Responsiveness to intervention roles for speech-language pathologists in the prevention and identification of learning disabilities

Topics in Language Disorders

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 106-119

  Troia, Gary A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Early intervention; Identification; Learning disabilities; Prevention; Reading disabilities; Service delivery models; Speech language pathologists

Indexed keywords

EID: 23844494155     PISSN: 02718294     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00011363-200504000-00004     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respect to reading and writing in children and adolescents (Technical report). Rockville, MD: Author.
2. Aram, D., Morris, R., & Hall, N. (1992). The validity of discrepancy criteria for identifying children with developmental language disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 549-554.
3. Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (1994). Redefining learning disabilities: Moving beyond aptitude-achievement discrepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment protocols. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities (pp. 163-183). Baltimore: Brookes.
4. Cole, K. N., & Mills, P. E. (1997). Agreement of language intervention triage profiles. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17, 119-130.
5. Cole, K. N., Mills, P. E., & Kelley, D. (1994). Agreement of assessment profiles used in cognitive referencing. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 25-31.
6. Fletcher, J. M., & Denton, C. (2003, December). Validity of alternative approaches to the identification of LD: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
7. Foorman, B. R., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C. D., Chen, D., Mouzaki, A., et al. (1998). Technical report: Texas primary reading inventory (1998 ed.). Houston, TX: Texas Center for Academic and Reading Skills and University of Houston.
8. Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1997). The case for early reading intervention. In B. A. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 243-264). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., & Rourke, B. P. (1996). Defining learning and language disabilities: Conceptual and psychometric issues with the use of IQ tests. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 132-143.
10. Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal individual growth curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3-17.
11. Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Three conceptualizations of "treatment" in a responsiveness-to-treatment framework for LD identification. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 521-529). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 172-186.
13. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204-219.
14. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171.
15. Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.
16. Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. L. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Invernizzi, M., & Meier, J. D. (2002). Phonological awareness literacy screening (PALS 1-3). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
18. Invernizzi, M., Meier, J. D., Swank, L., & Juel, C. (2002). Phonological awareness literacy screening (PALS-K). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
19. Janota, J. (2004, April 27). Speech-language pathology data indicate professional trends. The ASHA Leader, p. 3, 13, 3.
20. Jenkins, J. R. (2003, December). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
21. Kamhi, A. G, & Catts, H. W. (1989). Reading disabilities: A developmental language perspective. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
22. Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2003, December). The feasibility of a responsiveness to intervention approach for the identification of specific learning disability: A psychometric alternative. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
23. Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 2-16.
24. Keogh, B. K. (1987). Future of the LD field: Research and practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 455-460.
25. Krassowski, E., & Plante, E. (1997). IQ variability in children with SU: Implications for use of cognitive referencing in determining SLI. Journal of Communication Disorders, 30, 1-8.
26. Lahey, M. (1996, April). Who shall be called language disordered? An update. Special interest divisions, language learning and education, 3(1), 5-6.
27. Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 211-224.
28. Lester, G., & Kelman, M. (1997). State disparities in the diagnosis and placement of pupils with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 599-607.
29. Lindamood, P. C., Bell, N., & Lindamood, P. D. (1997). Sensory-cognitive factors in the controversy over reading instruction. Journal of Developmental and Learning Disorders, 1, 143-182.
30. Lyon, G. R. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities: A position in search of logic and fate. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 504-506, 512.
31. Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 187-200.
32. Mastropieri, M. A. (2003, December). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention (RTI): Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
33. Mather, N., & Roberts, R. (1994). Learning disabilities: A field in danger of extinction? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 49-58.
34. McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox, S., Potter, N. S., et al. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 69-86.
35. Moats, L. C., & Lyon, G. R. (1993). Learning disabilities in the United States: Advocacy, science, and the future of the field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 282-294.
36. Reder, S. (1998). State of literacy in America: Estimates at the local, state, and national levels. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
37. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1991). Learning disabilities: Issues on definition. ASHA, 33(Suppl. 5), 18-20.
38. O'Connor, R. E. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 43-54.
39. O'Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K. R., & Bell, K. M. Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and child outcomes. Manuscript submitted for publication.
40. Reschly, D. J., Hosp, J. L., & Schmied, C. M. (2003, August 20). And miles to go. . . State SLD requirements and authoritative recommendations. National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Retrieved April 24, 2004, from http://www.nrcld.org/html/research/ states/index.html
41. Scruggs, T. (2003, December). Alternatives to RTI in the assessment of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
42. Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., Holahan, J. M., & Shaywitz, S. E. (1992). Discrepancy compared to low achievement definitions of reading disability: Results from the Connecticut longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 639-648.
43. Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469-478, 486.
44. Siegel, L. S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 618-629.
45. Speece, D. L., & Case, L. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735-749.
46. Speece, D. L., Case, L. P., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 147-156.
47. Stage, S.A., Abbott, R. D., Jenkins, J. R., & Berninger, V. W. (2003). Predicting response to early reading intervention from verbal IQ, reading-related language abilities, attention ratings, and verbal IQ-word reading discrepancy: Failure to validate discrepancy method. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 24-33.
48. Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Conceptual and empirical problems with discrepancy definitions of reading disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 269-280.
49. Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with learning disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24-53.
50. Swanson, H. L. (1991). Operational definitions and learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 242-254.
51. Swanson, H. L. (1993). Working memory in learning disability subgroups. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 87-114.
52. Terrell, S. L. (1996, April). Discrepancy model: Questions of concern regarding use for culturally different children. Special interest divisions, language learning and education, 3(1), 8-9.
53. Torgesen, J. K. (2003, December). Operationalizing the response to intervention model to identify children with learning disabilities: Specific issues with older children. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
54. Troia, G. A. (2004a). Building word recognition skills through empirically validated instructional practices: Collaborative efforts of speech-language pathologists and teachers. In E. R. Silliman & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Language and literacy learning in schools (pp. 98-129). New York: Guilford Press.
55. Troia, G. A. (2004b). Phonological awareness acquisition and intervention. Current Practice Alerts, 9, 1-4.
56. Troia, G. A. (2004c). Phonological processing and its influence on literacy learning. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 271-301). New York: Guilford Press.
57. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
58. U.S. Department of Education. (2005, March). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved March 25, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=fb
59. Vaughn, S. (2003, December). How many tiers are needed for response to intervention to achieve acceptable prevention outcomes? Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
60. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to treatment as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391-409.
61. Vellutino, F. R. (2002). On the role of intervention in identifying learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 555-564). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223-238.
63. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experimental deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.
64. Wallach, G. P., & Liebergott, J. W. (1984). Who shall be called "learning disabled?" Some new directions. In G. P. Wallach & K. G. Butler (Eds.), Language learning disabilities in school-age children (pp. 1-14). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
65. Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848-872.
66. Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415-438.