Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures.

Abstract

Response to intervention (RTI) models for identifying learning disabilities rely on the accurate identification of children who, without Tier 2 tutoring, would develop reading disability (RD). This study examined 2 questions concerning the use of 1st-grade data to predict future RD: (a) Does adding initial word identification fluency (WIF) and 5 weeks of WIF progress-monitoring data (WIF-Level and WIF-Slope) to a typical 1st-grade prediction battery improve RD prediction? and (b) Can classification tree analysis improve the prediction accuracy compared to logistic regression? Four classification models based on 206 1st-grade children followed through the end of 2nd grade were evaluated. A combination of initial WIF, WIF-Level, and WIF-Slope and classification tree analysis improved prediction sufficiently to recommend their use with RTI.

Response to early literacy instruction in the United States, Australia, and Scandinavia: A behavioral-genetic analysis

“…It is interesting to speculate on the meaning of these findings for response-to-instruction (RTI). One idea underlying RTI is to observe age-to-age changes in reading and spelling achievement to improve identification of reading disability and the selection of at-risk readers for intervention (Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bryant, 2006). If successful, individual differences in reading and spelling skills accounted for by lack of or limited reading instruction should be successively reduced, implying that unresponsiveness to generally effective literacy instruction should be increasingly accounted for by individual capabilities.…”

“…The general expectation is that the effects of environment on literacy skills should decrease and the genetic contribution increase as a function of intensity and consistency of instruction, across countries and time. This approach should also inform recent interest in response-to-intervention, or RTI, as a method to ascertain, define, and remediate reading difficulties (Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bryant, 2006;Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004;Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2004;Fuchs & Young, 2006;Vellutino et al 1996). So, for example, if our expectation that the intensity of instruction (intervention) affects the mix of genetic and environmental influences on literacy progress is realized, practitioners might bear in mind that genetic underendowment for reading and spelling will be particularly exposed with intense intervention and calibrate the pace and persistence of their activities accordingly.…”

The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption

“…One solution proposed in the report was to base identification on limited response to effective instruction or intervention (RTI) (Case, Speece, & Molloy, 2003;Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bryant, 2006;Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998;Fuchs, Fuchs, McMaster, & Al Otaiba, 2003;Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003;Lyon et al, 2003;McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005). An RTI approach seeks to avoid the possibility that the observed poor reading results from inadequate instruction by first ensuring that students receive effective reading instruction in their general education classrooms.…”

Tarefas de Nomeação Seriada Rápida: Rastreando a Dificuldade de Leitura

“…Atualmente, muitos estudos têm avaliado a precisão de classificação de baterias de rastreamento, sendo a nomeação seriada rápida uma das tarefas que as compõem (Catts, Nielsen, Bridges, Liu, & Bontempo, 2015;Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bryant, 2006;Compton et al, 2010;Puolakanaho et al, 2007;Thompson, Hulme, Nash, Gooch, HayiouThomas & Snowling, 2015). Apesar de ser fundamental a análise de qual combinação de preditores (bateria) é melhor para detectar o risco/não risco de dificuldade de leitura, parece importante que primeiro a precisão de classificação de cada medida seja aferida para, em seguida, verificar qual combinação de preditores pode aumentar a eficiência na classificação do risco/não risco de dificuldade de leitura.…”