Attention to growth may net more accurate screening results than have been apparent in the long history of early identification research. Instead of relying solely on measures administered at one time point, including a measure of children's growth or responsiveness may add an important dimension to the screening equation and provide a clearer view of who may require secondary intervention. Several possibilities were examined that led to suggestions for further research. It was recommended that screening for secondary interventions be viewed as a three-legged stool that incorporates not only individual differences at the screen and outcome but also development conceptualized as rate of learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Byrne, B., Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Ashley, L. (2000). Effects of preschool phonemic identity training after six years: Outcome level distinguished from rate of response. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 659— 667.
2.
Case, L.P., Speece, D.L., & Molloy, D.E. (2003). The validity of a response-to-instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review, 32, 557— 582.
3.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219—232.
4.
Deno, S.L., Fuchs, L.S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507—524.
5.
Erickson, F. (1996). Inclusion into what? Thoughts on the construction of learning, identity, and affiliation in the general education classroom . In D. L. Speece & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research on classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of children with learning disabilities (pp. 91—105). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
6.
Fletcher, J., & Satz, P. (1984). Test-based versus teacher-based predictions of academic achievement: A three-year longitudinal study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 9, 193—203.
7.
Foorman, B.R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 203—212.
8.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N.J., et al. (2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 251—267.
9.
Fuchs, L.S. (1995, May). Incorporating curriculum-based measurement into the eligibility decision-making process: A focus on treatment validity and student growth. Paper presented at the Workshop on IQ Testing and Educational Decision Making, National Research Council, National Academy of Science, Washington, DC.
10.
Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 81, 172—186.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204—219.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment . School Psychology Review, 28, 659— 671.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D.L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7—21.
14.
Jenkins, J.R., & O'Connor, R.E. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danileson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 99—149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
15.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology , 80, 437—447.
16.
Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Carter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 81, 187—200.
17.
O'Connor, R.E., & Jenkins, J.R. (1999). Prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159—197.
18.
Phillips, L.M., Norris, S.P., Osmond, W.C., & Maynard, A.M. (2002). Relative reading achievement: A longitudinal study of 187 children from first through sixth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 3—13.
19.
Scanlon, D.M., & Vellutino, F.R. (1996). Prerequisite skills, early instruction, and success in first-grade reading: Selected results from a longitudinal study. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 2, 54—63.
20.
Scarborough, H.S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In B. K.
21.
Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, & A. J. Capute (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75—107). Timonium, MD: York Press.
22.
Speece, D.L., & Case, L.P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735—749.
23.
Speece, D.L., & Cooper, D.H. (1990). Ontogeny of school failure: Classification of first grade children. American Educational Research Journal , 27, 119—140.
24.
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voelher, K.K.S., & Conway, T. (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, 78.
25.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., et al. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579—593.
26.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S.G., Pratt, A., Chen, R.S., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor reader: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 607—638.
