Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status

Learning and Individual Differences

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 296-307

  Barth, Amy E ^a   Stuebing, Karla K ^a   Anthony, Jason L ^b   Denton, Carolyn A ^b   Mathes, Patricia G ^c   Fletcher, Jack M ^a   Francis, David J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^c SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Response to intervention

Indexed keywords

EID: 50949099198     PISSN: 10416080     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.004     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. In: Bradley R., Danielson L., and Hallahan D. (Eds). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (2002), Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ. http://www.air.org/ldsummit www.air.org/ldsummit
2. Burns M.K., and Senesac B.V. Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology 43 (2005) 393-406
3. Burns M.K., and VanDerheyden A.M. Using response to intervention to assess learning disabilities: Introduction to the special series. Assessment for Effective Intervention 32 (2006) 3-5
4. Case L.P., Speece D.L., and Molloy D.E. 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 (2003) 557-582
5. Cicchetti D. Testing the normal approximation and minimal sample size requirements of weighted kappa when the number of categories is large. Applied Psychological Measurement 5 (1981) 101-104
6. Clay M.M. An observation survey of early literacy achievement. 2nd ed. (2002), Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH
7. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 10 (1960) 37-46
8. Compton D.L., Fuchs D., Fuchs L.S., and Bryant J. Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology 98 (2006) 394-409
9. Connor C.M., Morrison F.J., Fishman B.J., Schatschneider C., and Underwood P. The early years: Algorithm-guided individualized reading instruction. Science 313 (2007) 464-465
10. Denton C., Fletcher J.M., and Anthony J. An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities 39 (2006) 447-466
11. Donovan M.S., and Cross C.T. Minority students in special and gifted education (2002), National Academy press, Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html
12. Fletcher J.M., Lyon R., Fuchs L.S., and Barnes M.A. Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2007), The Guilford Press, New York, NY
13. Foorman B.F., Fletcher J.M., and Francis D. Texas Primary Reading Inventory (2004), Texas Educational Agency and the University of Texas System
14. Fountas I.C., and Pinnell G.S. Matching books to readers (1999), Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH
15. Francis D.J., Fletcher J.M., and Stuebing K. Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities 38 (2005) 98-108
16. Fuchs L.S. Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 18 (2003) 172-186
17. Fuchs D., and Deshler D.D. What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 22 (2007) 129-136
18. Fuchs L.S., and Fuchs D. A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 13 (1998) 204-219
19. Fuchs D., Compton D.L., Fuchs L.S., Bryant J., and Davis N. Making "secondary intervention" work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Finding from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 21 (2008) 413-436
20. Fuchs D., Fuchs L.S., and Compton D.L. Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly 27 (2004) 216-227
21. Fuchs L.S., Fuchs D., and Speece D.L. Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 25 (2002) 33-45
22. Fuchs D., Mock D., Morgan P.L., and Young C.L. Responsiveness-to-intervention for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 18 (2003) 157-171
23. Good R.H., Wallin J., Simmons D.C., Kame'enui E.J., and Kaminski R.A. System-wide Percentile Ranks for DIBLES Benchmark Assessment (Technical Report 9) (2002), University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
24. Kraemer H.C. Ramifications of a population model for k as a coefficient of reliability. Psychometrika 44 (1979) 461-472
25. Kozan L.M. The reliability of clinical methods, data, and judgments. New England Journal of Medicine 293 (1979) 642-646
26. Marsten D.B. A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In: Shinn M.R. (Ed). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (1989), The Guilford Press, New York 18-77
27. Mathes P.G., Denton C.A., Fletcher J.M., Anthony J.A., Francis D.J., and Schatschneider C. The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly 40 (2005) 148-182
28. Mathes, P. G., Torgesen, J. K., & Herron, J. (in press). Continuous monitoring of early reading skills (CMERS) [Computer software]. Austin, Texas: ProEd.
29. McMaster K.L., Fuchs D., Fuchs L.S., and Compton D.L. Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children 71 (2005) 445-463
30. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities: A report prepared by the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities representing eleven national and international organizations (2005), Author, Washington, DC
31. Raudenbush S.W., and Bryk A.S. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis method. 2nd ed. (2002), Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA
32. Shepard L. An evaluation of the regression discrepancy method for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education 14 (1980) 79-91
33. Singer J.D. Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 323 (1998) 23-355
34. Speece D.L., and Case L.P. Classification in context: an alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology 93 (2001) 735-749
35. Swets J.A. The science of choosing the right decision threshold in high-stakes diagnostics. American Psychologist 47 (1992) 522-532
36. Torgesen J.K. Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 15 (2000) 55-64
37. Torgesen J.K., Alexander A., Wagner R., Rashotte C., Voeller K., and Conway T. Intensive, remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities 34 (2001) 33-58
38. Torgesen J.K., Wagner R.K., and Rashotte C.A. The test of word reading efficiency (1999), Pro-Ed, Austin, TX
39. U. S. Department of Education. Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-466. Federal register vol. 70, No. 118 (2004) 35802-35803
40. Vaughn S., and Fuchs L.S. Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 18 (2003) 137-146
41. Vellutino F.R., Scanlon D.M., Sipay E.R., Small S.G., Pratt A., Chen R., et al. Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediate 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 (1996) 601-638
42. Woodcock R., McGrew K., and Mather N. Woodcock Johnson-III tests of achievement (2001), Riverside, Itasca, IL