Evaluating the Impact of Response to Intervention in Reading at the Elementary Level Across the State of Pennsylvania

  • Edward S. ShapiroEmail author


When schools implement a response-to-intervention (RTI) model, it is critically important that multiple perspectives of outcomes of the model need to be considered. Using the Shapiro and Clemens (Assessment for Effective Intervention 35:3–16, 2009) framework for evaluating an RTI model, the outcomes of implementation in 29 elementary schools in Pennsylvania are discussed. Overall, the results of the risk-level analysis for reading based on outcomes of oral reading fluency (ORF) and 4Sight Benchmark Assessment showed that the strongest outcomes occurred in kindergarten and grade 1, with less strong outcomes in the middle elementary grades (grades 2, 3, and 4). Data examining movement across tiers indicated that the largest amount of movement occurred in the earliest grades and from the beginning to middle of the year. Across grades, an increasing trend of percentage of students meeting their targeted and benchmark rate of improvement (ROI) for grade was evident across grade level. Although the number of schools with data regarding specific learning disability (SLD) determination was limited, analysis showed that between < 1  and 2.5 % of students across these schools were evaluated for special education as potential students with SLD. In general, this chapter provides a strong model for examining the key outcome measures in evaluating an RTI implementation process.


  1. Ardoin, S. P., Witt, J. C., Connell, J. E., & Koenig, J. L. (2005). Application of a three-tiered response to intervention model for instructional planning, decision- making, and the identification of children in need of services. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 362–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bollman, K. A., Silberglitt, B., & Gibbons, K. A. (2007). The St. Croix River Educational District model: Incorporating systems-level organization and a multi-tiered problem-solving process for intervention delivery. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 319–330). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callender, W. A. (2007). The Idaho results-based model: Implementing response to intervention statewide. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 331–342). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clemens, N. H., Shapiro, E. S., Hilt-Panahon, A., & Gischlar, K. L. (2011). Project MP3: Monitoring progress of Pennsylvania pupils: Student achievement outcomes. In E. S. Shapiro, N. Zigmond, T. Wallace, & D. Marston (Eds.), Models of response-to-intervention implementation: Tools, outcomes, and implications (pp. 77–98). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Prentice, K. (2004). Responsiveness to mathematical problem-solving instruction: Comparing students at risk of mathematics disability with and without risk of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 293–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. (2008). Applying a response-to-intervention model for early literacy development in low-income children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
  8. Hartman, W. T., & Fay, T. A. (1996). Cost-effectiveness of instructional support teams in Pennsylvania. Policy Paper Number 9 of the Center for Special Education Finance. Palo Alto: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  9. 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 and Practice, 18, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.Google Scholar
  11. Peterson, D. W., Prasse, D. P., Shinn, M. R., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2007). The Illinois flexible service delivery model: A problem-solving model initiative. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 300–318). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shapiro, E. S., & Clemens, N. (2009). A conceptual model for evaluating system effects of RTI. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shapiro, E. S., Solari, E., & Petscher, J. (2008). Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 316–328.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a Response to Intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.Google Scholar
  16. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Woodruff, A. L., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2007). Prevention and early identification of students with reading disabilities. In D. Haager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 11–27). Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Promoting Research to PracticeLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations