The assessment procedures within Response to Intervention (RTI) models have begun to supplant the use of traditional, discrepancy-based frameworks for identifying students with specific learning disabilities (SLD). Many RTI proponents applaud this shift because of perceived shortcomings in utilizing discrepancy as an indicator of SLD. However, many professionals and organizations have noted the substantial variability between various RTI models and urged cautious implementation. RTI models that utilize substantively different assessment procedures as a primary or singular means of SLD identification are likely to produce numerous sources of measurement error, threats to validity, inaccuracy in identification, and potential legal challenges. This article examines from a psychometric perspective the risks in replacing discrepancy-based identification of SLD with the myriad options for measuring students' responsiveness and nonresponsiveness to instruction within the intervention tiers of RTI.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenderW. N.ShoresC. (2007). Response to intervention: A practical guide for every teacher. Joint publication. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children; Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
2.
BergeronR.FloydR. G.ShandsE. I. (2008). States' eligibility guidelines for mental retardation: An update and consideration of part scores and unreliability of IQs. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 123–131.
3.
BerkeleyS.BenderW. N.PeasterL. G.SaundersL. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–95.
4.
BradleyR.DanielsonL.DoolittleJ. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 485–486.
5.
BradleyR.DanielsonL.DoolittleJ. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: 1997 to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 8–12.
6.
BuckG. H.PollowayE. A.Smith-ThomasA.CookK. W. (2003). Prereferral intervention processes: A survey of state practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 349–360.
7.
BurnsM. K.JacobS.WagnerA. R. (2008). Ethical and legal issues associated with using response-to-intervention to assess learning disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 263–279.
8.
ComptonD. L. (2006). How should ‘unresponsiveness' to secondary intervention be operationalized? It is all about the nudge. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 17–173.
FuchsD.DeshlerD.D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136.
11.
FuchsD.DeshlerD. D.ReschlyD. J. (2004). National research center on learning disabilities: Multimethod studies of identification and classification issues. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 189–195.
12.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-intervention: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227.
13.
FuchsD.YoungC. L. (2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73, 8–30.
14.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 89, 14–20.
15.
GerberM. M. (2005). Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to instruction strategies for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 516–524.
16.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2003). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.
17.
HallahanD. P.MercerC. D. (2002). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification in learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 1–67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18.
HallahanD. P.KauffmanJ. M.PullenP. C. (2009). Exceptional learners: An introduction to special education (11th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
19.
HallahanD. P.KellerC. E.MartinezE. A.ByrdE. S.GelmanJ. A.FanX. (2007). How variable are interstate prevalence rates of learning disabilities and other special education categories? A longitudinal comparison. Exceptional Children, 73, 136–146.
20.
HallahanD. P.LloydJ. W.KauffmanJ. M.WeissM. P.MartinezE. A. (2005). Learning disabilities: Foundations, characteristics, and effective teaching (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
21.
HammillD. (1990). On defining learning disabilities: An emerging consensus. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 74–84.
22.
HarbortG.GunterP. L.HullK.BrownQ.VennM. L.WileyL. P. (2007). Behaviors of teachers in co-taught classes in a secondary school. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 13–23.
23.
HollenbeckA. F. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion of foundational and future responsiveness-to-intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 137–146.
24.
HooverJ. J.PattonJ. R. (2008). The role of special educators in a multitiered instructional system. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 195–202.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. 108–446 U.S.C. (2004).
27.
JohnsonE.MellardD. F.ByrdS. E. (2005). Alternative models of learning disabilities identification: Considerations and initial conclusions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 569–572.
28.
KauffmanJ. M. (2004). The President's commission and the devaluation of special education. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 307–324.
29.
KavaleK. A. (2005). Identifying specific learning disability: Is responsiveness to intervention the answer?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 553–562.
30.
KavaleK. A.HoldnackJ. A.MostertM. P. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 113–127.
31.
KavaleK. A.KauffmanJ. M.BachmeierR. J.LeFeverG. B. (2008). Response to Intervention: Sparing the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 135–150.
32.
KavaleK. A.SpauldingL. S. (2008). Is response to intervention good policy for specific learning disability?Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23, 168–179.
33.
KavaleK. A.SpauldingL. S.BeamA. P. (2009). A time to define: Making the specific learning disability definition prescribe specific learning disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 39–48.
34.
Learning Disabilities Association of America. (2006). Response to Intervention: Position paper of the Learning Disabilities Association of America. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http://www.ldanatl.org/about/position/rti.asp
35.
LyonG. R. (2005). Why scientific research must guide educational policy and instructional practices in learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 140–143.
36.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. 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.
37.
MellardD. F.ByrdS. E.JohnsonE.TollefsonJ. M.BoescheL. (2004). Foundations and research on identifying model responsiveness-to-intervention sites. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 243–256.
38.
McKenzieR. G. (in press). A national survey of pre-service preparation for collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education.
39.
MellardD. F.DeshlerD. D.BarthA. (2004). LD identification: It's not simply a matter of building a better mousetrap. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 229–242.
40.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 249–260.
41.
ReschlyD. R. (2005). Learning disabilities identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, and then what?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 510–515.
42.
ReschlyD. J.HospJ. L. (2004). State SLD identification policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197–212.
43.
ReynoldsC. R.ShaywitzS. E. (2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 130–145.
44.
SalviaJ.YsseldykeJ. E.BoltS. (2010). Assessment in special and inclusive education (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
45.
SpeeceD. L.CaseL. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735–749.
46.
TaylorR. L. (2009). Assessment of exceptional students: Educational and psychological procedures (8th ed.), Columbus, OH: Pearson.
47.
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.
48.
U.S. Office of Education. (1977). Assistance to states for education of handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 42, 65082–65085.
49.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137–146.
50.
VellutinoF.ScanlonD. M.SipayE. R.SmallS. G.PrattA.ChenR. (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 a basic cause of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
51.
WoodcockR. (1998). Woodcock reading mastery tests - revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
52.
ZirkelP. A.KrohnN. (2008). RTI after IDEA: A survey of state laws. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40, 71–73.
