Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is being proposed as an alternative model for making decisions about the presence or absence of specific learning disability. I argue that there are many questions about RTI that remain unanswered, and radical changes in proposed regulations are not warranted at this time. Many fundamental issues related to RTI are unresolved, and a better strategy may be to more rigorously implement existing identification criteria (e.g., discrepancy and psychological processing deficits) in a structured psychometric framework. Suggestions on how to modify present procedures are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aaron, P.G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula . Review of Educational Research, 67, 461—502.
2.
Allor, J.H. (2002). The relationship of phonemic awareness and rapid naming on reading development. Learning Disability Quarterly , 25, 47—57.
3.
Bergmann, G. (1961). Sense and nonsense in operationalism. In P. G. Frank (Ed.), The validation of scientific theories (pp. 45—56). New York: Collier.
4.
Buckhalt, J.A. (2002). A short history of g: Psychometrics' most enduring and controversial construct. Learning and Individual Differences , 13, 101—114.
5.
Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Stahl, S.R., & Willows, D.M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393—447.
6.
Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Willows, D.M., Schuster, B.V., Yeghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250—287.
7.
Flanagan, D.P., & Ortiz, S.O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York: Wiley.
8.
Flanagan, D.P., Ortiz, S.O., Alfonso, V.C., & Mascolo, J.T. (2002). The achievement test desk reference (ATDR): Comprehensive assessment and learning disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Lyon, G.R., Foorman, B.R., Stuebing, K.K., et al. (1998). Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 186—203.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P.G., Lipsey, M.W., & Roberts, P.H. (2002). Is “learning disabilities” just a fancy term for low achievement? A meta-analysis of reading differences between low achievers with and without the label. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 737—762). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
Gaskins, L.W. (1982). Let's end the reading disabilities/learning disabilities debate. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 81—83.
13.
Gordon, M., Lewandowski, L., & Keiser, S. (1999). The LD label for relatively well-functioning students: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 485— 490.
14.
Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B.W., & Wishner, J. (1994). Special education in urban America: It's not justifiable for many. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 453—465.
15.
Gresham, F.M., MacMillan, D.L., & Bocian, K.M. (1996). Learning disabilities, low achievement, and mild mental retardation: More alike than different?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 570—581.
16.
Hallahan, D.P., & Mercer, C.D. (2002). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives . In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 1—67). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
17.
Hoskyn, M., & Swanson, H.L. (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. School Psychology Review, 29, 102—119.
18.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, S.1248, 2003, sec.602(29).
19.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003 (2003). Senate Bill 1248 .
20.
Jenkins, J.R., & O'Connor, R.E. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 99—149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
21.
Kaplan, E., Fein, D., Kramer, J., Delis, D., & Morris, R. (1999). The WISC-III as a process instrument. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
22.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (Eds.). (2001). Specific learning disabilities and difficulties in children and adolescents: Psychological assessment and evaluation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press .
Kavale, K.A. (2002). Discrepancy models in the identification of learning disability. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 369—426). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (1984). A meta-analysis of the validity of Wechsler Scale profiles and recategorizations: Patterns or parodies?Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 136—156.
26.
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (1985a). Learning disability and the history of science: Paradigm or paradox?Remedial and Special Education, 6, 12—23.
27.
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (1985b). The science of learning disabilities. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
28.
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (1995). The nature of learning disabilities: Critical elements of diagnosis and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (1998). The politics of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 245—273.
30.
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and don't say: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 33, 239—256.
31.
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (2003). Learning disability as a discipline. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 76— 93). New York: Guilford Press.
32.
Kavale, K.A., Forness, S.R., & Lorsbach, T.C. (1991). Definition for definitions of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 257—266.
33.
Kavale, K.A., & Nye, C. (1985—1986). Parameters of learning disabilities in achievement, linguistic, neuropsychological, and social/behavioral domains. The Journal of Special Education, 19, 443—458.
34.
Kavale, K.A., & Reese, J.H. (1992). The character of learning disabilities: An Iowa profile. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 74—94.
35.
Keogh, B.K. (1994). A matrix of decision points in the measurement of learning disabilities. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on assessment issues (pp. 15—26). Baltimore: Brookes.
36.
Lerner, J.W. (1975). Remedial reading and learning disabilities: Are they the same or different?The Journal of Special Education , 9, 119—131.
37.
Lopez, M.F., Forness, S.R., MacMillan, D.L., Bocian, K.M., & Gresham, F.M. (1998). Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and emotional or behavioral disorders in primary grades: Inappropriate placement in the learning disorder category. Education & Treatment of Children, 19, 286—299.
38.
MacMillan, D.L., Gresham, F.M., & Bocian, K.M. (1998). Discrepancy between definitions of learning disabilities and school practices: An empirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 314—326.
39.
MacMillan, D.L., Gresham, F.M., Bocian, K.M., & Lambros, K.M. (1998). Current plight of borderline students: Where do they belong?Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 83—94.
40.
MacMillan, D.L., & Siperstein, G.N. (2002). Learning disabilities as operationally defined by schools. In R. Bradley , L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 287—333). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41.
Meehl, P.E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
42.
Mercer, C.D., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D.H., & Mercer, A.R. (1996). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 19, 217—232.
43.
Morison, P., White, S. H., & Fever, M. J. (Eds.) (1996 ). The use of IQ tests in special education decision making and planning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
44.
Naglieri, J.A. (2003). Current advances in assessment and intervention for children with learning disabilities. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Identification and assessment (Vol. 16, pp. 163— 190). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
45.
Peterson, K.M.H., & Shinn, M.R. (2002). Severe discrepancy models: Which best explains school identification practices for learning disabilities?School Psychology Review, 31(4), 459—476.
46.
Pressley, M., & Allington, R. (1999). What should reading instructional research be the research of? Issues in education. Contributions FromEducational Psychology, 5, 1—35.
47.
Reynolds, C.R. (1985). Measuring the aptitude—achievement discrepancy in learning disability diagnosis. Remedial and Special Education , 6, 37—55.
48.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 155—168.
49.
Shepard, L.A. (1980). An evaluation of the regression discrepancy method for identifying children with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 79—91.
50.
Siegel, L.S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469—478, 486.
51.
Siegel, L.S. (2003). IQ-discrepancy definitions and the diagnosis of LD: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 2-3.
52.
Speece, D.L., Case, L.P., & Melloy, D.E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 147—156.
53.
Strauss, S.L. (2001). An open letter to Reid Lyon. Educational Researcher, 30, 26—33.
54.
Stuebing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., LeDoux, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading difficulties: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469—518.
55.
Swanson, H.L. (1999). Has the importance of phonological awareness training been greatly overstated? Issues in Education. Contributions FromEducational Psychology, 5, 125—139.
56.
U.S. Office of Education. (1997, December 29). Assistance to states for educating of handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register , 42 (250), 65082-65085. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
57.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137—146.
58.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D.J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99—114.
59.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Lyon, G.R. (2000). Differentiating difficult-toremediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ— achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 33, 223—238.
60.
Wolf, M., & Bowers, P.G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415—438.
