Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

2018 Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan

Response to Intervention

  • Jacob W. TickleEmail author
  • Sandy Sut Ieng Cheang
  • Rik Carl D’Amato
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_1485


Response to intervention (RTI) is defined as a problem-solving model that provides assessment and interventions to students based on their response to the targeted curriculum and instructions (Witsken et al. 2008). The uniqueness of this approach is that student’s needs can be met in the classroom without any type of formal psychological diagnosis. There are multiple steps RTI uses to diagnose student’s learning or behavioral problems. The basic components are (1) school-wide screening, (2) progress monitoring, (3) tiered service delivery, and (4) fidelity of implementation.

Historical Background

According to the original law, Public Law 94-142 (1975), for example, a discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability was required to classify students as learning disabled. If students qualified, special education programs were developed to enhance their academic performance. Special education services were based on the concept of having individualized instruction to...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References and Readings

  1. D’Amato, R. C., Zafiris, C., MsConnell, E., & Dean, R. S. (2011). The history of school psychology: Understanding the past to not repeat it. In M. Bray & T. Kehl (Eds.), Oxford handbook of school psychology (pp. 9–60). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L., 108-446, 20 U.S.C.Google Scholar
  4. Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M. A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. www.nrcld.org
  5. Public Law 94-142. (1975). Federal Register, 42, 42474, 20 U.S.C.Google Scholar
  6. Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), 130–145.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29(3), 443–461.Google Scholar
  8. Tilly, W. D., III. (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.Google Scholar
  9. Traughber, M. C., & D’Amato, R. C. (2005). Integrating evidence-based neuropsychological services into school settings: Issues and challenges for the future. In R. C. D’Amato, E. Fletcher-Janzen, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of school neuropsychology (pp. 827–858). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Witsken, D., Stoeckel, A., & D’Amato, R. C. (2008). Leading educational change using a neuropsychological response-to-intervention approach: Linking our past, present, and future. Psychology in the Schools, 45(9), 781–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacob W. Tickle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sandy Sut Ieng Cheang
    • 2
  • Rik Carl D’Amato
    • 3
  1. 1.School of PsychologyThe Chicago School of Professional PsychologyChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MacauTaipaChina
  3. 3.School PsychologyClinical Neuropsychology, Clinical Psychology, The Chicago School of Professional PsychologyChicagoUSA