Functional Assessment:

Behaviors: Process to identify the problem, determine the function or purpose of the behavior, and develop interventions to teach acceptable alternatives to the behavior. More »

"Instead of concentrating on the "bar" that kids are supposed to be clearing, we're focusing on taking students from "where they are and moving them forward." [Read full story »]

— Paul A. Jebe, Principal, CO

Submit your story and let your voice be heard too.

Should interventions in Tier 2 and Tier 3 follow the alignment of the core curriculum?

Response from Karen Wixson, Ph.D.: The general answer to this question is "yes"—Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions should be aligned with the core curriculum.  However...[read full response]

Submit a question to our experts.

Do you conduct standard protocol interventions at Tier 2 at your school?

RTI Action Update
Register now and receive our monthly newsletter for up-to-date information on RTI.

Find Us on Facebook!

| Print |  E-mail
Abstracts and Information: Empirical Articles on Response to Intervention

Researchers at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute conducted a literature review to identify articles that address features of Response to Intervention (RTI) in school-aged populations.

The 14 empirical articles on this page were included in the research synthesis and served as the research base regarding the efficacy of RTI.  Click on the citations below to access information about each article, including background information, purpose, population, research design, and results.

To read the full research synthesis and recommendations, download the PDF of  "Recognition and Response: An Early Intervening System for Young Children At-Risk for Learning Disabilities."

Burns, M. K., & Senesac, B. V. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393-406.

Case, L. P., Speece, D. L., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). The validity of a response-to-instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review, 32, 557-582.

Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., Simmons, D. C., & Harn, B. A. (2004). Beginning reading instruction as inoculation or insulin: First-grade reading performance of strong responders to kindergarten intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37 (2), 90-104.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Prentice, K. (2005). Responsiveness to mathematical problem-solving instruction: Comparing students at risk of mathematics disability with and without risk of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37 (4), 293-306.

Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (3), 493-513.

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71 (4), 445-463.

O’Connor, R.E., Harty, K. R., & Fulmer, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38 (6), 532-538.

O’Connor, R. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15 (1), 43-54.

O’Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K. R., & Bell, K. M. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38 (5).

Speece, D. L. & Case, L. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735-749.

Torgesen, J. K., & Davis, C. (1996). Individual difference variables that predict response to training in phonological awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 1-21.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., & Garvan, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (4), 579-593.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69 (4), 391-409.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 (4), 601-638.

 

 

Contributions are tax-deductible

The National Center for Learning Disabilities, Inc., is a not-for-profit, tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. All contributions are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.