Page 11: References & Additional Resources
To cite this module, please use the following:
The IRIS Center. (2006). RTI (part 2): Assessment. Retrieved from https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rti02-assessment/
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 485–486.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005, September). Response to intervention (RTI): Preventing and identifying LD. PowerPoint presentation for the RTI Training Session sponsored by the Tennessee State Improvement Grant (SIG), Nashville, TN.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2006, April). Progress monitoring: Identifying LD and improving student outcomes. PowerPoint presentation for the National SEA Conference on SLD Determination, Kansas City, MO.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 27, 216–227.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). Using CBM for progress monitoring. 2004 Summer Institute Manual. National Center for Student Progress Monitoring [Online]. Washington, DC: National Center on Student Progress Monitoring.
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.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (n.d.). What is scientifically-based research on progress monitoring? National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from http://www.studentprogress.org/library/What_Is_Scientificall_%20Based_Research.pdf
Gresham, F. (2001). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the 2001 Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future. Retrieved October 20, 2011, from http://www.nrcld.org/resources/ldsummit/gresham.html. No longer available.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, P.L. 108-446, p. 118, STAT. 2658.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437–447.
McMaster, K., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2002). Monitoring the academic progress of children who are unresponsive to generally effective early reading intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 27(4), 23–33.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory [Online]. (2006). The cognitive foundations of learning to read – A framework: reading assessment database for grades K-2 summary chart. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://www.sedl.org/reading/rad/chart.html
Speece, D. L. (2005). Hitting the moving target known as reading development: Some thoughts on screening children for secondary interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 487–493.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1997). Prevention and remediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of Reading 1, 217–234.
Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at The University of Texas at Austin. (2003). Introduction to the 3-tier reading model: Reducing reading difficulties for kindergarten through third grade students (4th ed.). Austin, TX: University of Texas System/ Texas Education Agency.
Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at The University of Texas at Austin. (2005). Implementing the 3-tier reading model: Reducing reading difficulties for kindergarten through third grade students (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: University of Texas System/ Texas Education Agency.
Vaughn, S., & Chard, D. (2006). Three-tier intervention research studies: Descriptions of two related projects. Perspectives, Winter, 39–43.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137–146.
Williams, B. B. (2005, August). Effective early reading instruction can prevent reading difficulties later. Presentation at the annual meeting of the New Jersey Association of School Psychologists (NJASP), Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 304–331.
The article’s purpose, according to its authors, is to review a variety of recent consensus reports that suggest shifting from IQ-discrepancy methods to an Response-to-Instruction (RTI) approach for identifying students with learning disabilities. The article discusses reasons for the changes that are beginning to affect students, teachers, and even federal law. In addition to the background information, the article poses and then answers seventeen frequently asked questions regarding identification processes and the current trend toward change.
Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(2), 98–108.
The authors used simulated data in their study to show that “the practice of providing a normal distribution with arbitrary cut-points leads to instability in group membership.” Based on their conclusions, the authors state that it is necessary to develop identification systems that will address the practice of classifying low achievers into multiple groups.
Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J., & Hamlett, C.L. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention: Preventing and identifying mathematics disability. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(4), 60–63.
According to the authors, the purpose of the article is to “describe work on intervention responsiveness in mathematics.” Conducted through The National Research Center on Learning Disabilities—which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)—the authors focus their attention on how to both prevent and identify disability in first grade using Response to Intervention (RTI). The article specifically discusses the mathematics assessment and tutoring practices for students in 41 first-grade classrooms in 10 schools.
Klinger, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Méndez Barletta, L. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 108–128.
The research article seeks to differentiate the struggles of English Language Learners (ELLs) with learning disabilities (LD) from those of ELLs without LD. The study suggests that further research is necessary to fully determine why some ELLs who do not have LD still exhibit difficulties with language acquisition. It is important, the authors say, to consider cultural and contextual factors when pursuing constructive information on this topic.
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, The. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention in the SLD determination process. U.S. Department of Education [Online]. Retrieved May 19, 2006, from http://osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/ta_responsiveness_intervention.asp
The article provides an overview of the concepts involved with Response to Intervention (RTI). In addition to introductory explanations, the article provides models and hypothetical examples of how RTI could be implemented in schools. Importantly, the article also covers the topic of identifying students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) and the role of RTI in that process.
Speece, D. (n.d.). How progress monitoring assists decision making in a response-to-instruction framework. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from http://www.studentprogress.org/library/articles.asp#howprogress
The article provides details on a study tracking students’ responsiveness using curriculum-based measures (CBM) of oral reading fluency. The authors conclude, according to their findings, that “weekly progress monitoring, which includes systematic data interpretation and teacher action, is central to good decision-making in an RTI framework.”
Warner, T. D., Dede, D. E., Garvan, C. W., & Conway, T. W. (2002). One size still does not fit all in specific learning disability assessment across ethnic groups. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(6), 500–508.
Concerned by state policies that continue to support/promote/require discrepancy models for identifying students with learning disabilities, this study “compares the use of a minimum IQ cutoff score and a simple difference method versus a regression method for identifying SLD in a sample of African American and European American full-time college students.” The researchers’ findings fall in line with criticism of discrepancy models as outdated forms of assessment. The study also discusses the historical over-representation of African Americans in special education categories except for SLD.
The National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt). Cultural considerations and challenges in response-to-intervention models. (Position Statement). Retrieved April 18, 2006, from http://nccrest.org/PDFs/rti.pdf?v_document_name=Culturally%20Responsive%20RTI
The position statement posits that in order for RTI to achieve its potential and ensure educational opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students, it is first necessary to understand the role of culture in the RTI approach. The authors’ intent, they state, is to engage in “conversation with others involved in this work.” The statement promotes the principles “Intervention design should be based on a theory of culture in learning,” and “Research must account for how contextual contingencies and inequalities across contexts challenge ecological validity.”
National Center on Student Progress Monitoring 2005 Summer Institute: “Introduction to CBM in Reading” http://www.studentprogress.org/library/training.asp
The PowerPoint presentation covers a variety of CBM topics, such as benchmarks, risk indicators, word identification fluency, and goals by grade level. The presentation gives explanations, tips, and a sample WIF test.
Vanderbilt University WIF probe. Available through Vanderbilt at Peabody #228, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN 37203-5721. Attention: Flora Murray. (615) 343-4782.
CBM measures, scoring sheets, administration instruction, and scoring instructions are available for free, excepting copying costs and postage.
Ed.Gov: Frequently Asked Questions About Reading First http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/faq.html
This page on the U.S. Department of Education’s Website provides basic facts about the Reading First program, answering site visitors’ frequently asked questions. Some of the questions featured on the page include “How well are America’s children reading?” “What is Reading First exactly, and what are its specific goals?” and “How will Reading First help classroom teachers?” to list a few.Michigan’s Project Great Start: “Helping Children Learn to Read”
National Center on Response to Intervention http://www.rti4success.org/
This site––created by the American Institutes for Research in cooperation with researchers from the University of Kansas and Vanderbilt University and funded by OSEP––serves as a veritable treasure house of information regarding the RTI approach. Major topics include “Knowledge production,” Expert trainings,” and “Information dissemination.” The center’s self-described mission is “to provide technical assistance to states and districts and building the capacity of states to assist districts in implementing proven models for RTI/ EIS.”
PALS: Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/
Visit the official PALS Website for resources and commercial products related to peer-assisted learning strategies. Visitors will find Modules about PALS reading and math, as well as training resources, research into the effectiveness of the strategies, products for teachers, and more.
RTI Action Network http://www.rtinetwork.org/
A program of the National Center for Learning Disabilities, the Website of the RTI Action Network offers a plentitude of advice, support, and resources for the effective design and implementation of the response to intervention approach. From the very first steps of RTI development, through the evaluation and refinement of implemented plans, the RTI Action Network is a place where school leaders and instructors can look for models, support, and assistance. Besides its wealth of information and links, the Website allows visitors to connect with one another to share their own experiences and advice on RTI implementation and beyond.
University of Oregon DIBELS Chart https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/benchmarkgoals4x.pdf
This page on the University of Oregon Website displays the chart “DIBELS 6th Edition Benchmark Goals: Four Assessment Periods Per Year.” The chart provides rows for four DIBELS measures: Initial Sound Fluency (ISF), Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), and Word Use Fluency (WUF). Scores and status columns are listed for each measure.