Many schools are implementing multitier response-to-intervention (RTI) models to reduce reading difficulties. This study was part of our larger ongoing longitudinal RTI investigation within the Florida Learning Disabilities Center grant and was conducted in 7 ethnically and socioeconomically diverse schools. We observed reading instruction in 20 classrooms, examined response rates to kindergarten Tier 1 instruction, and predicted students' first-grade reading performance based on kindergarten growth and end-of-year reading performance (n = 203). Teachers followed an explicit core reading program. Overall, classroom instruction was rated as effective. Results indicate that controlling for students' end-of-kindergarten reading, their growth across kindergarten on a variety of language and literacy measures suppressed predictions of first-grade performance. Specifically, the steeper the students' trajectory to a satisfactory outcome, the less likely they were to demonstrate good performance in first grade. Implications for future research and RTI implementation are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300–316. doi: 10.1177/07419325020230050501.
2.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431. doi: 10.1177/00222194060390050401.
3.
Al OtaibaS.ConnorC.LaneH.KosanovichM.SchatschneiderC.DyrlundA. K.MillerM. S.WrightT. L. (2008). Reading First kindergarten classroom instruction and students' early literacy growth. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 281–314. PMID 1908361 Medline.
4.
BakerS. K.SmolkowskiK.KatzR.FienH.SeeleyJ. R.Kame'enuiE. J.BeckC. T. (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing, high-poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37, 18–37. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.004.
5.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate—a new and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 57, 289–300.
6.
BereiterC.BrownA.CampioneJ.CarruthersI.CaseR.HirshbergJ.TreadwayG. H. (2002). Open court reading. Columbus, OH: SRA McGraw-Hill.
7.
BishopA. G.LeagueM. B. (2006). Identifying a multivariate screening model to predict reading difficulties at the onset of kindergarten: A longitudinal analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 235–252. doi: 10.2307/30035552.
8.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1987). Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing change. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 147–158. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.
9.
CavanaughC. L.KimA.WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2004). Kindergarten reading interventions for at-risk students: Twenty years of research. Learning Disabilities, 2, 9–21.
10.
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. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.394.
11.
ConnorC. M.PiastaS. B.FishmanB.GlasneyS.SchatschneiderC.CroweE.MorrisonF. J. (2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child × instruction interactions on first graders' literacy development. Child Development, 80, 77–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01247.x.
12.
CoyneM.Kame'enuiE.SimmonsD.HarnB. (2004). Beginning reading intervention as inoculation or insulin: First grade reading performance of strong responders to kindergarten intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 90–106. doi: 10.1177/00222194040370020101.
13.
EngelmannS.BrunerE. C. (2002). Reading mastery plus. Columbus, OH: SRA McGraw-Hill.
14.
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. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00237.x.
15.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–228. doi: 10.2307/1593674.
16.
GerstenR.ComptonD.ConnorC. M.DiminoJ.SantoroL.Linan-ThompsonS.TillyW. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades (NCEE Publication No. 2009–4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
17.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Available from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/.
18.
GreshamF. M.ElliottS. N. (1990). Social skills rating system manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
19.
HaagerD.GerstenR.BakerS.GravesA. W. (2003). The English-language learner classroom observation instrument for beginning readers. In VaughnS.BriggsK. L. (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for the observation of teaching and learning (pp. 111–144). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
20.
Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement. (2003). Stanford achievement test (10th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Author.
21.
LoniganC. J.WagnerR.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. (2007). Test of preschool early literacy. Austin, TX: ProEd.
22.
MathesP. G.DentonC.FletcherJ.AnthonyJ.FrancisD.SchatschneiderC. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2.
23.
McMasterK.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2002). Monitoring the academic progress of children who are unresponsive to generally effective early reading intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention Special Issue: Effective Assessment of Young Children, 27, 23–33. doi: 10.1177/073724770202700404.
24.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Center for Family Literacy.
25.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (National Institute of Health Pub. No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
26.
NelsonJ. R.BennerG. J.GonzalezJ. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 255–267. doi: 10.1111/1540-5826.00080.
27.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S.CongdonR. T. (2008). HLM for Windows (Version 6.06) [Computer Software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
28.
SchatschneiderC.WagnerR. K.CrawfordE. C. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 308–315. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.005.
29.
SingerJ. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 323–355.
30.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S.GriffinP. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31.
SpeeceD. L.RitcheyK. D. (2005). A longitudinal study of the development of oral reading fluency in young children at risk for reading failure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 387–399. doi: 10.1177/00222194050380050201.
32.
SpiraE. G.BrackenS. S.FischelJ. E. (2005). Predicting improvement after first grade reading difficulties: The effects of oral language, emergent literacy, and behavior skills. Developmental Psychology, 41, 225–234. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.225.
33.
TindalG.MarstonD.DenoS. (1983). The reliability of direct and repeated measurement (Research Report No. 109). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
34.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.RoseE.LindamoodP.ConwayT.GarvanC. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.579.
35.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SmallS.FanueleD. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 157–169. doi: 10.1177/00222194060390020401.
36.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.ZhangH.SchatschneiderC. (2008). Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 21, 437–480. doi: 10.1007/s11145-007-9098-2.
37.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processes. Austin, TX: ProEd.
38.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). WJ-III Tests of cognitive abilities and achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
