Response-to-intervention (RTI) approaches to disability identification are meant to put an end to the so-called wait-to-fail requirement associated with IQ discrepancy. However, in an unfortunate irony, there is a group of children who wait to fail in RTI frameworks. That is, they must fail both general classroom instruction (Tier 1) and small-group intervention (Tier 2) before becoming eligible for the most intensive intervention (Tier 3). The purpose of this article was to determine how to predict accurately which at-risk children will be unresponsive to Tiers 1 and 2, thereby allowing unresponsive children to move directly from Tier 1 to Tier 3. As part of an efficacy study of a multitier RTI approach to prevention and identification of reading disabilities (RD), 129 first-grade children who were unresponsive to classroom reading instruction were randomly assigned to 14 weeks of small-group, Tier 2 intervention. Nonresponders to this instruction (n = 33) were identified using local norms on first-grade word identification fluency growth linked to a distal outcome of RD at the end of second grade. Logistic regression models were used to predict membership in responder and nonresponder groups. Predictors were entered as blocks of data from least to most difficult to obtain: universal screening data, Tier 1 response data, norm referenced tests, and Tier 2 response data. Tier 2 response data were not necessary to classify students as responders and nonresponders to Tier 2 instruction, suggesting that some children can be accurately identified as eligible for Tier 3 intervention using only Tier 1 data, thereby avoiding prolonged periods of failure to instruction.
American Psychological Association. (2005, September6). APA letter to Assistant Secretary Hager regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), PL. 108-446. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ppo/disability/ltr905.html
2.
BradleyR.DanielsonL. R.HallahanR. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Response-to-intervention as an approach to preventing and identifying learning disabilities in reading. (Institute for Education Sciences R324G060036).
4.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.GilbertJ. K.BarqueroL. A.. . . CrouchR. C. (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grade readers for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 327–340.
5.
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.
6.
DavisG. N.LindoE. J.ComptonD. L. (2007). Children at risk for reading failure: Constructing an early screening measure. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 32–37.
7.
DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M.AnthonyJ. L.FrancisD. J. (2006). An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 447–466.
8.
FletcherJ. M.CoulterW. A.ReschlyD. J.VaughnS. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 304–331.
9.
FletcherJ. M.FoormanB. R.BoudousquieA.BarnesM. A.SchatschneiderC.FrancisD. J. (2002). Assessment of reading and learning disabilities a research-based intervention-oriented approach. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 27–63.
10.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.
11.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.SteckerP. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323.
12.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157–171.
13.
FuchsL. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 172–186.
14.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 204–219.
15.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2007). Progress monitoring within a multi-tiered prevention system. Perspectives, 33(2), 43–47.
16.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7–21.
17.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle school and high school. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 22–28.
18.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.SpeeceD. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unified construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–46.
19.
GerstenR.ComptonD.ConnorC. M.DiminoJ.SantoroL.Linan-ThompsonS.TillyW. D. (2008). 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, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
20.
GilbertJ. K.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.BarqueroL. A.ChoE. (2012). Testing the efficacy of a response to intervention approach to early prevention of reading difficulties: A randomized control trial. Manuscript submitted for publication.
21.
GoodR. H.GrubaJ.KaminskiR. A. (2002). Best practices in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (Vols. 1–2, pp. 699–720). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
22.
HarnB. A.Linan-ThompsonS.RobertsG. (2008). Intensifying instruction: Does additional instructional time make a difference for the most at-risk first graders?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 115–125.
23.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
24.
JenkinsJ. R. (2003, December). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at the NRCLD Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved from http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/jenkins/index.html
25.
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for service delivery in an RTI framework: Candidate measures. School Psychology Review, 36, 582–560.
JohnsonE. S.JenkinsJ. R.PetscherY.CattsH. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(4), 174–185.
28.
McCardleP.ScarboroughH. S.CattsH. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children’s reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 230–239.
29.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE.
30.
SatzP.FletcherJ. M. (1988). Early identification of learning disabled children: An old problem revisited. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 824-829. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.56.6.82410.1037/0022-006X.56.6.824
31.
ScarboroughH. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In ShapiroB. K.AccardoP. J.CaputeA. J. (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75–119). Timonium, MD: York Press.
32.
ScheltingaF.van der LeijA.StruiksmaC. (2010). Predictors of response to intervention of word reading fluency in Dutch. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 212–228.
33.
SpeeceD. L. (2005). Hitting the moving target known as reading development: Some thoughts on screening children for secondary interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 487–493.
34.
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(5), 387–399.
35.
StageS. A.AbbottR. D.JenkinsJ. R.BerningerV. W. (2003). Predicting response to early reading intervention from verbal IQ, reading-related language abilities, attention ratings, and verbal IQ-word reading discrepancy: Failure to validate discrepancy method. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 24–33.
36.
SwansonJ.SchuckS.MannM.CarlsonC.HartmanK.SergeantJ.. . . McClearyR. (2004). Categorical and dimensional definitions and evaluations of symptoms of ADHD: The SNAP and the SWAN rating scales. Retrieved from www.adhd.net
37.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
38.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (1997). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
39.
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.
40.
TymmsP. (1999). Baseline assessment, value-added and the prediction of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 22, 27–36.
41.
VaughnS.DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M. (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 432–444.
42.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to intervention: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.
43.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SipayE. R.SmallS. G.ChenR.PrattA.DencklaM. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
44.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
45.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2008). Response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for students with low response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 126–142.
46.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2009). Students demonstrating persistent low response to reading intervention: Three case studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(3), 151–163.
47.
WoodcockR. W. (1997). Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
48.
WoodcockR. W. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised/Normative Update. Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
49.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Psychoeducational Ability. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
50.
YoungC. L. (2008). The effects of group size on reading outcomes of identified nonresponders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
