The purpose of this study was to examine the role descriptive factors played in the perceptions of response to intervention (RTI) implementation success, challenges, and self–efficacy in a large Midwestern school district. District staff were surveyed as part of an evaluation of RTI implementation. Factors analyzed included teacher descriptive information, RTI essential elements, and teacher self–efficacy. Findings suggested that staff in elementary buildings rated overall success of RTI implementation higher on average than did staff in secondary buildings. This difference could be attributed to additional challenges to implementation presented by secondary building needs. In addition, no difference was found in overall elementary versus secondary staff perceptions of RTI implementation difficulty; there were, however, differences in the elements that were considered more or less difficult.
BatscheG. M., CurtisM. J., DormanC., CastilloJ. M., & PorterL. J. (2007). The Florida problem–solving/response to intervention model: Implementing a statewide initiative. In JimersonS. R., BurnsM. K., & VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 378–395). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-49053-3_28
3.
CastilloJ. M., & BatscheG. M. (2012). Scaling up response to intervention: The influence of policy and research and the role of program evaluation. Communique, 40(8), 14–16.
4.
Castro–VillarrealF., RodriguezB. J., & MooreS. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions and attitudes about Response to Intervention (RTI) in their schools: A qualitative analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.02.004
5.
DuffyH., & ScalaJ. (2012). A systemic approach to implementing response to intervention in three Colorado high schools. Washington, D.C.: National High School Center, American Institutes for Research.
6.
EagleJ. W., Dowd–EagleS. E., SnyderA., & HoltzmanE. G. (2015). Implementing a multi–tiered system of support (MTSS): Collaboration between school psychologists and administrators to promote systems–level change. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2–3), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929960
7.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & ComptonD. L. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle and high school. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 22.
8.
GerstenR., ComptonD., ConnorC. M., DiminoJ., SantoroL., Linan–ThompsonS., et al. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi–tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009–4045). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides
9.
HornerR. H., ToddA. W., Lewis–PalmerT., IrvinL. K., SugaiG., & BolandJ. B. (2004). The school–wide evaluation tool (SET) a research instrument for assessing school–wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007040060010201
IsbellL. J., & SzaboS. (2014). Understanding secondary teachers’ concerns about RTI: Purposeful professional communication. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(3), 11.
12.
IsbellL., & SzaboS. (2015). Assessment: Teacher efficacy and response to intervention. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(2). 41–46.
13.
LembkeE. S., HamptonD., & BeyersS. J. (2012). Response to intervention in mathematics: Critical elements. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21596
14.
MartínezR. S., NellisL. M., & PrendergastK. A. (2006). Closing the Achievement Gap Series: Part II. Response to intervention (RTI)–basic elements, practical applications, and policy recommendations. education policy brief. Vol. 4, Number 8, Fall 2006. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
15.
MartinezR., & YoungA. (2011). Response to Intervention: How Is It Practiced and Perceived?International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 44–52.
16.
NunnG. D., JantzP. B., & ButikoferC. (2009). Concurrent validity between teacher efficacy and perceptions of response to intervention outcomes. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(3), 215–219.
17.
O'connorE. P., & FreemanE. W. (2012). District–level considerations in supporting and sustaining RtI implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21598
18.
PyleA., Wade–WoolleyL., & HutchinsonN. L. (2011). “Just listen to us”: The role of teacher empowerment in the implementation of responsiveness to intervention. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 57(3), 258–272.
19.
SansostiF. J., GossS., & NoltemeyerA. (2011). Perspectives of special education directors on response to intervention in secondary schools. Contemporary School Psychology, 15(1), 9–20.
20.
SansostiF. J., TelzrowC., & NoltemeyerA. (2010). Barriers and facilitators to implementing response to intervention in secondary schools: Qualitative perspectives of school psychologists. School Psychology Forum, 4(1). 1–21.
21.
SwansonE., SolisM., CiulloS., & McKennaJ. W. (2012). Special education teachers’ perceptions and instructional practices in response to intervention implementation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711432510
22.
Tschannen–MoranM., & HoyA. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.
