Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2005-12
Application of a Three-Tiered Response To Intervention Model for Instructional Planning,Decision Making,and the Identification of Children in Need of Services
An alternative to the IQ-achievement discrep ancy model for identifying students with learn ing disabilities is the response to intervention (RTI) model. There is a growing literature base in support of the RTI model, and within the reauthorization of IDEA there is an allowance for an RTI approach whereby RTI "may" be used by school psychologists when evaluating students for special education. The research base on RTI is expanding but there has been little empirical work directed toward understanding RTI as it is implemented by school-based practitioners. The current study examined a simple three-phase RTI model. Universal screening in mathematics was used in Phase I in conjunction with a brief skill/per formance deficit assessment to identify stu dents in need of instructional intervention. In Phase II, a classwide intervention was imple mented to evaluate the extent to which poor academic performance was a function of lack of instruction. Phase III provided intensive intervention to five students who did not respond adequately to the classwide interven tion. Only one student did not respond ade quately to individual intervention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barnett, D.W., Daly, E.J., III, Jones, K.M., & Lentz, F.E. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity . Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 66-79.
2.
Case, L.P., Speece, D.L., & Molloy, D.E. (2003). The validity of a response-to-instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review, 32(4), 557-582.
3.
Daly, E.J., III, Lentz, F.E., & Boyer, J. (1996). The instructional hierarchy: A conceptual model for understanding the effective components of reading interventions. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 369-386.
4.
Derr-Minneci, T.F., & Shapiro, E.S. (1992). Validating curriculum-based measurement in reading from a behavioral perspective. School Psychology Quarterly , 7, 2-16.
5.
Eckert, T.L., Ardoin, S.P., Daisey, D.M., & Scarola, M.D. (2000). Empirically evaluating the effectiveness of reading interventions: The use of brief experimental analysis and single case designs . Psychology in the Schools, 37, 463-473.
6.
Eckert, T.L., Ardoin, S.P., Daly, E.J., III, & Martens, B.K. (2002). Improving oral reading fluency: A brief experimental analysis of combining an antecedent intervention with consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 271-281.
7.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabil Res Pract, 18(3), 157-171.
8.
Fuchs, L.S. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement and eligibility decision making: An emphasis on treatment validity and growth. Paper presented at the Workshop on Alternatives to IQ Testing, Washington, DC.
9.
Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 172-186.
10.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13(4), 204-219.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Principles for the prevention and intervention of mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(2), 85-95.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Karns, K. (2001). Enhancing kindergartners' mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 495-509.
13.
Gresham, F.M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson , & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
Heller, K., Holtzman, W., & Messick, S. (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science Press.
15.
Hintze, J.M., Christ, T.J., & Keller, L.A. (2002). The generalizability of CBM survey-level mathematics assessments: Just how many samples do we need? School Psychology Review, 31(4), 514-528.
16.
Lee, M.J., & Tingstrom, D.H. (1994). A group math intervention: The modification of cover, copy, and compare for group application. Psychology in the Schools, 31, 133-145.
17.
Martens, B.K., Hiralall, A.S., & Bradley, T.A. (1997). A note to teacher: Improving student behavior through goal setting and feedback. School Psychology Quarterly , 12(1), 33-41.
18.
Noell, G.H., Freeland, J.T., & Witt, J.C. (2001). Using brief assessments to identify effective interventions for individual students. Journal of School Psychology , 39(4), 335-355.
19.
O'Connor, R.E. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice , 15(1), 43-54.
20.
Rhymer, K.N., Dittmer, K.I., Skinner, C.H., & Jackson, B. (2000). Effectiveness of a multi-component treatment for improving mathematics fluency. School Psychology Quarterly , 15(1), 40-51.
21.
Shapiro, E.S. (1996). Academic skills problems. New York: Guilford.
22.
Skinner, C.H., Turco, T.L., Beatty, K., & Rasavage, C. (1989). Cover, copy, compare: A method for increasing multiplication performance. School Psychology Review, 18, 412-420.
23.
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.
24.
Stein, M., Silbert, J., & Carnine, D. (1997). Designing effective mathematics instruction: A direct instruction approach (3rd ed.). Columbus: Prentice Hall.
25.
Torgesen, J.K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(1), 55-64.
26.
VanDerHeyden, A., Witt, J.C., & Naquin, G. (2003). Development and validation of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 204-227.
27.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and the potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146.
28.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children , 69, 391-409.
29.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Lyon, G.R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(3), 223-238.
30.
Witt, J.C. (2005). Screening to Enhance Equitable Education. Retrieved May 1st, 2005, from www.joewitt.org/steep.htm.
31.
Witt, J.C., Daly, E.J., III, & Noell, G.H. (2000). Functional assessments: A step-by-step guide to solving academic and behavior problems. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
