Handbook of Response to Intervention
DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-49053-3_8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Decision-Making Validity in Response to Intervention

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This requires using a brief behavior rating scale that demonstrates the ability to accurately detect risk across a diverse sample of students. Consistency in decision‐making is also needed to prevent over‐ or under‐identification of a subgroup of students and to ensure consistency in service delivery and outcomes (Barnett et al, 2007). The current study examined SEB screening data to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the SAEBRS based on student race/ethnicity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This requires using a brief behavior rating scale that demonstrates the ability to accurately detect risk across a diverse sample of students. Consistency in decision‐making is also needed to prevent over‐ or under‐identification of a subgroup of students and to ensure consistency in service delivery and outcomes (Barnett et al, 2007). The current study examined SEB screening data to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the SAEBRS based on student race/ethnicity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…students and to ensure consistency in service delivery and outcomes (Barnett et al, 2007). The current study examined SEB screening data to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the SAEBRS based on student race/ethnicity.…”
Section: Research Questionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Questions were based on our previous survey of elementary school RTI practices (Mellard, Deshler, Frey, & Woods, in press; Mellard, McKnight, & Jordan, 2010; Mellard, McKnight & Woods, 2009). We also included topics identified in RTI literature such as academic screening and progress monitoring (Good, Simmons, & Kame'enui, 2001; Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007), data–based decision making (Barnett et al, 2006; VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Barnett, 2005), tiered academic interventions (Ardoin, Witt, Connell, & Koenig, 2005), standard treatment protocol and problem solving models (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006), specific learning disability (SLD) identification alternative (VanDerHeyden et al, 2005), fidelity of implementation and procedures (Barnett et al, 2006; Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow, & Swank, 1999; Lane, Bocian, MacMillan, & Gresham, 2004; O'Donnell, 2008), and system review and evaluation (Barnett et al, 2007). However, most literature before 2009 examined RTI in elementary settings only, therefore Shinn's (2008) recommendations, for a secondary RTI framework assisted us in identifying elements that might be specific to middle school settings.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although researchers have written about the importance of the decision-making process (Barnett et al, 2007;Kratochwill, Clements, & Kalymon, 2007), few studies have actually examined the decision-making process within RTI models in detail. For example, VanDerHeyden, Witt, and Gilbertson (2007) examined the outcomes of special education eligibility decisions in an RTI model across several years of implementation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%