Several approaches to response to intervention (RTI) described in the literature could be blended into an RTI model that would be effective in the schools. An effective RTI model should employ three fundamental variables: (a) systematic data collection to identify students in need, (b) effective implementation of interventions for adequate durations, and (c) review of student progress data to determine when and/or if more intensive services are warranted. Research regarding RTI elements such as intervention time, intervention duration, treatment efficacy, intervention group size, measurement of student progress, and decision analyses is reviewed. Recommendations for future research include further defining the element of intervention time with regard to frequency and duration, determining the effect of the individual delivering the intervention, and specifying a reliable decision-making rule for determining student responsiveness/nonresponsiveness to interventions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ardoin, S.P., Witt, J.C., Suldo, S.M., Connell, J.E., Koenig, J.L., Resetar, J.L., et al. (2004). Examining the incremental benefits of administering a maze and three versus one curriculum-based measurement reading probes when conducting universal screening. School Psychology Review, 33, 218—233.
2.
Barnett, D.W., Daly, E.J., IiiK.M., Jones, , & Lentz , F.E. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. The Journal of Special Education , 28, 66—79.
3.
Barnett, D.W., Elliott, N., Graden, J., Ihlo, T., Macmann, G., Nantais, M., et al. (in press). Technical adequacy for response to intervention practices. Assessment for Effective Intervention.
4.
Bocian, K., Beebe-Frankenburger, M., MacMillan, D., & Gresham, F.M. (1999). Competing paradigms in learning disabilities classification by schools and variations in the meaning of discrepant achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 1—14.
5.
Brigance, A. (1999). Comprehensive inventory of basic skills—Revised . North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
6.
Burns, M.K. (2006, April). Eligibility and resource allocation decisions within RTI. In M. K. Burns (chair), Using response-to-intervention data for instructional, eligibility, and accountability decisions. Symposium conducted at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Anaheim, CA.
7.
Burns, M.K., Dean, V.J., & Klar, S. (2004). Using curriculum-based assessment in the responsiveness to intervention diagnostic model for learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29 (3), 47—56.
8.
Burns, M.K., & Senesac, B.J. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria for diagnosis of unresponsiveness to intervention. Journal of School Psychology , 43, 393—406.
9.
Burns, M.K., Vanderwood, M., & Ruby, S. (2005). Evaluating the readiness of prereferral intervention teams for use in a problem-solving model: Review of three levels of research . School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 89—105.
10.
Burns, M.K., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2005). Comparison of existing response-to-intervention models to identify and answer implementation questions. CaliforniaSchool Psychologist, 10, 9-20.
11.
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.
12.
Chidren'sEducational Services, Inc. ( 1987). Test of oral reading fluency. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
13.
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, 128—133.
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.
16.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219—232.
17.
Deno, S.L. (2003). Curriculum-based measures: Development and perspectives . Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3), 3—12.
18.
Donovan, M., & Cross, C. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003 ). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157—171.
20.
Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice , 18, 172—186.
21.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199—208.
22.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204—219.
23.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly , 27, 216—227.
24.
Good, R.H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R.A. (2001). 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 IV (pp. 679—700). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
25.
Gresham, F.M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley & L. Danielson (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. The LEA series on special education and disability (pp. 467—519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
Gresham, F.M., Reschly, D.J., Tilly, W.D., Fletcher, J., Burns, M.K., Christ, T., et al. (2004). Comprehensive evaluation of learning disabilities: A response to intervention perspective. Communique, 33(4), 34—35.
27.
Hartman, W.T., & Fay, T.A. (1996). Cost-effectiveness of instructional support teams in Pennsylvania. Journal of Educational Finance, 21, 555—580.
28.
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, 514—528.
29.
Hosp, J.L., & Reschly, D.J. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic predictors. Exceptional Children, 70, 185—199.
30.
Ikeda, M.J., & Gustafson, J.K. (2002). Heartland AEA 11's problem solving process: Impact on issues related to special education (Research Rep. No. 2002-01). Johnston, IA: Heartland Area Education Agency11.
31.
Jenkins, J. (2003, December). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at the Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO.
32.
Kovaleski, J.F., Tucker, J.A., & Duffy, D.J. (1995). School reform through instructional support: The Pennsylvania Initiative (Part I). Communiqué, 23(8), 1-8.
33.
Marston, D.B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18—78). New York: Guilford Press.
34.
Marston, D., Mirkin, P., & Deno, S.L. (1984). Curriculum-based measurement: An alternative to traditional screening, referral, and identification. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 109—117.
35.
Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 187—200.
36.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2001). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
37.
Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (1999). Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Shinn, M.R., Tindal,G.A., & Spira, D.A. (1987). Special education referrals as an index of teacher tolerance: Are teachers imperfect tests?Exceptional Children , 54, 32—40.
40.
Telzrow, C.F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C.L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29, 443—461.
Tilly, W.D. (2003). How many tiers are needed for successful prevention and early intervention? Heartland Area Education Agency's evolution from four to three tiers. Paper presented at the Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO.
43.
Torgesen, J.K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 7—26.
44.
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.K.S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes for two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33—58.
45.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., & Witt, J.C. (2005). Quantifying context in assessment: Capturing the effect of base rates on teacher referral and a problem-solving model of identification . School Psychology Review, 34, 161—183.
46.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., & Barnett, D.W. (2005). The emergence and possible futures of response to intervention. Journal of Psycho-educational Assessment , 23, 339—361.
47.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., & Naquin, G. (2003). The development and validation of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Review, 32, 204—227.
48.
Vaughn, S. (2003, December). How many tiers are needed for response to intervention to achieve acceptable prevention outcomes?Paper presented at the Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO.
49.
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.
50.
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.
51.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S., Chen, R., Pratt, A., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experimental deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601—638.
