Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is being proposed as an alternative model for making decisions about the presence or absence of specific learning disability. We argue that many questions about RTI remain unanswered, and that radical changes in the proposed regulations are not warranted at this time. Since many fundamental issues related to RTI have not been resolved, a better strategy may be to more rigorously implement existing identification criteria (e.g., discrepancy and psychological processing deficits) in a structured psychometric framework. Suggestions for how to modify present procedures are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AaronP.G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.
2.
AckermanP.T.HollowayC.A.YoungdahlP.L.DykmanR.A. (2001). The double-deficit of reading disability does not fit all. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 152–160.
3.
AlgozzineB.YsseldykeJ.E. (1980). Decision makers' prediction of students' academic difficulties as a function of referral information. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 145–150.
4.
AlgozzineR.YsseldykeJ.E.McGueM. (1995). Differentiating low-achieving students: Thoughts on setting the record straight. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 140–144.
5.
AllorJ.H. (2002). The relationship of phonemic awareness and rapid naming on reading development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 47–57.
6.
ArtleyA.S.HardinV.L. (1976). A current dilemma: Reading disability or learning disability?The Reading Teacher, 29, 361–366.
7.
BergmannG. (1961). Sense and nonsense in operationism. In FrankP.G. (Ed.), The validation of scientific theories (pp. 45–56). New York: Collier.)
8.
BradenJ.P.KratochwillT.R. (1997). Treatment utility of assessment: Myths and realities. School Psychology, Review, 26, 475–485.
9.
BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.)
10.
BrophyJ.E.GoodT.L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
11.
BuckhaltJ.A. (2002). A short history of g: Psychometrics' most enduring and controversial construct. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 101–114.
12.
CoutinhoM. (1995). Who will be learning disabled after the reauthorization of IDEA? Two very distinct perspectives. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 664–668.
13.
AngiulliD.A.SiegelL.S. (2003). Cognitive functioning as measured by the WISC-R: Do children with learning disabilities have distinctive patterns of performance?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 48–58.
14.
DonahueW.T.CoombsC.H.TraversR.W.M. (1949). The measurement of student adjustment and achievement. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
15.
EhriL.C.NunesS.R.StahlS.R.WillowsD.M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393–447.
16.
EhriL.C.NunesS.R.WillowsD.M.SchusterB.V.Yaghoub-ZadehZ.ShanahanT. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250–287.
17.
ElksninL.K.GartlandD.King-SearsM.BryantD.P.RosenbergM.S.ScanlonD.. (2001). LD Summit: Important issues for the field of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 297–305.
FlanaganD.P.OrtizS.O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York: Wiley.
20.
FlanaganD.P.OrtizS.O.AlfonsoV.C.MascoloJ.T. (2002). The achievement test desk reference (ATDR): Comprehensive assessment and learning disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
21.
FletcherJ.M.FrancisD.J.ShaywitzS.E.LyonG.R.FoormanB.R.StuebingK.K.ShaywitzB.A. (1998). Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 186–203.
22.
FornessS.R. (1985). Effects of public policy at the state level: California's impact on MR, LD, and SED categories. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 36–43.
FuchsD.FuchsL.S.MathesP.G.LipseyM.W.RobertsP.H. (2002). Is “learning disabilities” just a fancy term for low achievement? A meta-analysis of reading differences between low achievers with and without the label. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 737–762). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.)
25.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204–219.
26.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP.L.YoungC.L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities label. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18 (3), 157–171.
27.
GaskinsL.W. (1982). Let's end the reading disabilities/learning disabilities debate. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 81–83.
28.
GordonM.LewandowskiL.KeiserS. (1999). The LD label for relatively well-functioning students: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 485–490.
29.
GottliebJ.AlterM.GottliebB.W.WishnerJ. (1994). Special education in urban America: It's not justifiable for many. Journal of Special Education, 27, 453–465.
30.
GreshamF.M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467–519). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.)
31.
GreshamF.M.MacMillanD.L.BocianK.M. (1996). Learning disabilities, low achievement, and mild mental retardation: More alike than different?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 570–581.
32.
HaleJ.B.FiorelloC.A. (2001). Beyond the academic rhetoric of g: Intelligence testing guidelines for practice. The School Psychologist, 55, 113–139.
33.
HallahanD.P.MercerC.D. (2002). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 1–67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.)
HoskynM.SwansonH.L. (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. School Psychology Review, 29, 102–119.
36.
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: Lawrence Erlbaum.)
37.
KaplanE.FeinD.KramerJ.DelisD.MorrisR. (1999). The WISC-III as a process instrument. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
38.
KaufmanA.S.KaufmanN.L. (Eds.). (2001). Specific learning disabilities and difficulties in children and adolescents: Psychological assessment and evaluation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.)
KavaleK.A. (1995). Setting the record straight on learning disabilities and low achievement: The tortuous path of ideology. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 145–152.
41.
KavaleK.A. (2002). Discrepancy models in the identification of learning disability. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 369–426). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.)
42.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.R. (1984). A meta-analysis of the validity of Wechsler Scale profiles and recategorizations: Patterns or parodies?Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 136–156.
43.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.R. (1985a). Learning disability and the history of science: Paradigm or paradox?Remedial and Special Education, 6, 12–23.
44.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.R. (1985b). The science of learning disabilities. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
45.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.R. (1995). The nature of learning disabilities: Critical elements of diagnosis and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.R. (1998). The politics of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 245–273.
47.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.R. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and don't say: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 239–256.
48.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.R. (2003). Learning disability as a discipline. In SwansonH.L.HarrisK.R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Hand-book of learning disabilities (pp. 76–93). New York: Guilford Press.)
49.
KavaleK.A.NyeC. (1985–1986). Parameters of learning disabilities in achievement, linguistic, neuropsychological, and social/behavioral domains. Journal of Special Education, 19, 443–458.
50.
KavaleK.A.NyeC. (1991). The structure of learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 2, 141–156.
51.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.R.LorsbachT.C. (1991). Definition for definitions of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 257–266.
52.
KavaleK.A.FuchsD.ScruggsT.E. (1994). Setting the record straight on learning disabilities and low achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 70–77.
53.
KavaleK.A.ReeseJ.H. (1992). The character of learning disabilities: An Iowa profile. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 74–94.
54.
KeoghB.K. (1994). A matrix of decision points in the measurement of learning disabilities. In LyonG.R. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on assessment issues (pp. 15–26). Baltimore: Brookes.)
KonoldT.R. (1999). Evaluating discrepancy analyses with the WISC-III and WIAT. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17, 24–35.
57.
LernerJ.W. (1975). Remedial reading and learning disabilities: Are they the same or different?Journal of Special Education, 9, 119–131.
58.
LesterG.KelmanM. (1997). State disparities in the diagnosis and placement of pupils with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 599–607.
59.
LopezM.F.FornessS.R.MacMillanD.L.BocianK.M.GreshamF.M. (1998). Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and emotional or behavioral disorders in primary grades: Inappropriate placement in the learning disorder category. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 286–299.
60.
LovittT.C.CushingS. (1999). Parents of youth with disabilities: Their perceptions of school programs. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 134–142.
61.
MacMillanD.L.GreshamF.M.BocianK.M. (1998). Discrepancy between definitions of learning disabilities and school practices: An empirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 314–326.
62.
MacMillanD.L.GreshamF.M.BocianK.M.LambrosK.M. (1998). Current plight of borderline students: Where do they belong?Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 83–94.
63.
MacMillanD.L.SipersteinG.N. (2002). Learning disabilities as operationally defined by schools. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 287–333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.)
64.
MacMillanD.L.SipersteinG.N.GreshamF.M. (1996). A challenge to the viability of mild mental retardation as a diagnostic category. Exceptional Children, 62, 356–371.
65.
McKnightR.T. (1982). The learning disability myth in American education. Journal of Education, 164, 351–359.
66.
MeehlP.E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
67.
MercerC.D.JordanL.AllsoppD.H.MercerA.R. (1996). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 217–232.
68.
MorisonP.WhiteS.H.FeverM.J. (Eds.). (1996). The use of IQ tests in special education decision making and planning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.)
69.
NaglieriJ. (2001). Do ability and reading achievement correlate?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 304–306.
70.
NaglieriJ.A. (2003). Current advances in assessment and intervention for children with learning disabilities. In ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A. (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Identification and assessment (Vol. 16, pp. 163–190). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.)
71.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00–4754). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
72.
NormanC.A.ZigmondN. (1980). Characteristics of children labeled and served as learning disabled in school systems affiliated with Child Service Demonstration Centers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 542–547.
73.
PetersonK.M.H.ShinnM.R. (2002). Sever discrepancy models: Which best explains school identification practices for learning disabilities?School Psychology Review, 31 (4), 459–476.
74.
PressleyM.AllingtonR. (1999). What should reading instructional research be the research of?Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 5, 1–35.
75.
ReynoldsC.R. (1985). Measuring the aptitude-achievement discrepancy in learning disability diagnosis. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 37–55.
76.
ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 155–168.
77.
ShepardL.A. (1980). An evaluation of the regression discrepancy method for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 14, 79–91.
78.
ShepardL.A.SmithM.L. (1983). An evaluation of the identification of learning disabled students in Colorado. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 115–127.
79.
SiegelL.S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469–478, 486.
80.
SiegelL.S. (2003). IQ-discrepancy definitions and the diagnosis of LD: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 2–3.
81.
SingerJ.PalfreyJ.ButterJ.WalkerD. (1989). Variation in special education classification across school districts: How does where you live affect what you are labeled?American Educational Research Journal, 26, 261–281.
82.
SpeeceD.L.CaseL.P.MolloyD.E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 147–156.
83.
StanovichK.E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has intelligence led us astray?Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 7–29.
84.
StraussS.L. (2001). An open letter to Reid Lyon. Educational Researcher, 30, 26–33.
85.
StuebingK.K.FletcherJ.M.LeDouxJ.M.LyonG.R.ShaywitzS.E.ShaywitzB.A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading difficulties: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469–518.
86.
SwansonH.L. (1999). Has the importance of phonological awareness training been greatly overstated?Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 5, 125–139.
87.
SwansonH.L.AlexanderJ.E. (1997). Cognitive processes as predictors of word recognition and reading comprehension in learning-disabled and skilled readers: Revisiting the specificity hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 128–158.
88.
TorgesenJ.K. (1979). What shall we do with psychological processes?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 514–521.
89.
TorgesenJ.K. (2002). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 565–613). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.)
90.
TroiaG.A. (1999). Phonological awareness intervention research: A critical review of the experimental methodology. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 28–52.
91.
U.S. Office of Education. (1977, December 29). Assistance to states for education of handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 42(250), 65082–65085. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
92.
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.
93.
VaughnS.GerstenR.ChardD.J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99–114.
94.
VellutinoF.R.ScanlonD.M.LyonG.R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223–238.
95.
WilsonL.R.ConeT. (1984). The regression equation method for determining academic discrepancy. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 95–110.
96.
WolfM.BowersP.G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438.
97.
WongB.Y.L. (1996). The ABCs of learning disabilities. New York: Academic Press.
98.
YsseldykeJ.E.AlgozzineB.RicheyL. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: How many children are handicapped?Exceptional Children, 48, 531–534.
99.
YsseldykeJ.E.AlgozzineB.ShinnM.R.McGueM. (1982). Similarities and differences between low achievers and students classified learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 16, 73–85.
