Examining the Impact of Federal Specific Learning Disability Inclusionary Criteria on Multidisciplinary Team Decision Making When Using Response to Intervention

Abstract

There are still many unanswered questions regarding the application of response to intervention (RTI) to making eligibility decisions for specific learning disabilities (SLD). Both U.S. federal regulations and research support that students identified with SLD using RTI should be deficient in both level of academic functioning and rate of growth in response to scientifically based instruction. To date, there is little research examining whether these eligibility criteria are predictive in identifying students with SLD by evaluation teams in schools. Two studies conducted in different U.S. states examined if level of academic performance and rate of improvement (ROI) using curriculum-based measurement in reading (CBM-R) predicted student eligibility for special education. Logistic regression results indicated that level of performance predicted special education eligibility across sites and that ROI did not. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

response to intervention specific learning disability multidisciplinary evaluation curriculum-based measurement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Algozzine

Christenson

S. L.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

(1982). Probabilities associated with the referral to placement process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5(3), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840648200500304

Ardoin

S. P.

Christ

T. J.

(2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Standard errors associated with progress monitoring outcomes from DIBELS, AIMSweb, and an experimental passage set. School Psychology Review, 38(2), 266–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2009.12087837

Ardoin

S. P.

Christ

T. J.

Morena

L. S.

Cormier

D. C.

Klingbeil

D. A.

(2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.09.004

Bose

Kohli

Newell

K. W.

Christ

T. J.

(2019). Response to intervention: Empirical demonstration of a dual-discrepancy population via random effects mixture models. Learning and Individual Differences, 71, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.03.004

Burns

M. K.

Appleton

J. J.

Stehouwer

J. D.

(2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(4), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290502300406

Burns

M. K.

Codding

Maki

K. E.

Zaslofsky

(2020, February 18–21). Game set match: Better academic outcomes using the learning hierarchy [Conference session]. Annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Baltimore, MD, United States.

Burns

M. K.

Scholin

S. E.

Kosciolek

S. K.

Livingston

(2010). Reliability of decision-making frameworks for response to intervention for reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(2), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282909342374

Burns

M. K.

Silberglitt

Christ

T. J.

Gibbons

K. A.

Coolong-Chaffin

(2016). Using oral reading fluency to evaluate response to intervention and to identify students not making sufficient progress. In Cummings

K. D.

Petscher

(Eds.), The fluency construct (pp. 123–140). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2803-3_5

Christ

T. J.

(2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimating standard error of the slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2006.12088006

10.

Christ

T. J.

Ardoin

S. P.

(2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Passage equivalence and probe-set development. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 55–75.

11.

Christ

T. J.

Desjardins

C. D.

(2018). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: An evaluation of frequentist and Bayesian methods to model progress monitoring data. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(2), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282917712174

12.

Christ

T. J.

Zopluoglu

Long

J. D.

Monaghen

B. D.

(2012). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Quality of progress monitoring outcomes. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800306

13.

Christ

T. J.

Zopluoglu

Monaghen

B. D.

Van Norman

E. R.

(2013). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Multi-study evaluation of schedule, duration, and dataset quality on progress monitoring outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 51(1), 19–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.11.001

14.

Dewy

E. N.

Powell-Smith

K. A.

Good

R. H.

Kaminski

R. A.

(2015). Acadience reading k-6 technical adequacy brief. Acadience Learning. https://acadiencelearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Acadience_Reading_Technical_Adequacy_Brief-1.pdf

15.

FastBridge Learning. (2015). Formative assessment system for teachers: Benchmarks and norms for 2015-16.

16.

Fletcher

J. M.

Miciak

(2019). The identification of specific learning disabilities: A summary of research on best practices. Texas Center for Learning Disabilities. https://www.texasldcenter.org/files/resources/SLD-Manual_Final.pdf

17.

Fuchs

Compton

D. L.

Fuchs

L. S.

Bryant

Davis

N. D.

(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(1), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9083-9

18.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

(1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research, 13(4), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511189

19.

Good

R. H.

Kaminski

R. A.

Cummings

K. D.

Dufour-Martel

Petersen

Powell-Smith

Stollar

Wallin

(2011). DIBELS Next assessment manual. Dynamic Measurement Group. http://dibels.org

20.

Haupt

Lösel

Stemmler

(2013). Quantile regression analysis and other alternatives to ordinary least squares regression: A methodological comparison on corporal punishment. Methodology, 10(3), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000077

21.

Hendricks

H. L.

Fuchs

(2020). Are individual differences in response to intervention influenced by the methods and measures used to define response? Implications for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(6), 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420920379

22.

Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

23.

Jenkins

Terjeson

(2011). Monitoring reading growth: Goal setting, measurement frequency, and methods of evaluation. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00322.x

24.

Kim

Y. S.

Petscher

Schatschneider

Foorman

B. R.

(2010). Does growth rate in oral reading fluency matter in predicting reading comprehension achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 652–667. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019643

25.

Kovaleski

J. F.

Marco-Fies

C. M.

Boneshefski

M. J.

(2013). Treatment integrity: Ensuring the “I” in RtI. RtI Action Network. http://rtinetwork.org/getstarted/evaluate/treatment-integrity-ensuring-the-i-in-rti

26.

Kovaleski

J. F.

VanDerHeyden

A. M.

Shapiro

E. S.

(2013). The RTI approach to evaluating learning disabilities. The Guilford Press.

27.

Maki

K. E.

Adams

S. R.

(2020). Specific learning disabilities identification: Do the identification methods and data matter? Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948719826296

28.

Maki

K. E.

Barrett

C. A.

Hajovsky

D. B.

Burns

M. K.

(2020). An examination of the relationships between specific learning disabilities identification and growth rate, achievement, cognitive ability, and student demographics. School Psychology, 35(5), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000400

29.

Maki

K. E.

Burns

M. K.

Sullivan

(2017). Learning disability identification consistency: The impact of methodology and student evaluation data. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(2), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000165

30.

Maki

K. E.

Floyd

R. G.

Roberson

(2015). State learning disability eligibility criteria: A comprehensive review. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(4), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000109

31.

Marston

Muyskens

Lau

Canter

(2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00074

32.

Mercer

S. H.

Lyons

A. F.

Johnston

L. E.

Millhoff

C. L.

(2015). Robust regression for slope estimation in curriculum-based measurement progress monitoring. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40(3), 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508414555705

33.

Miciak

Fletcher

J. M.

(2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420906801

34.

Nese

J. F. T.

Biancarosa

Cummings

Kennedy

Alonzo

Tindal

(2013). In search of average growth: Describing within-year oral reading fluency growth across grades 1-8. Journal of School Psychology, 51(5), 625–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.006

35.

Peduzzi

Concato

Kemper

Holford

T. R.

Feinstein

A. R.

(1996). A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(12), 1373–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00236-3

36.

Peterson

K. M. H.

Shinn

M. R.

(2002). Severe discrepancy models: Which best explains school identification practices for learning disabilities? School Psychology Review, 31(4), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2002.12086168

37.

Runge

T. J.

Bennyhoff

C. F.

Ferchalk

M. R.

McCrea

A. E.

(2017). The role of measurement interval in rate of improvement calculation. School Psychology Forum, 11(3), 77–90.

38.

Shinn

M. R.

Good

R. H.

Stein

(1989). Summarizing trend in student achievement: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 18(3), 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1989.12085432

39.

Silberglitt

Hintze

J. M.

(2007). How much growth can we expect: A conditional analysis of R-CBM growth rates by level of performance. Exceptional Children, 74(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707400104

40.

Speece

D. L.

Case

L. P.

(2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to Identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 735–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.735

41.

Spencer

Wagner

R. K.

Schatschneider

Quinn

J. M.

Lopez

Petscher

(2014). Incorporating RTI in a hybrid model of reading disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(3), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714530967

42.

Tolar

T. D.

Barth

A. E.

Fletcher

J. M.

Francis

D. J.

Vaughn

(2014). Predicting reading outcomes with progress monitoring slopes among middle grade students. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.11.001

43.

Torgesen

J. K.

Alexander

A. W.

Wagner

R. K.

Rashotte

C. A.

Voeller

K. K. S.

Conway

(2001). Intensive remedial reading instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400104

44.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006, August 14). Assistance to states for the education of children with disabilities (Final Rule, 71 Federal Register 46539-46845).

45.

Vannest

K. J.

Parker

R. I.

Davis

J. L.

Soares

D. A.

Smith

S. L.

(2012). The Theil-Sen slope for high-stakes decisions from progress monitoring. Behavioral Disorders, 37(4), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291203700406

46.

Van Norman

E. R.

Nelson

P. M

. (2019). The influence of trend estimation method on forecasting curriculum-based measurement of reading performance. Journal of School Psychology, 74, 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.04.001

47.

Vittinghoff

McCulloch

C. E.

(2006). Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and cox regression. American Journal of Epidemiology, 165(6), 710–718. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwk052

48.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

Algozzine

Shinn

M. R.

McGue

(1982). Similarities and differences between low achievers and students classified learning disabled. The Journal of Special Education, 16(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698201600108