This Article Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by VanDerHeyden, A. M. Articles by Barnett, D. W. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Emergence and Possible Futures of Response To Intervention

University of California at Santa Barbara

Joseph C. Witt

Louisiana State University

David W. Barnett

University of Cincinnati

Response to intervention (RTI) has emerged as a promising, but possibly vulnerable, alter native to the current model of identification and eligibility assessment in special education. Nested within a simple and compelling struc ture for RTI are many questions and chal lenges that make its future as "policy" at-risk unless these issues can be satisfactorily resolved. As it stands, RTI is likely to improve many decisions about educational interven tions, especially when combined with universal screening procedures. In a full RTI implemen tation, potential benefits may include (a) increased achievement schoolwide, because struggling children are identified proactively and immediate help is provided to determine whether or not more intensive help is needed, as well as (b) a coherent and flexible system of services. Whereas many of the components of RTI are well established, RTI needs further operationalization, development, standardiza tion, and field-testing. All first- and second- grade children (N = 182 children; 364 poten tial reading or math cases) at an elementary school were screened using four measures (curriculum-based measurement, Brigance subtests, state reading test, and teacher identi fication). Decision rules were applied to the screening data to select those children who were at-risk academically. Each of these chil dren (n = 101 reading and math cases) partici pated in an individual curriculum-based assess ment (CBA) in reading or math. Of these cases, 32 met criteria to participate in individ ual intervention (16 math and 16 reading interventions). Standard protocol intervention was implemented for 5 to 9 intervention ses sions or until children met intervention suc cess criteria. All second-grade children were administered the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Data were generated to examine various criteria for judging intervention responsiveness and to raise empirical questions about the reliability and accuracy with which decisions could be made under an RTI model.

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Vol. 23, No. 4, 339-361 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/073428290502300404


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. S. Shapiro and N. H. Clemens A Conceptual Model for Evaluating System Effects of Response to Intervention Assessment for Effective Intervention, December 1, 2009; 35(1): 3 - 16. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. L. Sparks and B. J. Lovett Objective Criteria for Classification of Postsecondary Students as Learning Disabled: Effects on Prevalence Rates and Group Characteristics J Learn Disabil, May 1, 2009; 42(3): 230 - 239. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. L. Grigorenko Dynamic Assessment and Response to Intervention: Two Sides of One Coin J Learn Disabil, March 1, 2009; 42(2): 111 - 132. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. M. VanDerHeyden, P. A. Snyder, C. Broussard, and K. Ramsdell Measuring Response to Early Literacy Intervention With Preschoolers at Risk Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, February 1, 2008; 27(4): 232 - 249. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. K. Burns and A. M. VanDerHeyden Using Response to Intervention to Assess Learning Disabilities: Introduction to the Special Series Assessment for Effective Intervention, January 1, 2006; 32(1): 3 - 5. [PDF]

				G. M. Batsche, K. A. Kavale, and J. F. Kovaleski Competing Views: A Dialogue on Response to Intervention Assessment for Effective Intervention, January 1, 2006; 32(1): 6 - 19. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. W. Barnett, N. Elliott, J. Graden, T. Ihlo, G. Macmann, M. Nantais, and D. Prasse Technical Adequacy for Response to Intervention Practices Assessment for Effective Intervention, January 1, 2006; 32(1): 20 - 31. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A.-J. Griffiths, A. M. VanDerHeyden, L. B. Parson, and M. K. Burns Practical Applications of Response-to-Intervention Research Assessment for Effective Intervention, January 1, 2006; 32(1): 50 - 57. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. E. Scruggs and M. A. Mastropieri Response to "Competing Views: A Dialogue on Response to Intervention" Assessment for Effective Intervention, January 1, 2006; 32(1): 62 - 64. [Abstract] [PDF]