
89.
ViaderoD. (1991). States turn to special education programs for budget cuts. Education Week, June 12, p. 16.
90.
WestJ. F., & IdolL. (1987). School consultation (part 1): An interdisciplinary perspective on theory, models, and research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 388–408.
91.
WittJ. C., GreshamF. M., & NoellG. H. (1996). What's behavioral about behavioral consultation?Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 7(4), 327–344.
92.
YsseldykeJ. E., AlgozzineB., & EppsS. (1983). A logical and empirical analysis of current practices in classifying students as learning disabled. Exceptional Children, 50, 160–166.
