The Use of the Regression Discontinuity Design in Tiered Intervention Research: A Pilot Study Exploring Vocabulary Instruction for At‐Risk Kindergarteners

Abstract

The purpose of this article was twofold: (1) to explore the feasibility of the regression discontinuity design (RDD) in response-to-intervention implementation research and (2) to expand upon the limited research on vocabulary instruction for kindergarten students who are at risk for reading failure due to limited vocabularies. This pilot study employed an abbreviated, prototypical tiered instructional model to deliver vocabulary instruction to both at-risk kindergarten students and students not at risk for reading failure. The study was designed using RDD and the data were analyzed using a regression-based analytic model. The pros and cons of this research design, specifically in regards to learning disabilities research, is examined.

Fidelity of Implementation and Instructional Alignment in Response to Intervention Research

“…Of these, 14 received a 1‐point score (Case et al, 2010; Chambers et al, 2011; Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs, Bryant, & Davis, 2008; Kerins, Trotter, & Schoenbrodt, 2010; Loftus, Coyne, McCoach, Zipoli, & Pullen, 2010; McMaster et al, 2005; Nelson, Vadasy, & Sanders, 2011; Pullen, Tuckwiller, Konold, Maynard, & Coyne, 2010; Schuele et al, 2008; Simmons et al, 2008 , 2011; Tuckwiller, Pullen, & Coyne, 2010; Ukrainetz, Ross, & Harm; 2009; Vernon‐Feagans et al, 2010). Of these, five studies received a second score for reporting fidelity information for supplemental instruction that was provided in addition to the core reading program within Tier 1 (Loftus et al, 2010; McMaster et al, 2005; Pullen et al, 2010; Schuele et al, 2008; Tuckwiller et al, 2010). These studies received 2‐ or 3‐point ratings (one and four studies, respectively) for reporting fidelity information on a portion of Tier 1 instruction.…”

“…The studies reported fidelity far more consistently at Tier 2 (see Table 1). In 17 of the 22 studies, detailed information on fidelity of implementation procedures and related data were provided earning a 3‐point score (Case et al, 2010; Fuchs, Compton, et al, 2008; Kamps et al, 2008; Loftus et al, 2010; Marr et al, 2011; Mathes et al, 2005; McMaster et al, 2005; Murray et al, 2010; Nelson et al, 2011; Pullen et al, 2010; Simmons et al, 2008, 2011; Tuckwiller et al, 2010; Ukrainetz et al, 2009; Vaughn et al, 2009; Vernon‐Feagans et al, 2010; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2008). For example, Case et al monitored protocol compliance in a random selection (25 percent) of audiotaped treatment sessions.…”

“…Seven studies earned a 1‐point rating because alignment between the intervention and Tier 1 core reading instruction could not be evaluated due to insufficient information being reported (Fuchs, Compton, et al, 2008; Loftus et al, 2010; McMaster et al, 2005; Pullen et al, 2010; Simmons et al, 2011; Tuckwiller et al, 2010; Vernon‐Feagans et al, 2010). For example, Simmons et al provide a detailed overview of the content of a series of targeted interventions administered by tutors but provide no description of the core reading program.…”

“…Thus, although the Tier 2 intervention may have addressed similar skills as Tier 1 instruction, this connection was not apparent from the manuscript. Of the seven receiving a 1‐point rating for core reading alignment, four studies received a 3‐point rating for explicitly stating alignment between Tier 2 and supplemental instruction provided in addition to the core reading program within Tier 1 (Loftus et al, 2010; McMaster et al, 2005; Pullen et al, 2010; Tuckwiller et al, 2010). For example, Pullen et al implemented a vocabulary program at Tier 1 involving direct instruction and provided a subsequent intensification of identical content for struggling readers.…”

Handbook of Early Childhood Special Education

“…Researchers have also begun to acknowledge the merit of implementing RDDs within the context of response-to-intervention literacy-focused interventions for young children (e.g., Gersten & Dimino, 2006;Tuckwiller, Pullen, & Coyne, 2010), because inherent in these interventions is a process for universal screening. The screening process presents a mechanism for providing some children more targeted intervention based on a predetermined screening cutoff, which is amenable to RDD.…”