Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-11
Are Individual Differences in Response to Intervention Influenced by the Methods and Measures Used to Define Response? Implications for Identifying Children With Learning Disabilities
Response to intervention (RTI) has been promoted for nearly 20 years as a valid supplement to or alternative method of learning disability (LD) identification. Nevertheless, important unresolved questions remain about its role in disability identification. We had two purposes when conducting this study of 229 economically and racially diverse poor readers in Grades 4 and 5 in 28 public elementary and middle schools in Nashville. First, we examined predictors of the children’s response to a reading comprehension tutoring program. Second, we explored the utility of different methods (growth vs final status) and measures (near- and mid-transfer vs far-transfer) in operationalizing “response,” and whether these contrasting methods and measures identified similar children. Findings indicated students with higher pretreatment scores on expressive vocabulary, nonverbal IQ, teacher ratings of attention, and reading comprehension measures were more likely classified as responsive with final status methods. Students with lower pretreatment comprehension scores were more likely identified as responsive with growth methods. These and other findings suggest “response” is strongly context dependent, raising questions about the validity of RTI as a means of disability identification.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 300–316.
2.
BarthA. E.StuebingK. K.AnthonyJ. L.DentonC. A.MathesP. G.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J. (2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 296–307.
3.
CainK.OakhillJ.BryantP. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31–42.
4.
CattsH. W.KamhiA. G. (2017). Prologue: Reading comprehension is not a single ability. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(2), 73–76.
5.
ChoE.RobertsG. J.CapinP.RobertsG.MiciakJ.VaughnS. (2015). Cognitive attributes, attention, and self-efficacy of adequate and inadequate responders in a fourth grade reading intervention. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(4), 159–170.
6.
ClemensN.FuchsD. (2019). Commercially developed tests of reading comprehension: Gold standard or fool’s gold? [Unpublished manuscript].
7.
ComptonD. L. (2000). Modeling the response of normally achieving and at-risk first grade children to word reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 50(1), 53–84.
8.
ComptonD. L. (2006). How should “unresponsiveness” to secondary intervention be operationalized? It is all about the nudge. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 170–173.
9.
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(3), 204–216.
CuttingL. E.ScarboroughH. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277–299.
12.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC.CableA.TackettK. K.SchnakenbergJ. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300.
13.
FrancisD. J.SnowC. E.AugustD.CarlsonC. D.MillerJ.IglesiasA. (2006). Measures of reading comprehension: A latent variable analysis of the diagnostic assessment of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 301–322.
14.
FrijtersJ. C.LovettM. W.SevcikR. A.MorrisR. D. (2013). Four methods of identifying change in the context of a multiple component reading intervention for struggling middle school readers. Reading and Writing, 26(4), 539–563.
15.
FuchsD.ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S.BryantJ.DavisG. N. (2008). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing, 21(4), 413–436.
16.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BurishP. (2000). Peer-assisted learning strategies: An evidence-based practice to promote reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(2), 85–91.
17.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 216–227.
18.
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.
19.
FuchsD.HendricksE.WalshM. E.FuchsL. S.GilbertJ. K.Zhang TracyW.PengP. (2018). Evaluating a multidimensional reading comprehension program and reconsidering the lowly reputation of tests of near-transfer. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(1), 11–23.
20.
FuchsL. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 172–186.
21.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219.
22.
GoughP.TunmerW. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
23.
JacobsonN. S.FolletteW. C.RevenstorfD. (1984). Psychotherapy outcome research: Methods for reporting variability and evaluating clinical significance. Behavior Therapy, 15(4), 336–352.
24.
JacobsonN. S.TruaxP. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19.
25.
KeenanJ. M.BetjemannR. S.OlsonR. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281–300.
26.
KeenanJ. M.MeenanC. E. (2014). Test differences in diagnosing reading comprehension deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 125–135.
27.
KintschW.Van DijkT. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394.
28.
LandisJ. R.KochG. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
29.
Learning Disabilities Association. (2010). The Learning Disabilities Association of America’s white paper on evaluation, identification, and eligibility criteria for students with specific learning disabilities.
30.
LyonR. G.FletcherJ. M.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A.TorgesenJ. K.WoodF. B.. . . OlsenR. (2001, May). Rethinking learning disabilities. In FinnC. E.RotherhamA. J.HokansonC. R., Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–288). Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute.
31.
MaassenG. H. (2004). The standard error in the Jacobson and Truax Reliable Change Index: The classical approach to the assessment of reliable change. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10(6), 888–893.
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.
34.
NationK. (2009). Reading comprehension and vocabulary: What’s the connection? In WagnerR. K.SchatschneiderC.Phythian-SenceC. (Eds.), Beyond decoding: The behavioral and biological foundations of reading (pp. 176–194). Guilford Press.
PerfettiC. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford University Press.
37.
PickeringS.GathercoleS. E. (2001). Working Memory Test Battery for Children (WMTB-C). The Psychological Corporation.
38.
Rand. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. RAND.
39.
ReschlyD. J.HospJ. L. (2004). State SLD identification policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 197–213.
40.
RitcheyK. D.SilvermanR.D.MontanaroE.A.SpeeceD.L.SchatschneiderC. (2012). Effects of a tier 2 supplemental reading intervention for at-risk fourth grade students. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 318–334.
41.
RobertsG.TorgesenJ. K.BoardmanA.ScammaccaN. (2008). Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 63–69.
42.
ScarboroughH. S.SabatiniJ. P.ShoreJ.CuttingL. E.PughK.KatzL. (2013). Meaningful reading gains by adult literacy learners. Reading and Writing, 26(4), 593–613.
43.
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(3), 308–315.
TorgesenJ. K.AlexanderA. W.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.VoellerK. K.ConwayT. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33–58.
46.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (2012). TOWRE-2 examiner’s manual. Pro-Ed.
47.
VadasyP. F.SandersE. A.AbbottR. D. (2008). Effects of supplemental early reading intervention at 2-year follow up: Reading skill growth patterns and predictors. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(1), 51–89.
48.
WanzekJ.PetscherY.Al OtaibaS.KentS. C.SchatschneiderC.HaynesM.. . . JonesF. G. (2016). Examining the average and local effects of a standardized treatment for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(suppl. 1), 45–66.
49.
WechslerD. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (3rd ed.). Pearson.
50.
WechslerD.Hsiao-pinC. (2011). WASI II: Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (2nd ed.). The Psychological Corporation.
51.
YsseldykeJ. E.AlgozzineB.ShinnM. R.McGueM. M. (1982). Similarities and differences between low achievers and students classified learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 16(1), 73–85.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
