The purpose of this study was to survey the opinions of speech–language pathologists (SLPs) on response to intervention (RTI). Questionnaires were mailed to 2,000 randomly selected elementary and secondary SLPs throughout the United States. Mean results of 583 respondents (29.15%) indicated that SLPs agreed on 37 Likert-type items and responded with neither agree nor disagree on 10 other items. The majority of participants acknowledged the importance of their role in RTI and the value of screening, progress monitoring, assessment, and prevention of continued failure. Some were uncertain whether multidisciplinary team members were knowledgeable and trained to implement RTI. More than 80% of participants indicated challenges related to training, funding, additional personnel, administrative leadership, and planning time. SLPs acknowledged the importance of prevention, collaboration, and well-trained educators in serving struggling learners. However, challenges in implementation of the model will require careful consideration in advancing the discussions on RTI.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2002). A workload analysis approach for establishing speech-language caseload standards in the schools (Technical Report). Rockville, MD: Author.
2.
BentlerP M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
3.
CabellS. Q.McGintyA. S.BreitA.JusticeL. (2008). Designing quality tier one learning environments for emergent and early readers. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 15, 4-12.
DowdenP.AlarconN.VollanT.CumleyG.KuehnC.AmtmannD. (2006). Survey of SLP caseloads in Washington State’s schools: Implications and strategies for action. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 104-117.
6.
EhrenB. J. (2006). Partnerships to support reading comprehension for students with language impairment. Topics for Language Disorders, 26, 42-54.
7.
EhrenB. J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: An opportunity to reinvent speech-language services in schools. The ASHA Leader, 12, 10-12, 25.
8.
EhrenB. J. (2009). Response-to-Intervention: SLPs as linchpins in secondary schools. The ASHA Leader, 14, 10-13.
9.
EhrenB. J.MontgomeryJ.RudebuschJ.WhitmireK. (2008). Responsiveness to Intervention: New roles for speech-language pathologists. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/slp/schools/prof-consult/NewRolesSLP.htm
10.
EhrenB. J.WhitmireK. (2009). Speech-language pathologists as primary contributors to Response to Intervention at the secondary level. Seminars in Speech and Language, 30, 90-104.
11.
EhrenT. C.WhitmireK. A. (2005). Leadership opportunities in the context of Response to Intervention activities. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 168-179.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. F. (2006). A framework for building capacity for Responsiveness to Intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 621-626.
14.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. F. (2007). A model for implementing Responsiveness to Intervention. Council for Exceptional Children, 39, 14-20.
15.
GillamS. L.JusticeL. (2010). RTI progress monitoring tools: Assessing primary-grade students in response-to-intervention programs. The ASHA Leader, 15, 12-15.
16.
GranerP. S.Faggella-LubyM. N.FritschmannN. S. (2005). An overview of Responsiveness to Intervention: What practitioners ought to know. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 93-105.
17.
GrovesR. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 641-675.
18.
HarrisS. F.PraterM. A.DychesT. T.HeathM. A. (2009). Job stress of school-based speech-language pathologists. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 30, 130-111.
19.
JusticeL. M. (2006). Evidence-based practice, response to intervention, and the prevention of reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 284-297.
20.
KlotzM. B.CanterA. (2008). Response to intervention (RTI): A primer for parents. Communique, 34, 7.
21.
MaxwellD. L.SatakeE. (2006). Research and statistical methods in communication sciences and disorders. Clifton Park, NY: Thompson Delmar Learning.
22.
MontgomeryJ. K. (2008). Models of RTI for SLPs: Is this what we have been waiting for?Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 15, 13-21.
23.
MontgomeryJ. K. (2009). Research on reading: What SLPs want (or need) to know. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 10, 65-68.
24.
MontgomeryJ. K.Moore-BrownB. J. (2006). START-IN: Students are Responding to Intervention (A Response to Intervention (RTI) program for reading). Greensville, SC: Super Duper.
25.
Moore-BrownB. J.MontgomeryJ. K.BielinskiJ.ShubinJ. (2005). Responsiveness to Intervention: Teaching before testing helps avoid labeling. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 148-167.
26.
MosheimJ. (2010). Early identification of reading disabilities: How RTI can help. Advance for Speech-Language Pathologists & Audiologists, 20, 6-9.
27.
NelsonN. W. (1989). Curriculum-based language assessment and intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 20, 170-184.
28.
NelsonN. W. (2010). Language and literacy disorders: Infancy through adolescence. Boston: Pearson Education.
29.
NorrisJ. A. (1991). From frog to prince: Using written language as a context for language learning. Topics in Language Disorders, 12, 66-81.
30.
NunnG. D.JantzP. B. (2009). Factors within Response to Intervention implementation training associated with teacher efficacy beliefs. Education, 129, 599-607.
31.
RudebuschJ. (2007). LinguiSystems guide to RTI Response to Intervention. East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems.
32.
RudebuschJ. (2008). The source for RTI. East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems.
33.
ScottC.WindsorJ. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse in school-age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324-339.
34.
StaskowskiM.RiveraE. A. (2005). Speech-language pathologists’ involvement in Responsiveness to Intervention activities. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 132-147.
35.
TroiaG. A. (2005). Responsiveness to Intervention: Roles for speech-language pathologists in the prevention and identification of learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 106-119.
36.
VellutinoF.ScanlonnD.SmallS.FanueleD. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 157-169.
37.
WallachG. P.ButlerK. G. (Eds.). (1984). Language learning disabilities in school-age children. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
38.
WilliamsF. (1979). Reasoning with statistics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
