Accelerating Chronically Unresponsive Children to Tier 3 Instruction

Abstract

Response-to-intervention (RTI) approaches to disability identification are meant to put an end to the so-called wait-to-fail requirement associated with IQ discrepancy. However, in an unfortunate irony, there is a group of children who wait to fail in RTI frameworks. That is, they must fail both general classroom instruction (Tier 1) and small-group intervention (Tier 2) before becoming eligible for the most intensive intervention (Tier 3). The purpose of this article was to determine how to predict accurately which at-risk children will be unresponsive to Tiers 1 and 2, thereby allowing unresponsive children to move directly from Tier 1 to Tier 3. As part of an efficacy study of a multitier RTI approach to prevention and identification of reading disabilities (RD), 129 first-grade children who were unresponsive to classroom reading instruction were randomly assigned to 14 weeks of small-group, Tier 2 intervention. Nonresponders to this instruction ( n = 33) were identified using local norms on first-grade word identification fluency growth linked to a distal outcome of RD at the end of second grade. Logistic regression models were used to predict membership in responder and nonresponder groups. Predictors were entered as blocks of data from least to most difficult to obtain: universal screening data, Tier 1 response data, norm referenced tests, and Tier 2 response data. Tier 2 response data were not necessary to classify students as responders and nonresponders to Tier 2 instruction, suggesting that some children can be accurately identified as eligible for Tier 3 intervention using only Tier 1 data, thereby avoiding prolonged periods of failure to instruction.

Response to instruction in preschool: Results of two randomized studies with children at significant risk of reading difficulties.

“…First, we could not estimate the effectiveness of the individual strands of Tier II because the majority of children qualified for both meaning-focused and code-focused strands. Second, although beneficial in screening-out false positives, delaying identification to mid-year also meant that the intervention period was restricted to the spring and that some children likely did not receive a sufficient dose of intervention (Compton et al, 2012; Gilbert et al, 2013; Harn, Linan-Thompson, & Roberts, 2008). Third, our studies were specifically focused on evaluating the impacts of Tier II interventions for preschool children exposed to high quality Tier I instruction, a context that includes most, but not all the elements of a full RTI model as it did not include the more regular progress monitoring and Tier III instruction typically seen in full RTI frameworks.…”

Efectos de la implicación familiar en estudiantes con riesgo de dificultad lectora

“…Según las indicaciones de la última versión del manual DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), para diagnosticar un trastorno específico en el aprendizaje debe mantenerse alguno de los síntomas al menos durante seis meses. Las recomendaciones educativas van dirigidas a fomentar una evaluación e intervención tempranas que prevengan el empeoramiento de una situación problemática al retrasar poner los medios para mejorar la instrucción (Compton et al, 2012) y no debe esperarse a tener un diagnóstico confirmado para intervenir con estudiantes que muestren indicios de tener algún problema en su aprendizaje. En este sentido, el presente estudio muestra cómo el papel de la familia -cuando los hijos cursan el primer curso de Educación Primaria-es fundamental para aprovechar un momento tan importante en su aprendizaje lector, especialmente cuando presentan riesgos de sufrir una dificultad.…”

“…Al comprobar que se han puesto los medios adecuados en su centro escolar y sigue sin obtenerse el resultado esperado, se baraja la necesidad de derivarlo a los servicios de educación especial. Este es el sentido principal de los modelos de RI; comprobar que el apoyo educativo que recibe el alumno en el cauce ordinario es adecuado, poner los medios para que cambie en caso negativo y estar preparado para dirigirlo hacia una intervención más intensa si tampoco respondiera a los cambios instructivos realizados dentro del aula (Compton et al, 2012;Fuchs y Vaughn, 2012).…”

To Wait in Tier 1 or Intervene Immediately

“…Further, Compton and colleagues have conducted an important series of studies to improve classification of which students will need Tier 3. They propose a two-stage screening within Tier 1 that might prevent (a) false positives- students receiving Tier 2 who do not really need it, (b) false negatives- students being missed for Tier 2 who really need it, and, perhaps most importantly, (c) waiting-to-fail students who are not likely to respond to Tier 2 and who immediately need the most intensive and extensive interventions (Compton et al, 2010; Compton et al, 2012; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012; Fuchs & Vaughn, 2012). In a study conducted at first grade (Fuchs et al, 2012), the model that best predicted who would need special education utilized six weeks of progress monitoring in Tier I using word identification fluency (WIF; L. S Fuchs, Fuchs & Compton, 2004); response to Tier 2 intervention did not add uniquely.…”