Identifying students at risk, monitoring performance, and determining eligibility within response to intervention: Research on educational need and benefit from academic intervention

School Psychology Review

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 601-617

  Shinn, Mark R ^a  

^a NATIONAL LOUIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38549126795     PISSN: 02796015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1987). Questioning discrepancies: Retaking the first step 20 years later. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(3), 307-318.
2. Algozzine, B., Ysseldyke, J., & Shinn, M. R. (1982). Identifying children with learning disabilities: When is a discrepancy severe? Journal of School Psychology, 20, 299-305.
3. Batsche, G. M., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
4. Clarke, B., & Shinn, M. R. (2004). The identification, development, and investigation of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234-248.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Cone, T. E., Wilson, L. R., Bradley, C. M., & Reese, J. H. (1985). Characteristics of LD students in Iowa: An empirical investigation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 211-220.
7. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
8. Deno, S. L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358-374.
9. Deno, S. L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and alternative special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1-17). New York: Guilford Press.
10. Deno, S. L. (1995). School psychologist as problem solver. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology III (pp. 471-484). Washington DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
11. Deno, S. L. (2002). Problem-solving as best practice. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 37-55). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
12. Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192.
13. Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49(1), 36-45.
14. Education for AU Handicapped Children Act of 1975. (1975). Public Law 94-142.
15. Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 172-186.
16. Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57(6), 488-500.
17. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986a). Effects of systematic formative evaluation on student achievement: A metaanalysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208.
18. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986b). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199-208.
19. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment. School Psychology Review, 28(4), 659-671.
20. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). What is scientifically based research on progress monitoring? Washington, DC: National Center on Progress Monitoring, American Institute for Research, Office of Special Education Programs.
21. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Deno, S. L. (1982). Reliability and validity of curriculum-based informal reading inventories. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 6-26.
22. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22(1), 27-48.
23. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., Lipsey, M., & Eaton, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of reading differences between underachievers with and without the learning disabilities label: A brief report. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10, 1-3.
24. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., Lipsey, M., & Roberts, P. H. (2001). Is "learning disabilities" just a fancy term for low achievement? A meta-analysis of reading differences between low achievers with and without the label. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit. Retrieved from http://www.nrdd. org/resources/ldsummit/fuchs/shtml November 1, 2007.
25. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20-28.
26. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(1), 33-45.
27. Fuchs, L. S., & Shinn, M. R. (1989). Writing CBM IEP objectives. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children, (pp. 132-154). New York: Guilford Press.
28. Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. R. (2005). Response to intervention as a framework for the identification of learning disabilities. Trainer's Forum: Periodical of the Trainer's of School Psychologists.
29. Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1984). Teachers as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19, 137-148.
30. Good, R. H., Wallin, J. U., Simmons, D. C., Kame'enui, E. J., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). System-wide percentile ranks for DIBELS benchmark assessment. (Technical Report No. 9). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
31. Gresham, F. M. (2002). Misidentification of students into high incidence disability categories: Implications for appropriate education. Washington DC: President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education.
32. Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Bocian, K. M. (1996). Learning disabilities, low achievement, and mild mental retardation: More alike than different? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(6), 570-581.
33. Ikeda, M. J., Grimes, J., Tilly, W. D., III, Allison, R., Kurns, S., Stumme, J., et al. (2002). Implementing an intervention-based approach to service delivery: A case example. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 71-88). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
34. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). Pub. L. No. 108, 446.
35. Kame'enui, E. J. (2002). Final report on analysis of reading assessment instruments for K-3. Eugene, OR: Institute for Educational Achievement.
36. Kavale, K. A., Fuchs, D., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Setting the record straight on learning disability and low achievement: Implications for policymaking. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9(2), 70-77.
37. MacMillan, D. L., & Siperstein, G. N. (2001). Learning disabilities as operationally defined by schools. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit, retrieved from http://www.nrcld.org/resources/ ldsummit/ macmillan.shtml
38. Marston, D., Deno, S. L., & Tindal, G. (1984). Eligibility for learning disabilities services: A direct and repeated measurement approach. Exceptional Children, 50, 554-555.
39. Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1985). Implementing curriculum-based measurement in special and regular education settings. Exceptional Children, 52, 266-276.
40. National Research Council. (2002). Executive summary: Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Washington, DC: Author.
41. Pericola Case, L., Speece, D. L., & Eddy Molloy, D. (2003). The validity of response-to-instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and context factors. School Psychology Review, 32, 557-582.
42. Peterson, K. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Severe discrepancy models: Which best explains school identification practices for learning disabilities? School Psychology Review, 31, 459-476.
43. Shapiro, E. S., Angello, L. M., & Eckert, T. L. (2004). Has curriculum-based assessment become a staple of school psychology practice? An update and extension of knowledge, use, and attitudes from 1990 to 2000. School Psychology Review, 33, 249-257.
44. Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1983). An evaluation of the identification of learning disabled students in Colorado. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 115-127.
45. Shinn, M. R. (1981). A comparison of differences between students labeled learning disabled and low achieving on measures of classroom performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
46. Shinn, M. R. (2005a). AIMSweb response to intervention (RTI): A standard protocol-based system for managing and reporting problem-solving outcomes. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation, Inc.
47. Shinn, M. R. (2005b). Identifying and validating academic problems. In R. Brown-Chidsey (Ed.), Assessment for intervention: A problem-solving approach (pp. 219-246). New York: Guilford Press.
48. Shinn, M. R. (in press). Best practices in curriculum-based measurement and its use in a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices inschool psychology V. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
49. Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.
50. Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford Press.
51. Shinn, M. R., Good, R. H., Knutson, N., Tilly, W. D., & Collins, V. (1992). Curriculum-based reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21(3), 458-478.
52. Shinn, M. R., Good, R. H., & Stein, S. (1989). Summarizing trend in student achievement: A comparison of evaluative models. School Psychology Review, 18(3), 356-370.
53. Shinn, M. R., & Marston, D. (1985). Differentiating mildly handicapped, low-achieving, and regular education students: A curriculum-based approach. Remedial and Special Education, 6(2), 31-38.
54. Shinn, M. R., Powell-Smith, K. A., Good, R. H., III, & Baker, S. (1997). The effects of reintegration into general education reading instruction for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64(1), 59-79.
55. Shinn, M. R., & Shinn, M. M. (2000). Writing and evaluating IEP goals and making appropriate revisions to ensure participation and progress in general curriculum. In C. F. Telzrow & M. Tankersley (Eds.), IDEA Amendments of 1997: Practice guidelines for schoolbased teams (pp. 351-381). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
56. Shinn, M. R., Shinn, M. M., Hamilton, C., & Clarke, B. (2002). Using curriculum-based measurement to promote achievement in general education classrooms. In M. R. Shinn, G. Stoner, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 113-142). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
57. Shinn, M. R., Tindal, G., & Spira, D. (1987). Special education referrals as an index of teacher tolerance: Are teachers imperfect tests? Exceptional Children, 54, 32-40.
58. Shinn, M. R., Tindal, G., Spira, D., & Marston, D. (1987). Practice of learning disabilities as social policy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(1), 17-28.
59. Shinn, M. R., Ysseldyke, J., Deno, S. L., & Tindal, G. (1986). A comparison of differences between students labeled learning disabled and low achieving onmeasures of classroom performance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 545-552.
60. Speece, D. L., Pericola Case, L., & Eddy Molloy, D. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 147-156.
61. Tilly, W. D., & Grimes, J. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement: One vehicle for systemic educational reform. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 32-88). New York: Guilford Press.
62. Tindal, G., Wesson, C., Deno, S. L., Germann, G., & Mirkin, P. (1985). The Pine County model for special education delivery: A data-based System. In T. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (Vol. TV, pp. 223-250). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137-146.
64. Wilson, L. (1985). Large-scale learning disability identification: The reprieve of a concept. Exceptional Children, 52, 44-51.
65. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). WoodcockJohnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
66. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Epps, S. (1983). A logical and empirical analysis of current practices in classifying students as handicapped. Exceptional Children, 50, 160-166.
67. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Richey, L., & Graden, J. (1982). Declaring students eligible for learning disabilities services: Why bother with the data? Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 37-44.
68. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Shinn, M. R., & McGue, M. (1982). Similarities and differences between low achievers and students labeled learning disabled. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 73-85.
69. Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Graden, J., Wesson, C., Algozzine, B., & Deno, S. L. (1983). Generalizations from five years of research on assessment and decision-making: The University of Minnesota Institute. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 4, 75-93.