The purpose of this study was to examine the role of a dynamic assessment (DA) of decoding in predicting responsiveness to Tier 2 small-group tutoring in a response-to-intervention model. First grade students (n = 134) who did not show adequate progress in Tier 1 based on 6 weeks of progress monitoring received Tier 2 small-group tutoring in reading for 14 weeks. Student responsiveness to Tier 2 was assessed weekly with word identification fluency (WIF). A series of conditional individual growth curve analyses were completed that modeled the correlates of WIF growth (final level of performance and growth). Its purpose was to examine the predictive validity of DA in the presence of three sets of variables: static decoding measures, Tier 1 responsiveness indicators, and prereading variables (phonemic awareness, rapid letter naming, oral vocabulary, and IQ). DA was a significant predictor of final level and growth, uniquely explaining 3% to 13% of the variance in Tier 2 responsiveness depending on the competing predictors in the model and WIF outcome (final level of performance or growth). Although the additional variances explained uniquely by DA were relatively small, results indicate the potential of DA in identifying Tier 2 nonresponders.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300–316.
2.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431.
3.
BridgesM. S.CattsH. W. (2011). The use of a dynamic screening of phonological awareness to predict risk for reading disabilities in kindergarten children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 330–338.
4.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W.CongdonR. T. (1996). HLM: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling with the HLM/2L and HLM/3L programs. Scientific Software International.
5.
CaffreyE. (2006). A comparison of dynamic assessment and progress monitoring in the prediction of reading achievement for students in kindergarten and first grade (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
6.
CaffreyE.FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2008). The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: A review. Journal of Special Education, 41, 254–270.
7.
CampioneJ. C.BrownA. L. (1990). Guided learning and transfer: Implications for approaches to assessment. In FrederiksenN.GlaserR. (Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 141–172). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
CattsH. W.FeyM. E.ZhangX.TomblinJ. B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361.
9.
ComptonD. L. (2000). Modeling the growth of decoding skills in first grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 219–259.
10.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Response-to-Intervention as an Approach to Preventing and Identifying Learning Disabilities in Reading. Funded by IES (R324G060036).
11.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.GilbertJ. K.BarqueroL. A.CrouchR. C. (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grade readers for early interventions: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 327–341.
12.
ComptonD. L.GilbertJ. K.JenkinsJ. R.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ChoE.BoutonB. (2012). Accelerating chronically unresponsive children to tier 3 instruction: What level of data is necessary to ensure selection accuracy?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 204–216.
13.
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.
14.
FuchsD. (2009). Dynamic assessment and RTI. Coronado, CA: Pacific Coast Research Conference.
15.
FuchsD.ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.CaffreyE. (2011). The construct and predictive validity of a dynamic assessment of young children learning to read. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 339–347.
16.
FuchsD.ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S.BryantJ.DavisG. C. (2008). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal study at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 413–436.
17.
FuchsD.DeshlerD. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136.
18.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.BoutonB.CaffreyE.HillL. (2007). Dynamic assessment as responsiveness to intervention: A scripted protocol to identify young at-risk readers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 58–63.
19.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.
20.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 204–219.
21.
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.
22.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle school and high school. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 22–28.
23.
GilbertJ. K.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.BarqueroL. A.ChoE. (in press). Efficacy of a first-grade responsiveness-to-intervention prevention model for struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly.
24.
GreshamF. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467– 519). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
GrigorenkoE. L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 111–132.
26.
GrigorenkoE. L.SternbergR. J. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 75–111.
27.
HaywoodH. C.LidzC. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HedgesL. V.HedbergE. C. (2007). Intraclass correlations for planning group randomized experiments in rural education. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 22, 1–15.
29.
NelsonJ. R.BennerG. J.GonzalezJ. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 225–267.
30.
McMasterK. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.
31.
O’ConnorR. E.JenkinsJ. R. (1999). The prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159–197.
32.
RackJ. P.SnowlingM. J.OlsonR. K. (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 29–53.
33.
SchatschneiderC.WagnerR. K.CrawfordE. C. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 308–315.
34.
ShareD. L.StanovichK. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: A model of acquisition and individual differences. Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 1, 1–57.
35.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
SpectorJ. E. (1992). Predicting progress in beginning reading: Dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 353–363.
37.
SpeeceD. L.CaseL. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735–749.
38.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
SwansonH. L. (2010). Does the dynamic testing of working memory predict growth in nonword fluency and vocabulary in children with reading disabilities?Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 9, 139–165.
40.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (1997). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
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.
WagnerR. K.ComptonD. L. (2011). Dynamic assessment and its implication for RTI models. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 311–312.
44.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
45.
WechslerD. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
46.
WoodcockR. W. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test—Revised/Normative Update. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
47.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
48.
ZumetaR. O. (2010). Enhancing the accuracy of kindergarten screening (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
49.
ZumetaR. O.ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S. (2012). Using word identification fluency to assess first-grade reading development: A comparison of two word-sampling approaches. Exceptional Children, 78, 201–220.
