Batsche, Kavale, and Kovaleski (this issue) have done an outstanding job of summarizing arguments for and against the use of response-to-intervention (RTI) procedures for identifying learning disabilities. In this response, we raise issues relevant to the concept of learning disabilities, the nature of problems associated with standard discrepancy-based identification procedures, and how RTI will ultimately be operationalized across a variety of academic domains. We express cautious optimism that RTI procedures will continue to be developed carefully and methodically and will ultimately lead to better methods for identifying and treating learning disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Dawes, R.M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P.E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668—1674.
2.
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 & Practice, 18, 157—171.
3.
Hallahan, D.P., Keller, C.E., & Ball, D.W. (1986). A comparison of prevalence rate variability from state to state for each of the categories of special education. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 8—14.
4.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 525—531.
5.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).
6.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 155—168.
7.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., & Barnett, D.A. (2005). The emergence and possible futures of response to intervention. Journal of Psycho-educational Assessment , 23, 339—361.
