This article examines the recommended eligibility determination for learning disabilities (LD) in both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act and the proposed changes in diagnostic criteria in the DSM-5. The focus is on the inclusion of the criterion of responsiveness to intervention (RTI) and the implications for practice of school psychologists and general and special education teachers. The research base on RTI for diagnostic purposes is examined, and considerations of changing roles for clinicians and school-based practitioners are discussed.
BallC.ChristT. (2012). Supporting valid decision making: Uses and misuses of assessment data within the context of RTI. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 231–244.
3.
BerkeleyS.BenderW.PeasterL.SaundersL. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(1), 85–95.
4.
BriegerD.MajovskiL. (2008). Neurological assessment and RTI in the assessment of learning disabilities: Are they mutually exclusive? In Fletcher-JanzenE.ReynoldsC. (Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 141–158). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
5.
BurnsM.JacobS.WagnerA. (2008). Ethical and legal issues associated with using response-to-intervention to assess learning disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 263–279.
6.
CavendishW.HarryB.MendaA.EspinosaA.MahotiereM. (2012). Implementing response to intervention: Challenges of diversity and system change in a high stakes environment. Manuscript submitted for publication.
7.
DonovanM. S.CrossC. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
8.
FletcherJ. M.DentonC.FrancisD. J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545–552.
9.
FletcherJ.FrancisD.MorrisR.LyonG. (2005). Evidence-based assessment of learning disabilities in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 506–522.
10.
FletcherJ.LyonG.FuchsL.BarnesM. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford.
11.
FrancisD.FletcherJ.SteubingK. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–108.
12.
FriendM.CookL. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
13.
FuchsD.ComptonD.FuchsL.BryantV.HamlettC.LambertW. (2012). First-grade cognitive abilities as long-term predictors of reading comprehension and disability status. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 217–231.
14.
FuchsL. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 172–186.
15.
FuchsL.FuchsD. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 14–20.
16.
HawkinsR.KroegerS.Musti-RaoS.BarnettD.WardJ. (2008). Preservice training in response to intervention: Learning by doing an interdisciplinary field experience. Psychology in the Schools, 45(8), 745–762.
17.
HospJ.HospM.DoleJ. (2011). Potential bias in predictive validity of universal screening measures across disaggregation subgroups. School Psychology Review, 40, 108–131.
18.
HughesS. (2008). Comprehensive assessment must play a role in RTI. In Fletcher-JanzenE.ReynoldsC. (Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 115–130). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
19.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
20.
JohnsonE.HumphreyM.MellardD.WoodsK.SwansonH. L. (2010). Cognitive processing deficits and students with specific learning disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 3–16.
21.
JohnsonE.MellardD.ByrdS. (2005). Alternative models of learning disabilities identification: Considerations and initial conclusion. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 569–572.
22.
JohnsonE.MellardD. F.FuchsD.McKnightM. A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.
23.
JohnstonP. E. (2011). Response to intervention in literacy: Problems and possibilities. Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 511–534.
24.
JonesR.YsselN.GrantC. (2012). Reading instruction in tier 1: Bridging the gaps by nesting evidence-based interventions within differentiated instructions. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 210–218.
25.
KempS.KorkmanM. (2008). The role of neuroscience and neuropsychology in the diagnosis of learning differences and the RTI paradigm. In Fletcher-JanzenE.ReynoldsC. (Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 266–278). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
26.
KlingnerJ. K.EdwardsP. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–116.
27.
MastropieriM.ScruggsT. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 525–531.
28.
McKenzieR. (2009). Obscuring vital distinctions: The oversimplification of learning disabilities within RTI. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 32, 203–216.
MurawskiW.HughesC. (2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, and co-teaching: A logical combination for successful system change. Preventing School Failure, 53(4), 267–277.
31.
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2011). National assessment of IDEA overview (NCEE 2011-4026). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114026/pdf/20114026.pdf
32.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2008, December). Overview of technical assistance (TA) model. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
33.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2010). Comprehensive assessment and evaluation of students with learning disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.
34.
NellisL. (2012). Maximizing the effectiveness of building teams in response to intervention implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 245–256. doi:10.1002/pits.2159
35.
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
36.
ReynoldsC. (2008). RTI, neuroscience, and sense: Chaos in the diagnosis and treatment of learning disabilities. In Fletcher-JanzenE.ReynoldsC. (Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 14–27). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
37.
ReynoldsC.ShaywitzS. (2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 130–145.
38.
SwansonH. L. (2008). Neuroscience and RTI: A complementary role. In Fletcher-JanzenE.ReynoldsC. (Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 28–53). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
39.
TannockR. (2013). Rethinking ADHD and LD in DSM-5: Proposed changes in diagnostic criteria. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
40.
Walker-DalhouseD.RiskoV.EsworthyC.GrasleyE.KailserG.McIlvainD.StephanM. (2009). Crossing boundaries and initiating conversations about RtI: Understanding and applying differentiated classroom instruction. Reading Teacher, 63(1), 84–87.
41.
YssledykeJ.BurnsM.ScholinS.ParkerD. (2010). Instructionally valid assessment within response to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42, 54–61.
