Too Much, Too Soon? Unanswered Questions From National Response to Intervention Evaluation

Abstract

The report of the national response to intervention (RTI) evaluation study, conducted during 2011–2012, was released in November 2015. Anyone who has read the lengthy report can attest to its complexity and the design used in the study. Both these factors can influence the interpretation of the results from this evaluation. In this commentary, we (a) explain what the national RTI evaluation examined and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the design, (b) clarify the results of the evaluation and highlight some key implementation issues, (c) describe how rigorous efficacy trials on reading interventions can supplement several issues left unanswered by the national evaluation, and (d) discuss implications for future research and practice based on the findings of the national evaluation and reading intervention research.

Early Identification of Dyslexia: Understanding the Issues

“…Firstly, there is evidence to suggest that not all students below the cut-point actually received Tier 2 intervention, while some students above the cutpoint did. In other words, the results of the study do not necessarily reflect a comparison of those receiving intervention versus those not receiving intervention, and suggest that RTI was EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF DYSLEXIA 16 not always implemented appropriately (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2017;Gersten, Jayanthi, & Dimino, 2017). Secondly, cut-points at some schools were extremely high, with 41% of students on average receiving Tier 2 intervention (Balu et al, 2015).…”

“…In other words, some students may have been receiving instruction that was not appropriate for their skill level. Thus, the results of the evaluation should not be taken as evidence that RTI does not workrather, it should be taken as evidence that RTI did not benefit children whose scores fell just below their school's cut-off point (Gersten, Jayanthi, et al, 2017).…”

Longitudinal effects of RtI implementation on reading achievement outcomes

“…Gersten, Jayanthi, and Dimino () suggested that more field evaluations of RtI are needed to address questions left unanswered by the IES national evaluation. In particular, these authors contended that smaller field evaluations should include both treatment and control groups, or what they referred to as “intervention and “business‐as‐usual” conditions (p. 252).…”

“…Because numerous well‐designed studies have documented the positive effects of high‐quality Tier 2 and 3 reading interventions (Gersten, Newman‐Gonchar, Haymond, & Dimino, ), critics have argued that the results of Balu et al's () national evaluation speak more to widespread problems with RtI implementation than to the efficacy of the tiered interventions themselves (Arden, et al, ; Fuchs & Fuchs, ; Gersten et al, ). As reiterated by Arden et al () and others (e.g., Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé, Friedman, & Wallace, ), “ how implementation occurs matters just as much as what is being implemented” (p. 271).…”

“…This suggests that, rather than comparing outcomes for students who did and did not participate in Tier 2 and 3 interventions, the authors ultimately compared outcomes for students who fell either below or above a designated cut score (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2017). Gersten, Jayanthi, and Dimino (2017) suggested that more field evaluations of RtI are needed to address questions left unanswered by the IES national evaluation. In particular, these authors contended that smaller field evaluations should include both treatment and control groups, or what they referred to as "intervention and "business-as-usual" conditions (p. 252).…”