First, we describe two types of assessment (problem solving and standard treatment protocol) within a “responsiveness-to-instruction” framework to identify learning disabilities. We then specify two necessary components (measures and classification criteria) to assess responsiveness-to-instruction, and present pertinent findings from two related studies. These studies involve databases at grades 1 and 2, which were analyzed to compare the soundness of alternative methods of assessing instructional responsiveness to identify reading disabilities. Finally, conclusions are drawn and future research is outlined to prospectively and longitudinally explore classification issues that emerged from our analyses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2004). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Submitted fro publication.
2.
BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
DonovanM.S.CrossC.T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5.
FletcherJ.M.ShaywitzS.E.ShankweilerD.P.KatzL.LibermanI.Y.StuebingK.K.FrancisD.J.FowlerA.E.ShaywitzB.A. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6–23.
6.
FletcherJ.M.FrancisD.J.ShaywitzS.E.LyonG.R.FoormanB.R.StuebingK.K.ShaywitzB.A. (1998). Intelligent testing and the dual discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 186–203.
7.
FrancisD.L.FletcherJ.M.ShaywitzB.A.ShaywitzS.E.RourkeB.P. (1996). Defining learning and language disabilities: Conceptual and psychometric issues with the use of IQ tests. Language, Speech, and Hearing in Schools, 27, 132–143.
8.
FuchsD.FuchsL.S.(in press). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Promoting word recognition, fluency, and reading comprehension in young children. The Journal of Special Education.
9.
FuchsD.FuchsL.S.MathesP.SimmonsD. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to student diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP.L.YoungC.L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18 (3), 157–171.
12.
FuchsL.S. (1995, May). Incorporating curriculum-based measurement into the eligibility decision-making process: A focus on treatment validity and student growth. Paper prepared for the National Academy of Sciences Workshop on Alternatives to IQ Testing, Washington, DC.
13.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204–219.
14.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.SpeeceD.L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–45.
15.
GoodR.H.IIISimmonsD.C.Kame'enuiE. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.
16.
GoughP.B. (1996). How children learn to read and why they fail. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 3–20.
17.
GrimesJ. (2002). Responsiveness to interventions: The next step in special education identification, service and existing decision making. Revision of a paper written for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, and presented at its LD Summit conference, Washington, DC.
18.
HellerK.A.HoltzmanW.H.MessickS. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.)
19.
JenkinsJ.R.O'ConnorR.E. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 99–149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.)
20.
LyonG.R. (1995). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Journal of Child Neurology, 10 (suppl. 1), S120–S126.
21.
LyonG.R.FletcherJ.M.ShaywitzS.E.ShaywitzB.A.TorgesenJ.K.WoodF.B.SchulteA.OlsenR. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In FinnC.E.Jr.RotherhamR.A.J.O'HokansonC.R.Jr (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–287). Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation.)
22.
MarstonD. (2001). A functional and intervention-based assessment approach to establishing discrepancy for students with learning disabilities. Paper written for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education and presented at its LD Summit conference, Washington, DC.
23.
McMasterK.L.FuchsD.FuchsL.S.ComptonD.L.(in press). Responding to non-responders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children.
24.
MorganP.YoungC. (2002, June). Effects of tutoring on the reading performance of treatment resistant children. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society of the Scientific Study of Reading, Chicago.
25.
PerfettiC.A.MarronM.A.FoltzP.W. (1996). Sources of comprehension failure: Theoretical perspectives and case studies. In CornoldiC.OakhillJ. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and interventions (pp. 137–165). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.)
26.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.
27.
ReynoldsC.R. (1984). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 18, 451–476.
28.
ShankweilerD.LundquistE.KatzL.StuebingK.K.FletcherJ.M.BradyS.FowlerA.DreyerL.G.MarchioneK.E.ShaywitzS.E.ShaywitzB.A. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of associations in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 69–94.
29.
ShepardL.A.SmithM.L.VojirC.P. (1983). Characteristics of pupils identified as learning disabled. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 309–332.
30.
SiegelL.S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469–478, 486.
31.
SpeeceD.L.CaseL. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735–749.
32.
TorgesenJ.K.AlexanderA.WagnerR.RashotteC.VoellerK.ConwayT. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.
33.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-first annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
34.
VaughnS.R.FuchsL.S. (Eds.). (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to treatment: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 137–146.)
35.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.Hickman-DavisP. (2002). Response to treatment as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.
36.
VellutinoF.ScanlonD.SipayE.SmallS.PrattA.ChenR.DencklaM. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
