![]() |
Field Studies of RTI Effectiveness Albany Response to Intervention (ARTI) ModelStudy Citation
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Zhang, H., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 21, 437–480.
Program Description
The Albany Response to Intervention (ARTI) model is a standard-protocol model. Its purpose is to improve literacy development for young students through strategic instruction and interventions. Vellutino et al. (2008) identified several phases of the ARTI process:
Purpose of Study
Vellutino et al. (2008) conducted the study to discover the impact of the ARTI model on literacy outcomes and to determine if RTI procedures would more accurately distinguish between at-risk groups than psychometric measures alone. Specifically, the purpose of the study was to answer the following question:
Study Method
A total of 462 students were identified as at-risk in kindergarten. To evaluate the efficacy of the kindergarten and 1st grade intervention program, effect sizes for group mean differences on the end of kindergarten and 1st grade were calculated. For Question 2, logistic regression was used to assess the accuracy with which measures of response to kindergarten intervention would predict membership in the continued-risk and no-longer-at-risk groups identified at the beginning of 1st grade. Four different models were compared. The predictors for the first model were measures from the psychometric screening battery administered at the beginning of kindergarten. The predictors for the other three models were RTI measures of incremental growth in emergent literacy skills, along with baseline measures of these skills to control for correlation with the composite measure used to classify the two groups. These variables were initially identified with hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) procedures.
Study Results
Question 1: Of the total sample of at-risk children who received intervention through the project and were available at the end of 3rd grade, 84% were meeting grade-level expectations in reading by the end of 1st grade, either through kindergarten (Tier 2) intervention alone or through both kindergarten and 1st grade (Tier 3) intervention. In contrast, only 16% of the children identified as at risk at the beginning of kindergarten demonstrated substantial difficulty with reading at the end of 2nd and 3rd grade. Back To Top |