Implementing an intervention responsiveness approach to the identification of learning disabilities (LD) requires specification of procedures for the assessment process. In this article, the author uses examples in the literature to explore conceptual and technical issues associated with options for specifying three assessment components: the timing of the measurement of student response to intervention; the criterion for demarcating learning as inadequate (below which students are identified as LD); and the nature of the intervention. Then, the author summarizes research contrasting alternative assessment methods within an intervention responsiveness approach to LD identification. Conclusions are drawn, and future related work is described.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum–based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
2.
DenoS. L., FuchsL. S., MarstonD., & ShinY. (2001). Using curriculum–based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–523.
3.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & ComptonD. (In press). Identifying reading disability as inadequate response to treatment: Methodological challenges. In ParisS. G. 1 & StahlS. A. 1 (Eds.), Current issues in reading comprehension and assessment. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., MathesP., & SimmonsD. (1997). Peer–assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsible to student diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206.
FuchsL. S. (1995). Incorporating curriculum–based measurement into the eligibility decision–making process: A focus on treatment validity and student growth. Paper prepared for the National Academy of Sciences Workshop on Alternatives to IQ Testing. Washington, DC.
7.
FuchsL. S., & FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219.
8.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & HamlettC. L. (1989). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 103–111.
9.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., HamlettC. L., WalzL., & GermannG. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.
10.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., HospM. L., & HamlettC. L. (2002). Monitoring second–grade reading progress with curriculum–based measurement. Unpublished raw data.
11.
GoodR. H.III, SimmonsD. C., & Kame'enuiE. J. (2001). The importance and decision–making utility of a continuum of fluency–based indicators of foundational reading skills for third grade high–stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.
12.
GreshamF. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In BradleyR. 1, DanielsonL. 1, & HallahanD. L. 1 (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467–519). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
13.
HellerK. A., HoltzmanW. H., & MessickS. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
14.
JenkinsJ. R., & O'ConnorR. E. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In BradleyR. 1, DanielsonL. 1, & HallahanD. P. 1 (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 99–149). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
15.
MorganP., & YoungC. (2002). Effects of tutoring on the reading performance of treatment resistant children. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society of the Scientific Study of Reading. Chicago, IL.
16.
SpeeceD. L., & CaseL. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735–749.
17.
SpeeceD. L., MolloyD. E., & CaseL. P. (2000). Toward validating a model of reading disability identification based on response to treatment. Paper presented at the annual Pacific Coast Research Conference. La Jolla, CA.
18.
TorgesenJ. K., AlexanderA., WagnerR., RashotteC., VoellerK., & ConwayT (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long–term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.
19.
VellutinoF., ScanlonD., SipayE., SmallS., PrattA., 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, 601–638.
