As regulations are rewritten regarding school-based learning disabilities identification practices, the components of those practices are likely to change. For example, cognitive assessment and aptitude-achievement discrepancy might be less important. A student's responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) is emerging as an important construct for assessing underachievement. This article provides a framework for understanding how RTI fits as one LD determination component, describes research on RTI, and outlines the NRCLD's research efforts to examine current RTI implementation in schools and model site selection.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllingtonR.A. (2002). Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence. New York: Heinemann.
2.
BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.)
3.
BudoffM. (1975). Measuring learning potential: An alternative to the traditional intelligence test. In GredlerG.R. (Ed.), Ethical and legal factors in the practice of school psychology: Proceedings of the First Annual Conference in School Psychology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.)
4.
BudoffM.CormanL. (1976). Effectiveness of a learning potential procedure in improving problem-solving skills of retarded and nonretarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 81 (3), 260–264.
5.
FoormanB.R.FrancisD.J.FletcherJ.M.SchatschneiderC.MehtaP. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.
6.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP.L.YoungC. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.
7.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219.
8.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.HamlettC.L.PhillipsN.B.BentzJ. (1994). Classwide curriculum-based measurement: Helping general educators meet the challenge of student diversity. Exceptional Children, 60, 518–537.
9.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.KarnsK.HamlettC.L.KatzaroffM.DutkaS. (1997). Effects of task-focused goals on low-achieving students with and without learning disabilities. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 513–544.
10.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.SpeeceD.L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–45.
11.
GreshamF.M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan, Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467–564). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
HainesD.J.TorgesenJ.K. (1979). The effects of incentives on rehearsal and short-term memory in children with reading problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2(2), 48–55.
13.
HeistadD.CaseyA. (2002). Narrowing the gap in early literacy: Results from Minneapolis kindergarten classes. Paper presented at the Council of Great City Schools annual meeting, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
14.
IkedaM.GustafsonJ.K. (2002a). Heartland AEA ll's problemsolving process: Impact on issues related to special education(Research Report No. 2002–01). Available from the authors at Heartland Area Education Agency 11, 6500 Corporate Dr., Johnston, IA 50131.
15.
IkedaM.GustafsonJ.K. (2002b). Heartland AEA ll's problem solving process: Impact on issues related to special education(Research Report No. 2002–01). Available from the authors at Heartland Area Education Agency 11, 6500 Corporate Dr., Johnston, IA 50131.
16.
KavaleK.HoldnackJ.MostertM.P.SchmiedC.M. (2003, December). The feasibility of a responsiveness to intervention approach for the identification of specific learning disability: A psychometric alternative. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities “Responsiveness to Intervention” Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
17.
KohsS.D. (1923). Intelligence measurement. New York: Macmillan.
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 OSEP's LD Summit conference, Washington, DC.
20.
MarstonD.MuyskensP.LauM.CanterA. (2003). Problemsolving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 187–200.
21.
Minneapolis Public Schools. (2001). Problem solving model: Introduction for all staff. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). (2001, November). Researchers' areas of consensus: LD summit follow-up meeting. Washington, DC: Author.
24.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 1, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecial-education
25.
RavenJ.C. (1956). Colored progressive matrices. London: H. K. Lewis.
26.
ReynoldsC.R. (1984). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 451–476.
27.
SpeeceD.L.CaseL.P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735–749.
28.
SpeeceD.L.CaseL.P.MolloyD.E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 147–156.
TorgesenJ.K.AlexanderA.W.WagnerR.K.RashotteC.A.VoellerK.K.S.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(1), 33–58, 78.
31.
VaughnS.FuchsL.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.
32.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.HickmanP. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391–409.
33.
VellutinoF.R.ScanlonD.M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321–363.
34.
VellutinoF.R.ScanlonD.M.LyonG.R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223–238.
35.
VellutinoF.R.ScanlonD.M.SipayE.R.SmallS.G.PrattA.ChenR.DencklaM.B. (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 special reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
36.
World Health Organization. (2002). Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health, ICF. Geneva. Retrieved June 1, 2004, from http://www3.who.int/icf/beginners/bg.pdf
