Technical Adequacy for Response to Intervention Practices

Abstract

Response-to-intervention (RTI) technical adequacy standards should follow from model purpose, procedural specification, procedural adherence, outcome determination, and subsequent plans. Therefore, RTI raises atypical measurement questions for practice, and, for this reason, it may require hybridized technical adequacy methods. Due to RTI model complexities, and the possibility of many measures and variables used over time to examine functional discrepancies in performance, decision reliability and validity questions require significant attention. Key points of analysis and recommendations for RTI technical adequacy standards are addressed, and a case study is used to illustrate technical checks. We conclude with discussion of how RTI technical adequacy may be simplified.With response to intervention (RTI), the potential for bringing intervention science to education has never been stronger. To apply RTI procedures, consideration is given to prevention, screening, sequences of instruction and interventions, use of scientifically based approaches, and decision rules for changing instruction and interventions. Each intervention is developed from data including control conditions (i.e., data that show what might happen without the instruction or intervention), outcomes, and subsequent intervention decisions. Each structure (i.e., tier), process, and objective (i.e., social, academic, disability evaluation) raises questions about technical adequacy, and standards for RTI will be required that have yet to be expected in practice. Applying Messick's (1995) arguments for the need to address the evidential and the consequential bases of validity, we examine possible technical adequacy standards for RTI as a new area of broad-spectrum practice (Batsche et al., 2005) and suggest what those standards may look like.

Reciprocal peer tutoring and repeated reading: Increasing practicality using student groups

“…This research fits RTI discussion in several ways. First, classes having high base rates of at‐risk students are supported with classwide interventions, and students at risk for academic failure are monitored through these relatively low‐intensity interventions (Barnett et al, 2006; VanderHeyden, & Witt, 2005). Innovations in data analysis are needed that include group as well as targeted students' responsiveness to intervention as shown in this study.…”

State Laws for RTI: An Updated Snapshot

“…For example, although characterizing RTI as having promising potential to improve student learning, Burns, Jacob, and Wagner (2008, p. 274) explained why-from a legal, ethical, and professional perspective-they viewed RTI as "almost indefensible" as the primary way of identifying students with SLD. On the professional side, an articulate minority (e.g., Gerber, 2005) remains opposed to the RTI movement, while the balance of more recent articles tend to either raise implementation and research questions on the supportive side (e.g., Barnett et al, 2006;Fuchs & Deshler, 2007) or-as an entire issue of Psychology in the Schools illustrated (e.g., Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Dynda, 2006)recommend combining the two approaches.…”

Curriculum-Based Measurement: A Brief History of Nearly Everything from the 1970s to the Present

“…Systemic research on RTI is more conceptual than actual. For example, Barnett et al [192] conceptualized technical adequacy of RTI from Messick's [193] evidential (efficacy and effectiveness) and consequential perspective. They present a technical adequacy checklist for each of three instructional tiers "emphasizing technical checks and iterative use, via a fictitious example" (p. 26).…”

“…Decisions can also be based on goal lines or aim lines. Decision rules for intervention change, including service eligibility, are based upon these goal lines in concert with an empirically sound instructional and decision making sequence [192,224]. The aim line or goal line refers to the projected amount of weekly growth across time that teachers establish as a minimum for adequate progress [76].…”