Response-to-intervention (RTI) technical adequacy standards should follow from model purpose, procedural specification, procedural adherence, outcome determination, and subsequent plans. Therefore, RTI raises atypical measurement questions for practice, and, for this reason, it may require hybridized technical adequacy methods. Due to RTI model complexities, and the possibility of many measures and variables used over time to examine functional discrepancies in performance, decision reliability and validity questions require significant attention. Key points of analysis and recommendations for RTI technical adequacy standards are addressed, and a case study is used to illustrate technical checks. We conclude with discussion of how RTI technical adequacy may be simplified.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ager, C.L., & Shapiro, E.S. (1995). Template matching as a strategy for assessment and intervention for preschool students with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15, 187—218.
2.
Ardoin, S.P., Witt, J.C., Suldo, S.M., Koenig, J., McDonald, E., & Smith, L. (2004). The response in response to intervention: Evaluating the sensitivity of curriculum-based measurement to intervention effects. School Psychology Review, 33, 218—233.
3.
Barnett, D.W., Daly, E.J., IiiK.M., Jones, , & Lentz , F.E. , Jr. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically-based special service decisions from increasing and decreasing intensity single case designs. The Journal of Special Education , 38, 66—79.
4.
Barnett, D.W., Lentz, F. E., Jr., & Macmann, G. M. (2000). Child assessment: Psychometric qualities of professional practice. In E. S. Shapiro & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Behavioral assessment (2nd ed., pp. 355—386). NY: Guilford.
5.
Barnett, D.W., Pepiton, A.E., Bell, S.H., Gilkey, C.M., Smith, J.J., Stone, C.M., et al. (1999). Evaluating early intervention: Accountability methods for service delivery innovations. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 177—188.
6.
Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J.L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J.F., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Board of Directors of Special Education.
7.
Billingsley, F., White, D.R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and example . Behavioral Assessment, 2, 247—256.
8.
Canter, A.S., Lau, M.Y., & House, A. (2002). Best practices in developing local norms in behavioral assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 1099—1114). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
9.
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, 557—582.
10.
Chorpita, B.F. (2003). The frontier of evidence-based practice. In A. E. Kazdin & J. R. Weisz (Eds.), Evidenced-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (pp. 42—59). New York: Guilford.
11.
Crone, D.A., & Horner, R.H. (2003). Building positive behavior support systems in schools. New York: Guilford.
12.
Daly, E.J., IiiB.K., Martens, K.R., Hamler, E.J., Dool, , & Eckert , T.L. (1999). A brief experimental analysis for identifying instructional components needed to improve oral reading fluency . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 83—94.
13.
Daly, E.J., IiiA., Murdoch, L., Lillenstein, L., Webber, , & Lentz , F.E. (2002). An examination of methods for testing treatments: Conducting brief experimental analyses of the effects of instructional components on oral reading fluency. Education & Treatment of Children, 25, 288—316.
14.
Duhon, G.J., Noell, G.H., & Witt, J.C. (2004). Identifying academic skill and performance deficits: The experimental analysis of brief assessments of academic skills. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 429—443.
15.
Eckert, T.L., Ardoin, S.P., Daly, E.J., Iii, & Martens , B.K. (2002). Improving oral reading fluency: An examination of the efficacy of combining skill-based and performance-based interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 271—281.
16.
Ehrhardt, K.E., Barnett, D.W., Lentz, F. E., Jr., Stollar, S. A., & Reifin, L. H. (1996). Innovative methodology in ecological consultation: Use of scripts to promote treatment acceptability and integrity. School Psychology Quarterly , 11, 149—168.
17.
Fisher, W.W., Kelley, M.E., & Lomas, J.E. (2003). Visual aids and structured criteria for improving visual inspection and interpretation of single-case designs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 387— 406.
18.
Fiske, D.W. (1982). Convergent—discriminant validation in measurement and research strategies. In D. Brinberg & L. Kidder (Eds.), Forms of validity in research (pp. 77—92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Floyd, R.G., Phaneuf, R.L., & Wilczynski, S.M. (2005). Measurement properties of indirect assessment methods for functional behavioral assessment: A review of research. School Psychology Review, 34, 58— 73.
20.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 22, 27—48.
21.
Gilbertson, D., Witt, J.C., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2006). Improving teacher use of interventions: Effects of response dependent performance feedback on teacher implementation of a peer tutoring intervention. Manuscript submitted for publication .
22.
Good, R.H., IiiJ., Gruba, , & Kaminski , R.A. (2002). Best practices in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp.679—700). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists .
23.
Good, R. H., Iii, & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002 ). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. (Available at http://dibels .uoregon.edu)
24.
Greenwood, C.R., Hart, B.H., Walker, D., & Risley, T.R. (1994). The opportunity to respond and academic performance revisited: A behavioral theory of developmental retardation and its prevention . In R. Gardner, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward, J. Eshleman, & T. A. Grossi (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 213—223). Pacific Grove: CA: Brooks/Cole .
25.
Gresham, F.M. (1989). Assessment of treatment integrity in school consultation/prereferral intervention. School Psychology Review, 18, 37—50.
26.
Gresham, F.M. (2004). Current status and future directions of school-based behavioral interventions. School Psychology Review, 33, 326—343.
27.
Haring, N. G., Lovitt, T. C., Eaton, M. D., & Hansen, C. L. (1978). The fourth R: Research in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
28.
Hayes, S. C., Follette, V. M., Dawes, R. M., & Grady, K. E. (Eds.). (1995). Scientific standards of practice: Issues and recommendations. Reno, NV: Context Press.
29.
Heward, W.L. (2005). Reasons applied behavior analysis is good for education and why those reasons have been insufficient. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, N. A. Neef, S. M. Peterson, D. M. Sainato , G. Cartledge, R. Gardner, III, L. D. Peterson, S. B. Hersh, & J. C. Cardig (Eds.), Focus on behavioral analysis in education: Achievements, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 316—348). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
30.
Horner, R.G., Carr, E. G., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165—179.
31.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004)(reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990). Retrieved from http://thomas .loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:h.1350.enr
32.
Ikeda, M.J., Grimes, J., Tilly, W.D., IiiR., Allison, S., Kurns, , & Stumme , J. (2002). Implementing an intervention-based approach to service delivery: A case example . In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Prevention and remedial approaches (pp. 53—69). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists .
33.
Kame'enui, E.J., Good, R.G., III, & Harn, B.A. (2005). Beginning reading failure and the quantification of risk: Reading behavior as the supreme index. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, N. E., Neef, S. M. Peterson , D. M. Sainato, G. Cartledge, R. Gardner , III, L. D. Peterson, S. B. Hersh, & J. C. Cardig (Eds.), Focus on behavioral analysis in education: Achievements, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 68— 88). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
34.
Kratochwill, T.R., & Stoiber, K.C. (2002). Evidence-based interventions in school psychology: Conceptual foundations of the Procedural and Coding manual of Division 16 and the Society for the Study of School Psychology Task Force. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 1— 55.
35.
Lentz, F. E., Jr., Allen, S. J., & Ehrhardt, K. E. (1996). The conceptual elements of strong interventions in school settings. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 118—136.
36.
Lyon, G.R., & Moats, L.C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30, 578—588.
37.
Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 22—45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. The American Psychologist, 50, 741—749.
39.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Heath and Human Development.
40.
No Child Left Behind Act of2001, 20 U.S.C. § 70 6301 et seq. (2002).
41.
Noell, G.H., Freeland, J.T., Witt, J.C., & Gansle, K.A. (2001). Using brief assessments to identify effective interventions for individual students. Journal of School Psychology , 39, 335—355.
42.
Oregon Reading First (2004, June 23). Updated Supplemental and Intervention Curriculum Review Report. Retrieved September 5, 2005, from http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/downloads/S-I_Review_ Full_06-23-04.pdf
43.
Parsonson, B.S., & Baer, D.M. (1992). The visual analysis of data, and current research into stimuli controlling it. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single case research design and analysis (pp. 15— 40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
44.
Prasse, D.P. (2002). Best practices in school psychology and the law . In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 57—75). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
45.
Prasse, D.P., & Schrag, J. (1999). Providing non-categorical, functional, classroom-based supports for students with disabilities: Legal parameters. In J. Grimes, D. Tilly, & D. Reschly (Eds.), Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming (pp. 259—284). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
46.
Simmons, D.C., & Kame'enui, E.J. (2003). A consumer's guide to evaluating a core reading program grades K—3: A critical elements analysis. Retrieved from http://reading.uoregon.edu/appendices/ con_guide_3.1.03
47.
Smit, A.-M. (2003). Adaptive monitoring: An overview. DOC Science Internal Series 138. Wellington , NZ: Department of Conservation.
48.
Smith, L.D., Best, L.A., Stubbs, D.A., Archibald, A.B., & Roberson-Nay, R. (2002). Constructing knowledge: The role of graphs & tables in hard and soft psychology. The American Psychologist, 57, 749—761.
Tilly, W.D. (2003, December). How many tiers are needed for successful prevention and early intervention?Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO. (Available at www.nrcld.org)
51.
Torgesen, J.K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 7—26.
52.
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.
53.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Naquin, G. (2003). Development of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Review, 32, 204—227.
54.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137—146.
55.
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.
56.
Walker, B., Cheney, D., Stage, S., & Blum, C. (2005). Schoolwide screening and positive behavior supports: Identifying and supporting students at risk for school failure. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 194—204.
Witt, J. C., VanDerHeyden, A., & Gilbertson, D. (2004). Troubleshooting behavioral interventions: A systematic process for finding and eliminating problems. School Psychology Review, 33, 363—383.
