Abstract
Responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) is the front-running candidate to replace current practice in diagnosing learning disabilities, but researchers have identified several questions about implementation. Specific questions include: Are there validated intervention models? Are there adequately trained personnel? What leadership is needed? When does due process protection begin? and Is RTI a defensible endpoint in the identification process? These questions were addressed by examining four existing large-scale RTI models, Heartland Model (Iowa), Intervention-Based Assessment (Ohio), Instructional Support Teams (Pennsylvania), and the ProblemSolving Model in Minneapolis (Minnesota) Public Schools. The RTI process led to positive outcomes for children with and without disabilities, but all four models were phased-in over time, relied on extensive training for a multidisciplinary team, and followed a protocol to develop data-based adaptations. Clarification about team membership, leadership, and initiation of due process is still required. Additional questions about RTI were generated regarding students in secondary grades, parental involvement, and fidelity of implementing. Recommendations for implementation are included.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.
Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J. (1982). Classification decisions in learning disabilities. Educational and Psychological Research, 2, 117–129.
Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J. (1983). Learning disabilities as a subset of school failure: The over sophistication of a concept. Exceptional Children, 50, 242–246.
Barnett, D. W., Bell, S. H., Gilkey, C. M., Lentz, F. E., Graden, J. L., Stone, C. M., Smith, J. J., & Macmann, G. (1999). The promise of meaningful eligibility determination: Functional intervention-based multifactored preschool evaluation. Journal of Special Education, 33, 112–124.
Burns, M. K. (2002). Utilizing a comprehensive system of assessment to intervention using curriculum-based assessments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 8–13.
Burns, M. K. (2004). Using curriculum-based assessment in the consultative process: A useful innovation or an educational fad. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15, 63–78.
Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J.D. (in press). Meta-analytic review of response-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment.
Burns, M. K., Dean, V. J., & Klar, S. (2004). Using curriculum-based assessment in the responsiveness to intervention diagnostic model for learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29(3), 47–56.
Burns, M. K., MacQuarrie, L. L., & Campbell, D. T. (1999). The difference between instructional assessment (curriculum-based assessment) and curriculum-based measurement: A focus on purpose and result. Communiqué, 27, 18–19.
Burns, M. K., & Symington, T. (2002). A meta-analysis of pre-referral intervention teams: Student and systemic outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 437–447.
Burns, M. K., Vanderwood, M., & Ruby, S. (2005). Evaluating the readiness of prereferral intervention teams for use in a problem-solving model: Review of three levels of research. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 89–105.
Coles, G. (1998). Reading lessons: The debate over literacy. New York: Hill and Wang.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub. L. No. 94-142 (1975). Regulations appeared in 1977.
Englund, M. M., Luckner, A., Whaley, G. J. L., & Egeland, B. (2004). Children’s achievement in early elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental involvement, expectations, and quality of assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 723–730.
Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Lyon, G. R., Foorman, B. R., Stuebing, K. K., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1998). Intelligence testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 186–203.
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.
Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18, 172–186.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204–219.
Gravois, T. A., & Gickling, E. E. (2002). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2; pp. 885–898). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Gresham, F. (2001, August). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future, Washington, D.C.
Hale, J. B., Naglieri, J. A., Kaufman, A. S., & Kavale, K. A. (2004). Specific learning disability classification in the new Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: The danger of good ideas. The School Psychologist, 29, 6–13.
Heartland. (2004). Heartland AEA 11 annual progress report. Retrieved October 15, 2004, from http://www.aea11.k12.ia.us/downloads/2004apr.pdf
Ikeda, M. J., & Gustafson, J. K. (2002). Heartland AEA 11’s problem solving process: Impact on issues related to special education. Research report no. 2002–01. Johnston, IA: Heartland Area Education Agency 11.
Ikeda, M. J., Tilly, D. W., Stumme, J., Volmer, L., & Allison, R. (1996). Agency-wide implementation of problem-solving consultation: Foundations, current implementation, and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 228–243.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. 101-476 (1990).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. 108-446 (2004).
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1999). Effectiveness of special education. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 984–1024). New York: Wiley.
Kovaleski, J. F. (2002). Best practices in operating pre-referral intervention teams. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 645–656). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., & Morrow, H. (1999). High versus low implementation of instructional support teams: A case for maintaining program fidelity. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 170–183.
Kovaleski, J. F., Tucker, J. A., & Duffy, D. J. (1995). School reform through instructional support: The Pennsylvania Initiative (Part I). Communiqué, 23(8), (insert).
Kovaleski, J. F., Tucker, J. A., & Stevens, L. J. (1996). Bridging special and regular education: The Pennsylvania Initiative. Educational Leadership, 53, 44–47.
Lau, M. Y., Sieler, J. D., Muyskens, P., Canter, A., VanKeuren, B., & Marston, D. (2005). Perspectives on the use of the problem-solving model from the viewpoint of a school psychologist, administrator, and teacher from a large Midwest urban school district. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 17–78). New York: Guilford.
Marston, D. (2003, December). How many tiers are needed within RTI to achieve acceptable prevention outcomes and to achieve acceptable patters of LD identification? Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1988). Curriculum-based measurement: District level implementation. In J. Graden, J. Zins, & M. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students. Washington, D.C.: National Association of School Psychologists.
Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 187–200.
McNamara, K. (1998). Adoption of intervention-based assessment for special education. School Psychology International, 19, 251–266.
McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. (2003). Intervention-based assessment: Evaluation rates and eligibility findings. Exceptional Children, 69, 181–194.
Minneapolis Public Schools. (2001). Problem solving model: Introduction for all staff. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
Pawlowski, K. F. (2001). The instructional support team concept in action. In R. Sornson (Ed.), Preventing early learning failure (pp. 64–68). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2001). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Reschly, D. J. (2003, December). What if LD identification changed to reflect research findings?: Consequences of LD identification changes. Paper presented at the Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
Reschly, D. J., & Starkweather, A.R. (1997). Evaluation of an alternative special education assessment and classification program in the Minneapolis Public Schools. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Public Schools.
Reschly, D. J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2002). Paradigm shift: The past is not the future. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 3–21). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Rock, M. L., & Zigmond, N. (2001). Intervention assistance: Is it substance or symbolism? Preventing School Failure, 45, 153–161.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 155–169.
Shapiro, E. S. (1992). Use of Gickling’s model of curriculum-based assessment to improve reading in elementary age students. School Psychology Review, 21, 168–176.
Shapiro, E. S. (2004). Academic skill problems: Direct assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Shapiro, E. S., & Ager, C. (1992). Assessment of special education students in regular education programs: Linking assessment to instruction. Elementary School Journal, 92, 283–296.
Shinn, M. R., Rosenfield, S., & Knutson, N. (1989). Curriculum-based assessment: A comparison of models. School Psychology Review, 18, 299–316.
Sornson, R., Frost, F., & Burns, M. K. (2005). Instructional support teams in Michigan: Data from Northville Public Schools. Communiqué, 33(5), 28–30.
Taylor, B. M. (2005). Consortium for responsible school change in literacy. Unpublished document, University of Minnesota, Center for Reading Research.
Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29, 443–461.
Tilly III, W. D. (2002). Best practices in school psychology as a problem-solving enterprise. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 21–36). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Tilly III, W. D. (2003). How many tiers are needed for successful prevention and early intervention?: Heartland Area Education Agency’s evolution from four to three tiers. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S., Chen, R., Pratt, A., & Denkla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficulty-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experimental deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
Ysseldyke, J. E. (2001). Reflections on a research career: Generalizations from 25 years of research on assessment and instructional decision-making. Exceptional Children, 67, 295–310.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Bolt, D., & Patterson, M. (2005). Effectiveness of continuous progress monitoring in math as a function of intervention integrity. Unpublished manuscript.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Dawson, M., Lehr, C. A., Reschly, D., Reynolds, M., & Telzrow, C. (1997). School psychology: A blueprint for the future of training and practice II. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Marston, D. (2000). Origins of categorical special education services in schools and a rationale for changing them. In D. Reschly, D. Tilley, & J. Grimes (Eds), Functional and noncategorical special education (pp. #–#). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Thill, T., Pohl, J., & Bolt, D. (2005). Using math facts in a flash to enhance computational fluency. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 6, 59–89.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burns, M.K., Ysseldyke, J.E. Comparison of Existing Responsiveness-To-Intervention Models to Identify and Answer Implementation Questions. Contemp School Psychol 10, 9–20 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340917
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340917