Critical Issues in Response-To-Intervention,Comprehensive Evaluation,and Specific Learning Disabilities Identification and Intervention: An Expert White Paper Consensus

Abstract

Developed in concert with the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA), this White Paper regarding specific learning disabilities identification and intervention represents the expert consensus of 58 accomplished scholars in education, psychology, medicine, and the law. Survey responses and empirical evidence suggest that five conclusions are warranted: 1) The SLD definition should be maintained and the statutory requirements in SLD identification procedures should be strengthened; 2) neither ability-achievement discrepancy analysis nor failure to respond to intervention alone is sufficient for SLD identification; 3) a “third method” approach that identifies a pattern of psychological processing strengths and weaknesses, and achievement deficits consistent with this pattern of processing weaknesses, makes the most empirical and clinical sense; 4) an empirically-validated RTI model could be used to prevent learning problems, but comprehensive evaluations should occur for SLD identification purposes, and children with SLD need individualized interventions based on specific learning needs, not merely more intense interventions; and 5) assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological processes should be used for both SLD identification and intervention purposes.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aaron

P. G.

(1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.

Ardoin

S. P.

Witt

J. C.

Connell

J. E.

Koenig

J. L.

(2005). Application of a three-tiered response to intervention model for instructional planning, decision making, and the identifi cation of children in need of services. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 362–380.

Barnett

D. W.

Daly

E. J.

Jones

K. M.

Lentz

F. E.

(2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 66–79.

Barnett

D. W.

Elliott

Graden

Ihio

MacMann

Nantais

Prasse

(2009). Technical adequacy for response to intervention practices. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 20–31.

Barth

A. E.

Stuebing

K. K.

Anthony

J. L.

Denton

C. A.

Mathes

P. G.

Fletcher

J. M.

Francis

D.J.

(2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learning and Individiual Differences, 18, 296–307.

Berkeley

Bender

W. N.

Peaster

L. G.

Saunders

(2009). Implementation of response to intervention. A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–89.

Berninger

V. W.

(2006). Research-supported ideas for implementing reauthorized IDEA with intelligent professional psychological services. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 781–796.

Berninger

V. W.

Abbott

R. D.

(1994). Redefining learning disabilities: Moving beyond aptitude-achievement discrepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment protocols. In Lyon

R. G.

(Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities (pp. 163–183). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Berninger

V. W.

Holdnack

J. A.

(2008). Nature-nurture perspectives in diagnosing and treating learning disabilities: Response to questions begging answers that see the forest and the trees. In Fletcher-Janzen

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 68–81). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

10.

Berninger

V. W.

Abbott

R. D.

Brooksher

Lemos

Ogier

Zook

(2000). A connectionist approach to making the predictability of English orthography explicit to at-risk beginning readers: Evidence for alternative, effective strategies. Developmental Neuropsychology, 17, 241–271.

11.

Bocian

Beebe

MacMillan

Gresham

F. M.

(1999). Competing paradigms in learning disabilities classification by schools and the variations in the meaning of discrepant achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 1–14.

12.

Brown-Chidsey

Steege

M. W.

(2005). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice. New York: Guilford.

13.

Burns

M. K.

Senesac

B. V.

(2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393–406.

14.

Caterino

L.C.

Sullivan

A. L.

Long

Bacal

(2005). A survey of Arizona school psychologists on the new IDEIA. The School Psychologist, 62 (2), 45–49.

15.

Chenault

Thomson

Abbott

R. D.

Berninger

V. W.

(2006). Effects of prior training on child dyslexics' response to composition instruction. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 243–260.

16.

Daly

E. J.

III Martens

B. K.

Barnett

Witt

J. C.

Olson

S. C.

(2007). Varying intervention delivery in response to intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School Psychology Review, 36, 562–581.

17.

Decker

S. L.

(2008). School neuropsychology consultation in neurodevelopmental disorders. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 799–811.

18.

Decker

S. L.

Carboni

J. A.

Oliver

J. A.

(2008). Perspective on RTI from neuropsychology. In Fletcher-Janzen

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 192–199). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

19.

Deno

S. L.

(2002). Problem solving as “best practice”. In Thomas

Grimes

(Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV (pp. 37–56). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

20.

Dombrowski

S. C.

Kamphaus

R. W.

Reynolds

C. R.

(2004). After the demise of the discrepancy: Proposed learning disabilities diagnostic criteria. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 364–372.

21.

Elliott

C. D.

(2008). Identifying a learning disability: Not just product, but process. In Fletcher-Janzen

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 210–218). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

22.

Feifer

S. G.

Toffalo

D. A. Delia

(2007). Integrating RTI with cognitive neuropsychology. A scientific approach to reading. Middletown, MD: School Neuropsych Press.

23.

Feifer

S. G.

(2008). Integrating response to intervention (RTI) with neuropsychology: A scientific approach to reading. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 812–825.

24.

Ferrer

Shaywitz

Holahan

Marchione

Shaywitz

(2010). Uncoupling of reading and IQ over time: Empirical evidence for a definition of dyslexia. Psychological Science, 21, 93–101.

25.

Fiorello

C. A.

Hale

J. B.

Snyder

L. E.

(2006). Cognitive hypothesis testing and response to intervention for children with reading disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 835–854.

26.

Fiorello

C. A.

Hale

J. B.

Snyder

L. E.

(2006). Cognitive hypothesis testing and response to intervention for children with reading disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 835–854.

27.

Fiorello

C. A.

Hale

J. B.

Decker

S. L.

Coleman

(2009). Neuropsychology in school psychology. In Garcia-Vazquez

Crespi

T. D.

Riccio

C. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of education, training and supervision of school psychologists in school and community, volume 1 (pp. 213–232). New York: Taylor & Francis.

28.

Fiorello

C. A.

Hale

J. B.

Snyder

L. E.

Forrest

Teodori

(2008). Validating individual differences through examination of converging psychometric and neuropsychological models of cognitive functioning. In Thurman

S. K.

Fiorello

C. A.

(Eds.), Applied cognitive research in K-3 classrooms (pp. 232–254). New York: Routledge.

29.

Flanagan

D. P.

Alfonso

V. C.

(Eds.). (in press). Essentials of specific learning disability identification. In Flanagan

D. P.

Ortiz

S. O.

Alfonso

V. C.

(2007). Essentials of cross battery assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

30.

Flanagan

D. P.

Alfonso

V. C.

Mascolo

Hale

J. B.

(in press). The WISC-IV in neuropsychological assessment and intervention. In Davis

A. S.

(Ed.), Handbook of pediatric neuropsychology. New York: Springer Publishing.

31.

Flanagan

D. P.

Ortiz

S. O.

Alfonso

V. C.

Dynda

A. M.

(2006). Integration of response to intervention and norm-referenced tests in learning disability identification: Learning from the Tower of Babel. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 807–825.

32.

Fletcher

J. M.

Vaughn

(2007). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 30–37.

33.

Fletcher

J. M.

Denton

Francis

D.J.

(2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545–552.

34.

Fletcher

J. M.

Lyon

G. R.

Barnes

Stuebing

K. K.

Francis

D. J.

Olson

R. K.

(2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence based evaluation. In Bradley

Danielson

Hallahan

(Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 185–250). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.

35.

Fletcher-Janzen

(2008). Knowing is not enough-we must apply, willing is not enough-we must do. In Fletcher-Janzen

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 315–325). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

36.

Fletcher-Janzen

Reynolds

C. R.

(2008). Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

37.

Fuchs

Deshler

D. 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.

38.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99.

39.

Fuchs

L. S.

Compton

D. L.

(2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness to instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227.

40.

Fuchs

L. S.

Mathes

P. G.

Lipsey

M. L.

Roberts

P. H.

(2002). Is “learning disabilities” just a fancy term for low achievement? A meta-analysis of reading differences between low achievers with and without the label. In Bradley

Danielson

Hallahan

(Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities (pp. 737–762). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

41.

Geary

D. C.

Hoard

M. K.

(2005). Learning disabilities in arithmetic and mathematics: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In Campbell

J. I. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 253–267). New York: Psychology Press.

42.

Gerber

M. M.

(2005). Teachers are still the test. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38 (6), 516–524.

43.

Gersten

Dimino

J. A.

(2006). New directions in research RTI (Response to Intervntion): Rethinking special education for students with reading disabilities. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 43–58.

44.

Gresham

F. M.

(2004). Current status and future directions of school-based behavioral interventions. School Psychology Review, 33, 326–343.

45.

Grigorenko

E. L.

(2009). Dynamic assessment and response-to-intervention. Two sides of the same coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 111–132.

46.

Gunderson

Siegal

(2001). The evils of the use of the IQ test to define learning disabilities in first and second language learners. The Reading Teacher, 55, 48–55.

47.

Gustafson

Ferreira

Ronnberg

(2007). Phonological or orthographic training for children with phonological or orthographic deficits. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 13, 211–228.

48.

Hain

L. A.

Hale

J. B.

Kendorski

J. G.

(2009). Comorbidity of psychopathology in cognitive and academic SLD subtypes. In Feifer

S. G.

Rattan

(Eds.), Emotional disorders: A neuropsychological, psychopharmacological, and educational perspective (pp. 199–226). Middletown, MD: School Neuropsych Press.

49.

Hain

L. A.

Hale

J. B.

Kendorski

J. G.

(2009). Comorbidity of psychopathology in cognitive and academic SLD subtypes. In Feifer

S. G.

Rattan

(Eds.), Emotional disorders: A neuropsychological, psychopharmacological, and educational perspective. Middletown, MD: School Neuropsych Press.

50.

Halberda

Mazzocco

M.M.M.

Feigenson

(2008). Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature, 455 (2), 665–668.

51.

Hale

J. B.

Kaufman

Naglieri

J. A.

Kavale

K. A.

(2006). Implementation of IDEA: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 753–770.

52.

Hale

J. B.

Naglieri

J. A.

Kaufman

A. S.

Kavale

K. A.

(2004). Specific learning disability classifi cation in the new Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: The danger of good ideas. The School Psychologist, 58 (1), 6–4.

53.

Hale

J. B.

(2006). Implementing IDEA with a three-tier model that includes response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods. School Psychology Forum: Research and Practice, 1, 16–27.

54.

Hale

J. B.

Fiorello

C. A.

Brown

(2005). Determining medication treatment effects using teacher ratings and classroom observations of children with ADHD: Does neuropsychological impairment matter? Educational and Child Psychology, 22, 39–61.

55.

Hale

J. B.

Fiorello

C. A.

Dumont

Willis

J. O.

Rackley

Elliott

(2008). Differential Ability Scales — Second Edition (neuro)psychological Predictors of Math Performance for Typical Children and Children with Math Disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 838–858.

56.

Hale

J. B.

Fiorello

C. A.

Miller

J. A.

Wenrich

Teodori

A. M.

Henzel

(2008). WISC-IV assessment and intervention strategies for children with specific learning disabilities. In Prifitera

Saklofske

D. H.

Weiss

L. G.

(Eds.), WISC-IV clinical assessment and intervention (2nd ed., pp. 109–171). New York: Elsevier.

57.

Hale

J. B.

Flanagan

D. P.

Naglieri

J. A.

(2008). Alternative research-based methods for IDEA (2004) identification of children with specific learning disabilities. Communique, 36 (8), 1,14–17.

58.

Hale

J. B.

Kaufman

Naglieri

J. A.

Kavale

K. A.

(2006). Implementation of IDEA: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 753–770.

59.

Hale

J. B.

Wycoff

K. L.

Fiorello

C. A.

(in press). Cognitive hypothesis testing and RTI for specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: The best of both worlds. In Flanagan

D. P.

Alfonso

(Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

60.

Helland

(2007). Dyslexia at a behavioural and a cognitive level. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 13, 25–41.

61.

Hughes

S. J.

(2008). Comprehensive assessment must play a role in RTI. In Fletcher-Janzen

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 115–130). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

62.

Jimerson

S. R.

Burns

M. K.

VanDerHeyden

A. M.

(2007). Handbook of response to intervention. New York: Springer.

63.

Johnson

E. S.

Humphrey

Mellard

D. F.

Woods

Swanson

H. L.

(2010). Cognitive processing deficits and students with specific learning disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 3–18.

64.

Kaufman

A. S.

(2008). Neuropsychology and specific learning disabilities: Lessons from the past as a guide to present controversies and future practice. In Fletcher-Janzen

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 1–13). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

65.

Kavale

K. A.

Flanagan

D. P.

(2007). Ability-achievement discrepancy, response to intervention, and assessment of cognitive abilities/processes in specific learning disability identification: Toward a contemporary operational definition. In Jimerson

S. R.

Burns

M. K.

VanDerHeyden

A. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 130–147). New York: Springer Publishing Company.

66.

Kavale

K. A.

Holdnack

J. A.

Mostert

M. P.

(2005). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 2–16.

67.

Kavale

K. A.

Kaufman

A. S.

Naglieri

J. A.

Hale

J. B.

(2005). Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of poorly supported ideas. The School Psychologist, 43 (7), 753–770.

68.

Kemp

S. L.

Korkman

(2008). The role of neuroscience and neuropsychology in the diagnosis of learning differences and the RTI paradigm. In Fletcher-Janzen

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 266–278). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

69.

Learning Disabilities Roundtable. (2002). Specific learning disabilities: Finding common ground. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs, Office of Innovation and Development.

70.

Learning Disabilities Roundtable. (2005). Comments and recommendations on regulatory issues under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 P.L. 108–446. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs.

71.

Lidz

C. S.

Pena

E. D.

(2009). Response to intervention and dynamic assessment. Do we just appear to be speaking the same language? Seminars in Speech and Language, 30, 121–133.

72.

Lovett

M. W.

Steinbach

K. A.

Frijters

J. C.

(2000). Remediating the core deficits of developmental reading disability: A double-deficit hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 334–358.

73.

MacHek

G. R.

Nelson

J. M.

(2007). How should reading disabilities be operationalized? A survey of practicing school psychologists. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 147–157.

74.

MacHek

G. R.

Nelson

J. M.

(2010). School psychologists' perceptions regarding the practice of identifying reading disabilities: Cognitive assessment and response to intervention considerations. Psychology in the Schools. Published Online January 2010.

75.

Mascolo

J. T.

Kaufman

N. L.

Hale

J. B.

(2009). Illustrative case reports using the WISC-IV. In Flanagan

D. P.

Kaufman

A. S.

(Eds.), Essentials of WISC-IV assessment (2nd ed., (p. 468–515). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

76.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

(2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 525–531.

77.

Mather

Gregg

(2006). Specific learning disabilities: Clarifying, not eliminating, a construct. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 99–106.

78.

Mather

Shaywitz

(in press). Toward a synthesis of cognitive-psychological, medical-neurobiological, and educational models for the diagnosis and management of dyslexia. In Reynolds

C. R.

(Ed.), Special and emergent topics in child and adolescent assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.

79.

Mazzocco

M.M.M.

(2005). Challenges in identifying target skills for math disability screening and intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 318–323.

80.

Mazzocco

M.M.M.

Myers

G. F.

(2003). Complexities in identifying and defining mathematics learning disability in the primary school age years. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 218–253.

81.

McGrew

K. S.

Wendling

B. J.

(in press). CHC cognitive-achievement relations: What we have learned over the past 20 years. Psychology in the Schools.

82.

Miller

D. C.

(2008). The need to integrate cognitive neuroscience and neuropsychology in a RTI model. In Fletcher-Janzen

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 130–140). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

83.

Miller

D. C.

Hale

J. B.

(2008). Neuropsychological applications of the WISC-IV and WISC-IV Integrated. In Prifitera

Saklofske

D. H.

Weiss

L. G.

(Eds.), WISC-IV clinical assessment and intervention (2nd ed., (p. 445–495). New York: Elsevier Science.

84.

Murphy

M. M.

Mazzocco

M.M.M.

Hanich

Early

M. C.

(2007). Cognitive characteristics of children with mathematics learning disability (MLD) vary as a function of the cut-off criterion used to define MLD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 458–478.

85.

Naglieri

J. A.

Johnson

(2000). Effectiveness of a cognitive strategy intervention in improving arithmetic computation based on PASS theory. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 591–597.

86.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2007). Identification of students with specific learning disabilities (Position Statement). Bethesda, MD: Author.

87.

Ofiesh

(2006). Response to intervention and identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 883–888.

88.

Peterson

K.M.H.

Shinn

M. R.

(2002). Severe discrepancy models: Which best explains school identification practices for learning disabilities? School Psychology Review, 31, 459–476.

89.

Reschly

D. J.

(2005). Learning disabilities identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, and then what? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 510–515.

90.

Reschly

D. J.

Hosp

J. L.

(2004). State SLD policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197–213.

91.

Reynolds

C. R.

(2008). RTI, neuroscience, and sense: Chaos in the diagnosis and treatment of learning disabilities. In Fletcher-Janzen

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 14–27). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

92.

Reynolds

C. R.

Shaywitz

S. E.

(2009). Response to intervention: Remediation, perhaps, diagnosis, no. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 44–47.

93.

Reynolds

C. R.

Shaywitz

S. E.

(2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 130–145.

94.

Riccio

C. A.

(2008). Compatability of neuropsychology and RTI in the diagnosis and assessment of specific learning disabilities. In Fletcher-Janzen

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 82–98). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

95.

Richards

T. L.

Aylward

E. H.

Field

K. M.

Grimme

A. C.

Raskind

Richards

A. L.

(2006). Converging evidence for triple word form theory in children with dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 30, 547–589.

96.

Schrank

F. A.

Miller

J. A.

Caterino

Desrochers

(2006). American Academy of School Psychology survey on the independent educational evaluation for a specific learning disability: Results and discussion. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 771–780.

97.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 155–168.

98.

Semrud-Clikeman

Fine

Harder

(2005). The school neuropsychology of learning disabilities. In D'Amato

R. K.

Fletcher-Janzen

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of school neuropsychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

99.

Semrud-Clikeman

(2005). Neuropsychological aspects for evaluating learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 563–568.

100.

Shaywitz

S. E.

Shaywitz

B. A.

Fulbright

Skudlarski

Mencl

W. E.

Constable

R. T.

(2003). Neural systems for compensation and persistence: Young adult outcome of childhood reading disability. Biological Psychiatry 54, 25–33.

101.

Simos

P. G.

Fletcher

J. M.

Sarkari

Billingsley

R. L.

Denton

Papanicolaou

A. C.

(2007). Altering the brain circuits for reading through intervention: A magnetic source imaging study. Neuropsychology, 21, 485–496.

102.

Smit-Glaude

S.W.D.

van Strien

J. W.

Licht

Bakker

D. J.

(2005). Neuropsychological intervention in kindergarten children with subtyped risks of reading retardation. Annals of Dyslexia, 55, 217–245.

103.

Speece

D. L.

(2005). Hitting the moving target known as reading development: Some thoughts on screening children for secondary interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 487–493.

104.

Stanovich

K. E.

Siegal

L. S.

(1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24–53.

105.

Sternberg

R. J.

Grigorenko

E. L.

(2002). Difference scores in the identification of children with learning disabilities: It's time to use a different method. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 65–83.

106.

Stuebing

K. K.

Fletcher

J. M.

LeDoux

J. M.

(2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469–518.

107.

Swanson

H. L.

(2008). Neuroscience and RTI: A complimentary role. In Fletcher-Janzen

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 28–53). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

108.

Tilly

W. D.

Reschly

D. J.

Grimes

(1999). Disability determination in problem-solving systems: Conceptual foundations and critical components. In Reschly

Tilly

W. D.

Grimes

(Eds.), Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming (pp. 285–321). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

109.

Torppa

Tolvanen

Poikkeus

Eklund

Lerkkanen

M. K.

Leskinen

(2007). Reading development subtypes and their early characteristics. Annals of Dyslexia, 57, 3–52.

110.

VanDerHeyden

A. M.

Witt

J. C.

Gilbertson

(2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a Response to Intervention model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology. 45, 225–256.

111.

Vaughn

Linan-Thompson

Hickman

(2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with learning/reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.

112.

Vellutino

F. R.

Scanlon

D. M.

Sipay

E. R.

Small

S. G.

Pratt

Chen

Denckla

M. 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.

113.

Warner

T. D.

Dede

D. E.

Garvan

C. W.

Conway

T. W.

(2002). One size still does not fit all in specific learning disability assessment across ethnic groups. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 501–509.

114.

Willis

J. O.

Dumont

(2006). And never the twain shall meet: Can response to intervention and cognitive assessment be reconciled? Psychology in the Schools, 43, 901–908.

115.

Wodrich

D. L.

Spencer

M. L.

Daley

K. B.

(2006). Combining RTI and psychoeducational assessment: What we must assume to do otherwise. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 797–806.

116.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

Marston

(2000). Origins of categorical special education services in schools and a rationale for changing them. In Reschly

Tilly

(Eds.), Functional and noncategorical special education (pp. 137–146). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

117.

Zirkel

P. A.

Krohn

(2009). RTI after IDEA: A survey of state laws. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40, 71–73.