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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArkesH. (1986). Impediments to accurate clinical judgment and possible ways to minimize their impact. In ArkesH. & HammondK. (Eds.), Judgment and decision making (pp. 582–592).
2.
BatscheG., CurtisJ., DormanC., CastilloJ., & PorterL. J. (2008). The Florida problem solving/response to intervention model: Implementing a statewide initiative. In JimersonS., BurnsM., & VanDerHeydenA. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 378–395). New York : Springer.
3.
ChunM., & WittJ. (2008). System to enhance educational performance. Retrieved July 7, 2008, from http://www.isteep.com/index.html.
4.
ColemanM., BuysseV., & NeitzelJ. (2006). Recognition and response: An early intervening system for young children at–risk for learning disabilities. Full report. Chapel Hill, NC : The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPG Child Development Institute.
5.
ComptonD. L., FuchsD., FuchsL.S., & BryantJ. D. (2006). Selecting at–risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two–year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394–409.
6.
FuchsD., & DeshlerD. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136.
7.
FuchsD., & FuchsL. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is itReading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99.
8.
FuchsD., & FuchsL. S. (2005). Responsiveness–to–intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57–61.
9.
FuchsD., FuchsL., & ComptonD. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness–to–instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 27, 216–227.
10.
GoodR., & KaminskiR. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR : Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Retrieved June 7, 2006 from http://dibels.uoregon.edu/measures/orf.php.
11.
HollenbeckA. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion of foundational and future responsiveness–to–intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 137–146.
12.
HooverH., DunbarS., & FrisbieD. (2001). Iowa tests of basic skills. Rolling Meadows, IL : Riverside.
13.
JenkinsJ. (2003). Candidate measures for screening at–risk students. Paper presented at the NRCLD responsiveness–to–intervention symposium, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved April 3, 2006, from http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/jenkins/index.html.
14.
JohnsonE., MellardD., FuchsD., & McKnightM. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS : National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.
15.
MacGinitieW., MacGinitieR., MariaK., DreyerL., & HughesK. (2002). Gates–MacGinitie reading tests (4th ed.). Rolling Meadows, IL : Riverside.
16.
MellardD., ByrdS., JohnsonE., TollefsonJ., & BoescheL. (2004). Foundations and research on identifying model responsiveness–to–intervention sites. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 27, 243–256.
17.
MellardD., & JohnsonE. (2007). RTI: A practitioner's guide to implementing response to intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin Press.
18.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2009). RTI Library. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/ on June 15, 2009.
19.
ShinnM. (2008). Implementation in secondary schools. In FernleyS., LaRueS. D., & NorlinJ. (Eds.), What do I do when: Answer book on RTI (pp. 1–17). Arlington, VA : LRP Publications.
20.
SteckerP., FuchsL. S., & FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum–based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.
