Advertisement

Toward a Unified Response-to-Intervention Model: Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

  • Matthew K. BurnsEmail author
  • Shane R. Jimerson
  • Amanda M. VanDerHeyden
  • Stanley L. Deno
Chapter

Abstract

With many elementary schools across the nation implementing assorted response-to-intervention (RTI) models, this chapter emphasizes the value of a unified RTI model. This unified RTI model is based on the IDEAL model of problem solving in which school personnel (a) identify the problem, (b) define the problem, (c) explore alternative solutions to the problem, (d) apply a solution, and (e) look at the effects of the application. RTI is the process of providing quality instruction, implementing interventions matched to student need, and using student response data to make instructional and important educational decision. During the past few years, many states are adopting the term multi-tiered system of support (MTSS), as this framework focuses on providing instruction and intervention, rather than using data to identity disabilities. This chapter examines current practice and research using the steps in the IDEAL model and uses this as the basis for recommending MTSS practices that would construct a unified model.

Keywords

Core Instruction Provide Quality Instruction Display Problem Behavior Identity Disability Renaissance Learn 
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.

References

  1. Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J. (1982). Classification decisions in learning disabilities. Educational and Psychological Research, 2, 117–129.Google Scholar
  3. 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. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 362–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bransford, J., & Stein, B. (1984). The ideal problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning and creativity. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2012). Response to intervention implementation in elementary andsecondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2006). Using response to intervention to assess learning disabilities: Introduction to the special series. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Comparison of existing responsiveness-to-intervention models to identify and answer implementation questions. The California School Psychologist, 10, 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns, M. K., Ganuza, Z., & London, R. (2009). Brief experimental analysis of written letter formation: A case demonstration. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burns, M. K., Karich, A., Maki, K., Anderson, A., Pulles, S. M., Ittner, A., McComas, J. J., & Helman, L. (in press). Identifying classwide problems in reading with screening data. Journal of Evidence Based Practices for Schools.Google Scholar
  12. Christ, T. J., Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Conceptual confusion within response-to-intervention vernacular: Clarifying meaningful differences. Communiqué, 34(3).Google Scholar
  13. Crone, D. A., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Building positive behavior support systems in schools: Functional behavioral assessment. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  14. Demaray, M. K., & Elliot, S. N. (2001). Perceived social support by children with characteristics of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 68–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deno, S. L. (2002). Problem solving as best practices. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 37–56). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  21. Gickling, E. E., & Havertape, S. (1981). Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA). Minneapolis: School Psychology Inservice Training Network.Google Scholar
  22. Gresham, F. M., & project REACH. (2005). Response to intervention: An alternative means of identifying students as emotionally disturbed. Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 328–344.Google Scholar
  23. Gresham, F. M., Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D. III, Fletcher, J., Burns, M., Crist, T., Prasse, D., Vanderwood, M., & Shinn, M. (2004). Comprehensive evaluation of learning disabilities: A response-to-intervention perspective. Communiqué, 33(4).Google Scholar
  24. Hall, M., & Burns, M. K. (2014). Meta-analysis of small-group reading interventions. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  25. Howell, K., & Nolet, V. (1999). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  26. Ikeda, M. J., Tilly, W. D. III., Stumme, J., & Volmer, L. (1996). Agency-wide implementation of problem-solving consultation: Foundations, current implementation, and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 228–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). Pub. L. 108–446.Google Scholar
  28. Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solving model: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 113–142). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kavale, K. A., Kauffman, J. M., Bachmeier, R. J., & LeFever, G. B. (2008). Response-to-intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 135–150.Google Scholar
  30. Kettler, R. J., Glover, T. A., Albers, C. A., & Feeney-Kettler, K. A. (2014). An introduction to universal screening in educational settings. In R. J. Kettler, T. A. Glover, C. A. Albers, & K. A. Feeney-Kettler (Eds.), Universal screening in educational settings: Evidence-based decision making for schools (pp. 3–17). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kovaleski, J. R., Tucker, J. A., & Stevens, L. J. (1996). Bridging special and regular education: The Pennsylvania initiative. Educational Leadership, 53, 44–47.Google Scholar
  32. Kovaleski, J. R., Shapiro, E. S., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2013). The RTI approach to evaluating learning disabilities. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McDermott, K. A. (2011). High-stakes reform: The politics of educational accountability. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  35. McGlinchey, M. T., & Hixson, M. D. (2004). Using curriculum-based measurement to predict performance standards on state assessments in reading. School Psychology Review, 33, 193–203.Google Scholar
  36. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria: author.Google Scholar
  37. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  38. Petursdottir, A. L. (2006). Brief experimental analysis of early reading interventions. Doctoral Dissertation.Google Scholar
  39. President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  40. Shapiro, E. S. (2000). School psychology from an instructional perspective: Solving big, not little problems. School Psychology Review, 29, 560–572.Google Scholar
  41. Shapiro, E. S. (2010). New thinking in response to intervention: A comparison of computer-adaptive tests and curriculum-based measurement within RTI. Wisconsin Rapids: Renaissance Learning.Google Scholar
  42. Stage, S. A., & Jacobsen, M. D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 30, 407–419.Google Scholar
  43. Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., Horner, R. H., & Walker, H. M. (2000). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wise discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  45. VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2005). Using curriculum-based assessment and curriculum-based measurement to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 15–29.Google Scholar
  46. VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Tilly, W. (2010). Keeping RtI on track: How to identify, repair, and prevent mistakes that derail implementation. Horsham: LRP Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Naquin, G. (2003). Development and validation of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Review, 32, 204–227.Google Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Walker, H. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Structuring school-based interventions to achieve integrated primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention goals for safe and effective schools. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 1–25). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  50. Ysseldyke, J., Burns, M., Dawson, P., Kelley, B., Morrison, D., Ortiz, S., Rosenfield, S., & Telzrow, C. (2006). School psychology: A blueprint for training in practice III. Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew K. Burns
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shane R. Jimerson
    • 2
  • Amanda M. VanDerHeyden
    • 3
  • Stanley L. Deno
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of MissouriMissouriUSA
  2. 2.Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  3. 3.Education Research & Consulting, Inc.FairhopeUSA
  4. 4.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinnesotaUSA

Personalised recommendations