Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burns, M. K.
Right arrow Articles by Stehouwer, J. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Reviews

Meta-Analytic Review of Responsiveness-To- Intervention Research: Examining Field-Based and Research-Implemented Models

Matthew K. Burns

University of Minnesota

James J. Appleton

University of Minnesota

Jonathan D. Stehouwer

University of Minnesota

A responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) approach to diagnosing LD is a leading alter native to current practice. This study con ducted a meta-analytic review of research on four existing large-scale RTI models and other models implemented for research. Twenty-four effect sizes and unbiased esti mates of effect (UEE) were computed. Results found a larger UEE for studies of existing RTI models than those implemented by university faculty for research, but both were strong. The UEE for student achievement and sys temic outcomes both exceeded 1.0, but the UEE for systemic outcomes among field-based RTI models was nearly twice as large as for stu dent outcomes. Further, RTI models imple mented for research led to an UEE of 1.14 for student outcomes and 0.47 for systemic out comes. The mean percentage of nonrespon ders in the studies was 19.8% (SD= 12.5), and an average of 1.68% (SD = 1.45) of the stu dent population was placed into special edu cation. Implications for practice and future research are included.

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Vol. 23, No. 4, 381-394 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/073428290502300406
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Learn DisabilHome page
R. L. Sparks and B. J. Lovett
College Students With Learning Disability Diagnoses: Who Are They and How Do They Perform?
J Learn Disabil, November 1, 2009; 42(6): 494 - 510.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Assessment for Effective InterventionHome page
G. A. Fabiano, R. Vujnovic, J. Naylor, M. Pariseau, and M. Robins
An Investigation of the Technical Adequacy of a Daily Behavior Report Card (DBRC) for Monitoring Progress of Students With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Special Education Placements
Assessment for Effective Intervention, September 1, 2009; 34(4): 231 - 241.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Learn DisabilHome page
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]