RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again)

Gersten, Russell; Dimino, Joseph

doi:10.1598/rrq.41.1.5

Cited by 282 publications

(473 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

444

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings and those discussed earlier (Leach et al, 2003;Scarborough, 2005;Torgesen, 2005) suggest that for mixed disabled readers, which constitute by far the largest group of poor readers, early intervention programs need to focus on improving these children's oral language skills as well as their phonological skills (Gersten & Dimino, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 54%

Recent developments in reading intervention research: Introduction to the special issue

Tunmer

2007

Read Writ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 54%

Recent developments in reading intervention research: Introduction to the special issue

Tunmer

2007

Read Writ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…On one side of this issue are advocates of RTI who contend that the IQ-achievement discrepancy and related psychometric approaches typically produce unreliable metrics that either over-identify or under-identify struggling readers as ''learning disabled'' and often lead to misclassification problems associated with inferred process deficits which tend to be difficult to define (e.g. Fletcher et al, 1994;Fletcher, Denton, & Francis, 2005;Gresham, 2002;Gersten & Dimino, 2006;McEneaney, Lose, & Schwartz, 2006;Reschly, 2005;Vellutino et al, 2000). These investigators also contend that psychometric models do not adequately distinguish between reading difficulties caused primarily by experiential and instructional inadequacies and those caused primarily by biologically-based cognitive deficits; and, most importantly, that they are not instructionally grounded and, therefore, have no implications for either classroom or remedial intervention.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Entry-level kindergartners in classrooms from five middle class school districts were given a test of letter identification and children who scored at or below the 30th percentile on the test were classified as ''at risk'' for early reading difficulties. Half of these children were randomly assigned to a project-based intervention condition where they received supplementary intervention in small groups until the end of their kindergarten year. The other half received whatever remedial services were available at their home schools and literacy skills development in both groups was tracked throughout kindergarten. All available at-risk children were again assessed at the beginning of first grade and dichotomized into a ''continued-risk'' group and a ''no-longer-at-risk'' group using a composite measure of basic word level skills. Normal reader controls were also identified using the same measure. Children in the continued-risk group received either project-based intervention (one-to-one tutoring 30 min daily) or school-based intervention throughout first grade. Intervention for project treatment children was discontinued at the end of first grade and literacy development in all groups was tracked until the end of third grade. The present study focused on literacy development in children who received only project-based kindergarten intervention or both (project-based) kindergarten and first grade intervention, relative to the normal reader controls. Of special interest was the question of whether measures of response to intervention would more effectively distinguish between continued-risk and no-longer-at-risk children than would kindergarten screening measures, measures of intelligence, or measures of reading-related cognitive abilities. Results indicated that the RTI

show abstract

“…Response to Intervention (RTI) is becoming a more commonly adopted methodology for identifying and intervening with students at-risk for reading difficulties (Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005;Gersten & Dimino, 2006;Haager, Klingner, & Vaughn, 2007), as well as serve as the process for identifying students with learning disabilities (Danielson, Doolittle, & Bradley, 2005;Speece, Case, & Molloy, 2003;Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003). Most RTI models for identifying and intervening with students at risk for reading difficulties include three essential elements: a) universal screening of all students to determine which students are at-risk for reading failure, b) early intervention programs for students who are at high risk for reading failure as determined by universal screening, and c) frequent monitoring of students' progress.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment

Shapiro

Solari

Petscher

2008

Learning and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study examined the diagnostic accuracy of two screening measures of risk for future difficulties in reading comprehension, as well as the degree to which adding a screening measure of reading comprehension enhanced the prediction of Oral Reading Fluency to outcomes of student reading performance on the state high stakes assessment for grades 3 through 5. Data from fall and winter assessments of the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) and 4Sight Benchmark Assessment (4Sight) measures along with outcomes on the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) across a total of 1000 students from 6 schools were examined using indices of diagnostic efficiency, ROC curve, and logistic regression analyses. Results showed that the addition of a measure of reading comprehension (4Sight) to DORF enhanced the decision making process for identifying students at risk for reading difficulties, especially for those students at higher elementary grades and those who achieved benchmark levels on the DORF. Although DORF alone showed a good level of prediction to the statewide assessment, the combination of the DORF plus 4Sight measures resulted consistently in the best predictive outcomes. Suggestions are made to consider alternative cut points for the DORF and 4Sight measures. Keywords RTI; Reading comprehension; Oral reading fluencyResults of statewide assessment, often called high-stakes testing, have important implications for districts, teachers, and individual students that impact district level decision making and policy. Usually administered once during the school year, statewide assessments do not provide information about student growth over shorter time periods and provide even less information to guide effective instruction for students who are at-risk (Shephard, 2000). The value and potential impact placed on high-stakes testing has encouraged school districts to put into place more frequent monitoring of student academic outcomes during the school year to identify those students potentially at risk for not reaching proficiency levels prior to the administration of the high-stakes test. Such identification could allow districts to put in place programs to focus instruction for such students in areas that would improve student outcomes on the high-stakes test.

show abstract

RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again)

Cited by 282 publications

References 21 publications

Recent developments in reading intervention research: Introduction to the special issue

Recent developments in reading intervention research: Introduction to the special issue

Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties

Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About