How Should “Unresponsiveness” to Secondary Intervention Be Operationalized?

Abstract

In the fourth session of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium in 2003, Good, Vellutino, and Torgesen presented papers that addressed the question, “How should unresponsiveness to secondary intervention be operationalized in an RTI approach to LD identification?” In this commentary, I highlight important areas in which ideas converge across the three presentations. I argue that it will be important, as the field begins to grapple with a definition of “unresponsiveness” to secondary intervention, that we also specify who should get the intervention, what the intervention should consist of, when the intervention should occur, how long the intervention should last, and by whom the intervention should be applied. Only then can we accurately assess the merits of competing definitions of unresponsiveness.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Fuchs, L.S. (1995, May). Curriculum-based measurement and eligibility decision making: An emphasis on treatment validity and growth. Paper presented at the Workshop on Alternatives to IQ Testing , National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.

Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 172—186.

Good, R.H. , Simmons, D. , & Kame'enui, E. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading , 5, 257— 288.

Good, R.H. , Simmons, D. , Kame'enui, E. , & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing response to intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

Leach, J.M. , Scarborough, H.S. , & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 211—224.

Lyon, G.R. (1993). Treatment effectiveness for the learning disabled . Bethesda, MD: NICHD.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.

Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Arlington, VA: Rand Corporation.

Torgesen, J.T. (2003, December). Operationalizing the response to intervention model to identify children with learning disabilities: Specific issues with older children. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium , Kansas City, MO.

10.

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.

11.

Vellutino, F.R. , Scanlon, D.M. , Small, S. , & Fanuele, D. (2003, December). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between reading disabled and non-reading disabled children: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first grade intervention. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

12.

Walker, H.M. , Horner, R.H. , Sugai, G. , Bullis, M. , Spraque, J.R. , Bricker, D. , et al. (1996). Integrated approach to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavior Disorders, 4, 194— 209.