We respond to the comments of Batsche, Kavale, and Kovaleski (this issue), on Response To Intervention (RTI) and learning disabilities. Historically, discrepancy between IQ and achievement has been used by many as a criterion for identification of learning disabilities. Recently, RTI is considered as a practice for identifying consistent and persistent underachievement in students and thus providing valuable data for determining learning disabilities. Issues related to the research base for RTI and implications of use of RTI are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
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 Directors of Special Education.
2.
Elliott, S.N., & Fuchs, L.S. (1997). The utility of curriculum-based measurement and performance assessment as alternatives to traditional intelligence and achievement tests. School Psychology Review, 26, 224—233.
3.
Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shankweiler, D.P., Katz, L., Liberman, I.Y., Fowler, A., et al. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6—23.
4.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., & Lynn, A. (1996). Relation of phonological and orthographic processing to early reading: Comparing two approaches to regression-based, reading-level-match designs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 639—652.
5.
Fuchs, L.S. (1995). Incorporating curriculum-based measurement into the eligibility decision-making process: A focus on treatment validity and student growth. Paper presented at the National Academy of Sciences Workshop on Alternatives to IQ Testing, Washington, DC.
6.
Fuchs, L.S., & Vaughn, S. (2006). Response-to-intervention as a framework for the identification of learning disabilities. Trainers of School Psychologist Forum34(6), 1, 4—6.
7.
Gerber, P.J. (2001). Learning disabilities: A life-span approach. In D. P. Hallahan & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research and global perspectives in learning disabilities (pp. 167—180). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Prater, K., & Cirino, P.T. (in press). Response to intervention for English language learners . Journal of Learning Disabilities.
10.
Reynolds, C.R. (1984). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities . The Journal of Special Education, 18, 451—476.
11.
Stanovich, K.E., & Siegel, L.S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profiles of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24—53.
12.
Stuebing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., LeDoux, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading difficulties: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469—518.
13.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to treatment: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137—146.
14.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P.G., Cirino, P.T., Carlson, C.D., Pollard-Durodola, S.D., et al. (2006). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 56—73.
15.
Vaughn, S., Mathes, P.G., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P.T., Carlson, C.D., Pollard-Durodola, S.D., et al. (2006). First-grade English language learners at-risk for reading problems: Effectiveness of an English intervention. Elementary School Journal.
