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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenderW. N., & ShoresC. (2007). Response to intervention: A practical guide for every teacher. Arlington, VA : Council for Exceptional Children.
2.
BerkeleyS., BenderW. N., PeasterL. G., & SaundersL. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–95.
3.
BiancoM. (2005). The effects of disability labels on special education and general education teachers’ referrals for gifted programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 285–293.
4.
BradleyR., DanielsonL., & DoolittleJ. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 485–486.
5.
BradleyR., DanielsonL., & DoolittleJ. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: 1997 to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 8–12.
6.
BrodyL. E., & MillsC. J. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 282–296.
7.
ComptonD. L. (2006). How should ‘unresponsiveness’ to secondary intervention be operationalized? It is all about the nudge. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 17–173.
FerriB. A., GreggN., & HeggoyS. J. (1997). Profiles of college students demonstrating learning disabilities with and without giftedness. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 552–559.
10.
FuchsD., & DeshlerD. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136.
11.
FuchsL. S., & FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219.
12.
FuchsL. S., & FuchsD. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 89, 14–20.
13.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness–to–intervention: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227.
14.
FuchsD., & YoungC. L. (2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73, 8–30.
15.
GoodR. H., & KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic literacy skills (6th ed.). Longmont, CO : Sopris West Educational Services.
16.
HallahanD. P., KellerC. E., MartinezE. A., ByrdE. S., GelmanJ. A., & FanX. (2007). How variable are interstate prevalence rates of learning disabilities and other special education categories? A longitudinal comparison. Exceptional Children, 73, 136–146.
17.
HarbortG., GunterP. L., HullK., BrownQ., VennM. L., WileyL. P., . (2007). Behaviors of teachers in co–taught classes in a secondary school. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 13–23.
HooverJ. J., & PattonJ. R. (2008). The role of special educators in a multitiered instructional system. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 195–202.
20.
JohnsonE., MellardD. F., & ByrdS. E. (2005). Alternative models of learning disabilities identification: Considerations and initial conclusions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 569–572.
21.
KarnesF. A., ShaunessyE., & BislandA. (2004). Gifted students with disabilities: Are we finding them?Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 16–21.
22.
KauffmanJ. M. (2004). The President's commission and the devaluation of special education. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 307–324.
23.
KavaleK. K. (1995). Setting the record straight on learning disability and low achievement: The tortuous path of ideology. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 145–152.
24.
KavaleK. A. (2005). Identifying specific learning disability: Is responsiveness to intervention the answer?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 553–562.
25.
KavaleK. A., & FornessS. R. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and don't say. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 239–256.
26.
KavaleK. A., HoldnackJ. A., & MostertM. P. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 113–127.
27.
KavaleK. A., KauffmanJ. M., BachmeierR. J., & LeFeverG. B. (2008). Response to Intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self–congratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 135–150.
28.
KavaleK. A., & SpauldingL. S. (2008). Is response to intervention good policy for specific learning disability?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 168–179.
29.
KavaleK. A., SpauldingL. S., & BeamA. P. (2009). A time to define: Makin g the specific learning disability definition prescribe specific learning disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 39–48.
30.
KrochakL. A., & RyanT. G. (2007). The challenge of identifying gifted/learning disabled students. International Journal of Special Education, 22(3), 44–53.
31.
Learning Disabilities Association of America. (2006). Response to Intervention: Position paper of the Learning Disabilities Association of America. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http://www.ldanatl.org/about/position/rti.asp
32.
MastropieriM. A., & ScruggsT. E. (2005). 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. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 525–531.
33.
MellardD. F., ByrdS. E., JohnsonE., TollefsonJ. M., & BoescheL. (2004). Foundations and research on identifying model responsiveness–to–intervention sites. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 243–256.
34.
MorrisonW. F., & RizzaM. G. (2007). Creating a toolkit for identifying twice–exceptional students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(1), 57–76.
35.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 249–260.
36.
OfieshN. (2006). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 883–888.
37.
ReschlyD. R. (2005). Learning disabilities identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, and then what?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 510–515.
38.
ReschlyD. J., & HospJ. L. (2004). State SLD identification policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197–212.
39.
SpeeceD. L., & CaseL. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735–749.
40.
StephensK. R., & KarnesF. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66, 219–238.
41.
TorgesenJ. K. (1979). What shall we do with psychological processes?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 514–521.
42.
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.
43.
VaughnS., & FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.
44.
VellutinoF., ScanlonD. M., SipayE. R., SmallS. G., 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 a basic cause of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
45.
WoodcockR. (1998). Woodcock reading mastery testsrevised. Circle Pines, MN : American Guidance Service.
46.
ZirkelP. A., & KrohnN. (2008). RTI after IDEA: A survey of state laws. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40, 71–73.
