Advances in Multi-tiered Systems of Support for Prekindergarten Children: Lessons Learned from 5 Years of Research and Development from the Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood

  • Judith J. CartaEmail author
  • Charles R. Greenwood
  • Howard Goldstein
  • Scott R. McConnell
  • Ruth Kaminski
  • Tracy A. Bradfield
  • Alisha Wackerle-Hollman
  • Maura Linas
  • Gabriela Guerrero
  • Elizabeth Kelley
  • Jane Atwater


While response to intervention (RTI) is in widespread use in K–12 programs, it is still an emerging practice in programs serving preschool-aged children. In 2008, the Institute of Education Sciences funded the Center on Response to Intervention in Early Childhood (CRTIEC): (1) to conduct a focused program of research to develop and rigorously evaluate and replicate intensive interventions for preschool language and early literacy skills and (2) to develop and validate an assessment system linked to these interventions. This chapter briefly describes some of the differences between preschool and K–12 educational settings and examines some of the challenges to implementing RTI in light of these contextual differences. Lessons learned and implications derived from a multisite study of the quality of early literacy in tier 1 across preschool programs are outlined along with programmatic research carried out to develop tier 2 and tier 3 language and literacy interventions, and measures for identifying and monitoring the progress of children needing additional tiers of support in these interventions. Also described are a specific investigation of children who are dual language learners and annual surveys of states showing a growing trend in the implementation of RTI programs and policies for preschool-aged children.


Differential Item Functioning Phonological Awareness Early Literacy Oral Language Learn Disability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Atwater, J. B., Lee, Y., Montagna, D., Reynolds, L. H., & Tapia, Y. (2009). Classroom CIRCLE: Classroom code for interactive recording of children’s learning environments (Version 2.0). Kansas City: Juniper Gardens Children’s Project, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  2. Bagnato, S. J., Neisworth, J. T., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (2010). LINKing authentic assessment and early childhood intervention: Best measures for best practices (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, D. W., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Witt, J. C. (2007). Achieving science-based practice through Response to Intervention: What it might look like in preschools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(1), 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett, W. S., Carolan, M. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Squires, J. H. (2012). The state of preschool 2012: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick: National Institute for Early Education Research.Google Scholar
  5. Bradfield, T. A. (2013). [Results of the Decision Making Framework Analysis]. Unpublished raw data.Google Scholar
  6. Bradfield, T. A., McConnell, S. R., Rodriguez, M., & Wackerle-Hollman, A. (2013). A decision-making framework for early language and literacy early childhood response to intervention. Unpublished technical report, Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  7. Bradfield, T., Besner, A., Wackerle-Hollman, A., Albano, A., Rodriquez, M., & McConnell, S. (2014). Redefining individual growth and development indicators: Oral language. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 73, 233–244.Google Scholar
  8. Burchinal, M. R., Cryer, D., Clifford, R. M., & Howes, C. (2002). Caregiver training and classroom quality in child care centers. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burns, M. S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (1999). Starting out right: A guide to promoting children’s reading success. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  10. Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analysis of response-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buysse, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2010). Recognition & response: Response to Intervention for PreK. Young Exceptional Children, 13(4), 2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buysse, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. S. (2013). Response to intervention: Conceptual foundations for the early childhood field. In V. Buysse & E. S. Peisner-Feinberg (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention in early childhood (pp. 3–23). Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  13. Carta, J. J., & Greenwood, C. R. (2013). Promising future research directions in response to intervention in early childhood. In V. Buysse & E. S. Peisner-Feinberg (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention in early childhood (pp. 421–432). Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  14. Chandler, L. K., Miller Young, R., Nylander, D., Shield, L., Ash, J., Bauman, B., Butt, J., et al. (2008). Promoting early literacy skills within daily activities and routines in preschool classrooms. Young Exceptional Children, 11(2), 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Children’s Learning Institute. (2010). Developing talkers: Pre-K curricular supplement to promote oral language. Houston: University of Texas Heath Science Center.Google Scholar
  16. Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. B. (Eds.). (2007). Standards for educational psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar
  17. Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (Eds.). (2001). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  18. Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test—fourth edition. Bloomington: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
  20. Ezell, H. K., & Justice, L. M. (2005). Shared storybook reading: Building young children’s language and emergent literacy skills. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  21. Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Garcia, E., & Jensen, B. (2009). Early educational opportunities for children of Hispanic origins (Social Policy Rep. No. 23-2). Ann Arbor: Society for Research in Child Development.Google Scholar
  23. Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. (2007). Applying to response-to-intervention model for early literacy developing in low-income children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Dewey, E. N., Wallin, J., Powell-Smith, K. A., & Latimer, R. J. (2013). DIBELS first sound fluency. In DIBELS next technical manual. Eugene: Dynamic Measurement Group Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Greenwood, C. R., Kratochwill, T. R., & Clements, M. (Eds.). (2008). Schoolwide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools. Baltimore: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Greenwood, C. R., Bradfield, T., Kaminski, R., Linas, M., Carta, J. J., & Nylander, D. (2011a). The Response to Intervention (RTI) approach in early childhood. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43(9), 1–22.Google Scholar
  27. Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Atwater, J., Goldstein, H., Kaminski, R., & McConnell, S. R. (2012). Is a Response to Intervention (RTI) approach to preschool language and early literacy instruction needed? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 33, 48–64.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gutiérrez, K. D., Zepeda, M., & Castro, D. C. (2010). Advancing early literacy learning for all children: Implications of the NELP report for dual-language learners. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 334–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hammer, C. S., Gillanders, C., Hoff, E., Uchikoshi, Y., & Castro, D. C. (2014). Language and literacy development in dual language learners: A critical review of the research Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 715–733.Google Scholar
  30. Jalongo, M. R., & Sobolak, M. J. (2011). Supporting young children’s vocabulary growth: The challenges, the benefits, and evidence-based strategies. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 421–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., & Johnson, E. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582–600.Google Scholar
  32. Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2004). Embedded-explicit emergent literacy intervention I: Background and description of approach. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 201–211.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Justice, L. M., McGinty, A., Cabell, S. Q., Kilday, C. R., Kighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language and literacy curriculum supplement for preschoolers who are academically at risk: A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 161–178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kelley, E. S., Goldstein, H., Spencer, T. D., & Sherman, A. (2014). An automated tier 2 vocabulary and comprehension intervention for preschool children with limited oral language skills. Unpublished manuscript under review.Google Scholar
  35. Lonigan, C., & Wilson, S. B. (2008). Report on the Revised Get Ready to Read! Screening Tool: Psychometrics and normative Information. Final Technical Report Prepared for the National Center on Learning Disabilities.Google Scholar
  36. Lonigan, C., Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., & Rashotte, C. (2007). The Test of Preschool Early Literacy ( TOPEL). Austin, Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  37. Marulis, L. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 300–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McConnell, S. R., & Missall, K. N. (2008). Best practices in monitoring progress for preschool children. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th ed., pp. 561–573). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  39. McCollum, J. A., Hemmeter, M. L., & Hsieh, W.-Y. (2013). Coaching teachers for emergent literacy instruction using performance based feedback. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 33, 28–37.Google Scholar
  40. McGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. J. (1996). Literacy’s beginnings: Supporting young readers and writers (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  41. McGinty, A. S., Justice, L. M., Piasta, S. B., Kaderavek, J., & Fan, X. (2012). Does context matter?: Explicit print instruction during reading varies in its influence by child and classroom factors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McLean, M., Wolery, M., & Bailey, D. B. (2003). Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  43. National Early Literacy Panel. (2009). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel—A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and implications for intervention. Jessup: National Institute for Literacy.Google Scholar
  44. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2000). Characteristics and quality of child care for toddlers and preschoolers. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 116–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). Child-care structure—process—outcome: Direct and indirect effects of child-care quality on young children’s development. Psychological Science, 13, 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Noe, S., Spencer, T. D., Kruse, L., & Goldstein, H. (2013). Effects of a tier 3 phonological awareness intervention on preschoolers’ emergent literacy. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 0271121413489172, first published on June 6, 2013 as doi:10.1177/0271121413489172.Google Scholar
  47. Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. (2010). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook for parents and professionals. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  48. Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 184–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peña, E. D. (2007). Lost in translation: Methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Development, 78(4), 1255–1264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Peña, E. D., & Halle, T. (2011). Assessing preschool English learners: Traveling a multi-forked road. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peña, E. D., Gillam, R. B., Bedore, L. M., & Bohman, T. (2011). Risk for poor performance on a language screening measure for bilingual preschoolers and kindergarteners. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 20, 302–314.Google Scholar
  52. Pew Charitable Trusts. (2004). Percent of population ages 3 and 4 who are enrolled in school: Census 2000. Accessed 4 July 2013.
  53. Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K. M., & Hamre, B. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Pierce, C. D., & Bruns, D. A. (2013). Aligning components of Recognition and Response and Response to Intervention to improve transition to primary school. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41, 1–8.Google Scholar
  55. Potter, L., Besner, A., Palma, J., Bradfield, T., & McConnell, S. (2012, September). Using a partial-credit model with Picture Naming IGDIs 2.0. Poster presented at the Fourth Annual Summit on Response to Intervention in Early Childhood, Santa Ana Pueblo NM.Google Scholar
  56. Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008). Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school readiness ( NCER 2008-2009). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  57. Priest, J. S., McConnell, S. R., Walker, D., Carta, J. J., Kaminski, R. A., McEvoy, M. A., Good, R. H., Greenwood, C. R., & Shinn, M. (2001). General growth outcomes for young children: Developing a foundation for continuous progress measurement. Journal of Early Intervention, 24, 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rodriguez, M. C. (2010). Building a validity framework for second-generation IGDIs. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  59. Rodriguez, M. C., Albano, A. D., McConnell, S., Wackerle-Hollman, A., & Bradfield, T. (April, 2011). Standard setting with innovative measures of early literacy: Contrasting groups. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  60. Schwanenflugel, P. J., Hamilton, C. E., Bradley, B. A., Ruston, H. P., Neuharth-Pritchett, S., & Restrepo, M. A. (2005). Classroom practices for vocabulary enhancement in prekindergarten: Lessons from PAVEd for success. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 155–178). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  62. Spencer, E., Goldstein, H., Sherman, A., Noe, S., Tabbah, R., Ziolkowski, R., & Schneider, N. (2012). Effects of an automated vocabulary and comprehension intervention: An early efficacy study. Journal of Early Intervention, 34, 195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In P. Holland (Ed.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67–113). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  64. Vandell, D. (2004). Early child care: The known and the unknown. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wackerle-Hollman, A. (2013). [Results of Progress Monitoring Analysis]. Unpublished raw data.Google Scholar
  66. Wackerle-Hollman, A., Schmitt, B., Bradfield, T., Rodriguez, M., & McConnell, S. (In press. Online November 14, 2013). Redefining individual growth and development indicators: Phonological awareness. Journal of Learning Disabilities. doi:10.1177/0022219413510181.Google Scholar
  67. Waitoller, F. R., Artiles, A. J., & Cheney, D. A. (2010). The miner’s canary: A review of overrepresentation research and explanations. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wiig, E., Secord, W., & Semel, E. (2004). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals-preschool (2nd ed.). San Antonio: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
  69. Zehler, A. M., et al. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities. Final Report to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition. Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  70. Zepeda, M., Castro, D. C., & Cronin, S. (2011). Preparing early childhood teachers to work with young dual language learners. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ziolkowski, R. A., & Goldstein, H. (2008). Effects of an embedded phonological awareness intervention during repeated book reading on preschool children with language delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 31, 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zucker, T. A., Solari, E. J., Landry, S. H., & Swank, P. R. (2013). Effects of a brief, tiered lanaguage intervention for pre-kindergarteners at risk. Early Education and Development, 366–392. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith J. Carta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Charles R. Greenwood
    • 1
  • Howard Goldstein
    • 2
  • Scott R. McConnell
    • 3
  • Ruth Kaminski
    • 4
  • Tracy A. Bradfield
    • 3
  • Alisha Wackerle-Hollman
    • 3
  • Maura Linas
    • 5
  • Gabriela Guerrero
    • 6
  • Elizabeth Kelley
    • 7
  • Jane Atwater
    • 6
  1. 1.University of KansasKansas CityUSA
  2. 2.University of South FloridaTampaUSA
  3. 3.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  4. 4.Dynamic Measurement GroupEugeneUSA
  5. 5.University of KansasMinneapolisUSA
  6. 6.University of KansasKansas CityUSA
  7. 7.University of MIssouriMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations