A national sample of 496 practicing school psychologists and members of the National Association of School Psychologists were surveyed to assess levels of acceptability for the IQ-achievement (IQ-A) discrepancy model and the Response to Intervention (RTI) model as part of the identification process for students with specific learning disabilities. Significantly higher levels of acceptability were found for the RTI model. As levels of exposure to the RTI model increased, acceptability ratings for the RTI model increased and ratings for the IQ-A discrepancy model decreased. Variations in acceptability ratings for the RTI model were also found to occur in relation to school psychologists’ school setting. Specifically, school psychologists employed at middle and high schools demonstrated lower levels of acceptability for the RTI model compared with those employed at elementary and multiple settings. Implications of the study for practice and future research, as well as limitations, are discussed.
Allison, R. ( 2006). The danger of Response to Intervention to school psychology: Why we shouldn’t be afraid. NASP Communiqué, 34(5), 34-35.
2.
American Psychological Association. (2005). APA letter to Assistant Secretary Hager regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), P.L. 108-446. Retrieved January 6, 2007, from http://www.apa.org/ppo/disability/ltr905.html
3.
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M.W. ( 2005). Response to Intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice. New York: Guilford .
4.
Burns, M.K., & Gibbons, K.A. ( 2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. New York: Routledge.
5.
Burns, M., & Riley-Tillman, T.C. (2009). Response to Intervention and eligibility decisions: We need to wait to succeed. NASP Communiqué, 38(1), 1, 10-11.
6.
Burns, M.K., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2006). Comparison of existing response-to-intervention models to identify and answer implementation questions . NASP Communiqué, 34(5), 1, 5.
7.
Bryant, D.P., Bryant, B.R., Gersten, R.M., Scammacca, N.N., Funk, C., Winter, A., . . . Pool, C. ( 2008). The effects of Tier 2 intervention on the mathematics performance of first-grade students who are at risk for mathematics difficulties . Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 47-63.
8.
Canter, A. ( 2006). Problem solving and RTI: New roles for school psychologists . NASP Communiqué, 34(5), 1-4.
9.
Chafouleas, S.M., Riley-Tillman, T.C., & Eckert, T.L. ( 2003). A comparison of school psychologists’ acceptability, training, and use of norm-referenced, curriculum-based, and brief experimental analysis methods to assess reading. School Psychology Review , 32, 272-281.
Cochrane, W.S., & Castle, M. ( 2006). Evaluation of treatment integrity in school-based interventions . NASP Communiqué, 34(7), 18.
12.
Cohen, R.J., & Swerdlik, M.E. (2005). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
13.
Curtis, M.J., Walker, K.J., Hunley, S.A., & Baker, A.C. ( 1999). Demographic characteristics and professional practices in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 28, 104-116.
14.
Deno, S.L. ( 2005). Problem-solving assessment. In R. Brown-Chidsey (Ed.), Assessment for intervention: A problem-solving approach (pp. 10-40). New York: Guilford .
15.
Dillman, D.A. ( 2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
16.
Downey, R.G., & King, C.V. ( 1998). Missing data in Likert ratings: A comparison of replacement methods. Journal of General Psychology, 125, 175-191.
17.
Eckert, T.L., Hintze, J.M., & Shapiro, E.S. ( 1997). School psychologists’ acceptability of behavioral and traditional assessment procedures for externalizing problem behaviors . School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 150-169.
18.
Eckert, T.L., Hintze, J.M., & Shapiro, E.S. ( 1999). Development and refinement of a measure for assessing the acceptability of assessment methods: The Assessment Rating Profile-Revised. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 15(1), 21-42.
19.
Eckert, T.L., & Shapiro, E.S. ( 1999). Methodological issues in analog acceptability research: Are teachers’ acceptability ratings of assessment methods influenced by experimental design? School Psychology Review, 28, 5-16.
20.
Eckert, T.L., Shapiro, E.S., & Lutz, J.G. ( 1995). Teachers’ ratings of the acceptability of curriculum-based assessment methods. School Psychology Review, 24, 497-511.
21.
Elliott, S.N., Witt, J.C., Kratochwill, T.R., & Stoiber, K.C. ( 2002). Selecting and evaluating classroom interventions. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavioral problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 243-294). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
22.
Fletcher, J.M., Coulter, W.A., Reschly, D.J., & Vaughn, S. ( 2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 304-331.
23.
Fletcher, J.M., & Vaughn, S. ( 2009). Response to Intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 30-37.
24.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. ( 2004). Identifying reading disability by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measure and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly , 27, 216-227.
25.
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. ( 1997). Use of curriculum-based measurement in identifying students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30(3), 1-16.
26.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. ( 2006). A framework for building capacity for responsiveness to intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 621-626.
27.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S.R., Seethaler, P.M., Cirino, P.T., & Fletcher, J.M. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 79-92.
28.
Goldberg, R., & Shapiro, E.S. ( 1995). In-vivo rating of treatment acceptability by children: Effects of probability instruction on student’s spelling performance under group contingency conditions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 415-432.
29.
Greenfield, R., Rinaldi, C., Proctor, C.P., & Cardarelli, A. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of a Response to Intervention (RTI) reform effort in an urban elementary school: A consensual qualitative analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21, 47-63.
30.
Gresham, F.M. ( 2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
Gresham, F.M., Restori, A.F., & Cook, C.R. ( 2008). To test or not to test: Issues pertaining to Response to Intervention and cognitive testing. NASP Communiqué , 37(1), 5-7.
32.
Hale, J.B., Kaufman, A., 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.
33.
Hintze, J.M., Christ, T.J., & Methe, S.A. ( 2006). Curriculum-based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 45-56.
34.
Hoff, K.E., Ervin, R.A., & Friman, P.C. ( 2005). Refining functional behavioral assessment: Analyzing the separate and combined effects of hypothesized controlling variables during ongoing classroom routines. School Psychology Review, 34, 45-57.
35.
Ikeda, M.J., Rahn-Blakeslee, A., Niebling, B.C., Allison, R., & Stumme, J. ( 2006). Evaluating evidence-based practice in response-to-intervention systems. NASP Communiqué, 34(8), 42-44.
36.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1990).
37.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
38.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act Regulations, 34 C.F.R. 300 et seq. (2006).
39.
Jones, K.M., & Lungaro, C.J. ( 2000). Teacher acceptability of functional assessment-derived treatments. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation , 11, 323-332.
40.
Kavale, K.A., Kauffman, J.M., Bachmeier, R.J., & LeFever, G.B. ( 2008). Response-to-intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learningdisability identification . Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 135-150.
41.
Kazdin, A.E. ( 1977). Assessing the clinical or applied significance of behavior change through social validation. Behavior Modification, 1, 427-452.
42.
Kelly, K. ( 2005). The Response to Intervention model: Issues in proposing regulations for identifying learning disabilities. NASP Communiqué , 33(6), 34.
43.
Klotz, M.B., & Canter, A. ( 2006). Response to Intervention (RTI): A primer for parents . NASP Communiqué, 34(7), 1-3.
44.
Kovaleski, J., & Prasse, D.P. ( 2004). Response to Intervention in the identification of learning disabilities: A guide for school teams. NASP Communiqué , 32(5).
45.
Kratochwill, T.R., & VanSomeren, K. (1984). Assessment Rating Profile. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin- Madison.
46.
LaMura, R. ( 2006). RTI as classification model for LD-Additional questions to ponder. NASP Communiqué, 34(5), 19-20.
47.
Lerner, J. ( 2003). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies. New York: Houghton Mifflin .
48.
Maag, J.W., & Larson, P.J. ( 2004). Training a general education teacher to apply functional assessment. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 26-36.
49.
MacMillan, D., Gresham, F., & Bocian, K. ( 1998). Discrepancy between definitions of learning disabilities and school practices: An empirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 314-326.
50.
Mangione, T.W. ( 1995). Mail surveys: Improving the quality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
Mather, N., & Gregg, N. ( 2006). Specific learning disabilities: Clarifying, not eliminating, a construct. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , 37, 99-106.
52.
Mather, N., & Kaufman, N. (Eds.). (2006). Part one: Integration of cognitive assessment and Response to Intervention [Special issue]. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7).
53.
McBride, G.M., Dumont, R., & Willis, J.O. ( 2004). Response to Response to Intervention legislation: The future of school psychologists. School Psychologist, 58, 86-91.
54.
Mercer, C.D., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D.H., & Mercer, A.R. ( 1996). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly , 19, 217-232.
55.
Miltenberger, R.G. ( 1990). Assessment of treatment acceptability: A review of the literature. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10(3), 24-38.
56.
Naglieri, J.A., & Crockett, D.P. (2005). Response to Intervention (RTI): Is it a scientifically proven method? NASP Communiqué , 34(2), 38-39.
57.
Raaijmakers, Q.A.W. ( 1999). Effectiveness of different missing data treatments in surveys with Likert-type data: Introducing the relative mean substitution approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 725-748.
58.
Rasnake, L.K. ( 1993). Treatment acceptability research: Relevance to treatment selection decisions. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Care , 3, 31-47.
59.
Reschly, D.J. ( 2005). Child outcomes and school psychology service delivery: Response to Naglieri. NASP Communiqué, 33(5), 20-21.
60.
Reschly, D.J., & Bergstrom, M.K. (2009). Response to Intervention . In T. B Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (4th ed., pp. 434-460). New York: John Wiley.
61.
Reschly, D.J., & Hosp, J.L. ( 2004). State SLD identification policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197-213.
62.
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.
63.
Shapiro, E.S., & Eckert, T.L. ( 1994). Acceptability of curriculum-based assessment by school psychologists. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 167-183.
64.
Shinn, M.R. ( 2002). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (Vol. 1, pp. 671-697). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists .
65.
Siegel, L.S. ( 1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469-478, 486.
66.
Urbaniak, G.C., & Plous, S. ( 2007). Research Randomizer [Online computer software]. Retrieved January 1, 2007, from http://www.randomizer.org
67.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., & Snyder, P. ( 2006). Integrating frameworks from early childhood intervention and school psychology to accelerate growth for all young children. School Psychology Review, 35, 519-534.
68.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., & Barnett, D.W. ( 2005). The emergence and possible futures of Response to Intervention . Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 339-361.
69.
Vaughn, S. ( 2002). Using response to treatment for identifying students with learning disabilities. In R. Bradley , L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 549-554). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
70.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. ( 2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137-146.
71.
Wackerle, A.K., Boice, C.H., Christ, T.J., & Burns, M.K. ( 2006). Response to Intervention at NASP: Were 44 presentations enough? NASP Communiqué, 34(8), 20-21.
72.
Welton v. Liberty 53 School District, 35 IDELR 63 (W.D. Mo. 2001).
73.
Witt, J.C., & Elliott, S.N. ( 1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In T. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 251-288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
74.
Wolf, M.M. ( 1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203-214.
