The prevention science of reading research within a response-to-intervention model

Psychology in the Schools

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 22-35

  Lembke, Erica S ^a   Mcmaster, Kristen L ^b   Stecker, Pamela M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955602518     PISSN: 00333085     EISSN: 15206807     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pits.20449     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300-315.
2. Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 414-431.
3. Alonzo, J., Tindal, G., Ulmer, K., & Glasgow, A. (2009). easyCBM: Benchmarking and progress monitoring system. Presentation at the annual Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
4. Berkely, S., Bender,W. N., Peaster, G. L., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85-95.
5. Bollman, K. A., Silberglitt, B.,& Gibbons, K. A. (2007). The St. Croix River education district model: Incorporating systems-level organization and a multi-tiered problem-solving process for intervention delivery. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 319-330). New York: Springer.
6. Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: 1997 to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 8-13.
7. Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. A., & Stehouwer, J. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention re-search: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381-394.
8. Burns, M. K., & Senesac, B. V. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393-406.
9. Callender, W. A. (2007). The Idaho results-based model: Implementing response to intervention statewide. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 331-342). New York: Springer.
10. Christ, T. J., & Ardoin, S. P. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Passage equivalence and probe-set development. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 55-75.
11. Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). 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(2), 394-409.
12. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
13. Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507-524.
14. Deno, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Lembke, E. S., Magnusson, D., Callender, S. A., Windram, H., et al. (2009). Developing a school-wide progress-monitoring system. Psychology in the Schools, 46(1), 44-55.
15. Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 70-74.
16. Foorman, B. R., York, M., Santi, K. L., & Francis, D. (2008). Contextual effects on predicting risk for reading difficulties in first and second grade. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 371-394.
17. Francis, D. J., Santi, K. L., Barr, C., Fletcher, J. M., Varisco, A., & Foorman, B. R. (2008). Form effects on the estimation of students' oral reading ßuency using DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 315-342.
18. 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.
19. Fuchs, D.,& Fuchs, L. S. (1998). Researchers and teachersworking together to adapt instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 126-137.
20. 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(3), 157-171.
21. Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 172-186.
22. Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57(6), 488-499.
23. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14-20.
24. Good, R. H. III, Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of ßuency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.
25. Grimes, J., Kurns, S., & Tilly, W.D. III. (2006). Sustainability: An enduring commitment to success. School Psychology Review, 35, 224-244.
26. Hintze, J. M., & Christ, T. J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 204-217.
27. Hintze, J. M., Shapiro, E. S., & Daly, E. J. III. (1998). An investigation of the effects of passage difficulty level on outcomes of oral reading ßuency progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 27(3), 433-445.
28. Hintze, J. M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34, 372-386.
29. Hoover, J. J., Baca, L. M., Wexler-Love, E., & Saenz, L. (2008). National Implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI): Research Summary. University of Colorado, Boulder-BUENO Center. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). Web site: www.nasdse.org.
30. Howe, K. B., Scierka, B. J., Gibbons, K. A., & Silberglitt, B. (2003). A schoolwide organization system for raising reading achievement using general outcome measures and evidence-based instruction: One education district's experience. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 59-71.
31. Hughes, C. A.,& Dexter, D.D. (2008). Field Studies of RTI Programs.RTIActionNetwork Web. Retrieved September 3, 2009, from the National Center for Learning Disabilities. Web site: http://www.rtinetwork.org/Learn/Research/ar/FieldStudies.
32. Institute of Educational Sciences (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention (RtI) and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee and http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.
33. Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., & Johnson, E. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 582-600.
34. Jenkins, J. R., Zumeta, R., Dupree, O.,&Johnson, K. (2005).Measuring gains in reading ability with passage reading ßuency. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(4), 245-253.
35. Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2007). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer.
36. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
37. Kellam, S., & Langevin, D. (2003). A framework for understanding the quot;evidencequot; in prevention research and programs. Prevention Science, 4, 137-153.
38. 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.
39. Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What is it and why to do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford.
40. 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), 445-464.
41. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
42. National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
43. Nelson, R. J., Benner, G. J., & Gonzalez, J. (2003). Learner characteristics that inßuence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 255-267.
44. O'Connor, R. E., Harty, K. R., & Fulmer, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 532-538.
45. O'Connor. R. E., & Jenkins. J. R. (1999). The prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159-197.
46. Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., Osmond, W. C., & Maynard, A. M. (2002). Relative reading achievement: A longitudinal study of 187 children from first through sixth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 3-13.
47. Shapiro, E. S., Hilt-Panahon, A., Clemens, N., Gischlar, K., Devlin, K., Leichman, Bowles, S., et al. (2009). Outcomes of team decision-making within an RTI model. Presentation at the annual Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
48. Silberglitt, B., & Hintze, J. M. (2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut scores to track progress towards success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 304-325.
49. Simmerman, S., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). Treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: How important are internal and external validity? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 221-236.
50. Simmons, D. C., Coyne, M. D., Kwok, O., McDonagh, S., Harn, B. A., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2008). Indexing response to intervention:Alongitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 158-173.
51. Snow, C. E., Bums, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
52. Speece, D. (2005). Hitting the moving target known as reading development: Some thoughts on screening children for secondary interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 487-493.
53. Speece, D. L., & Case, L. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 735-749.
54. 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(3), 147-156.
55. Tilly, W. D. (2006). Diagnosing the learning enabled: The promise of response to intervention. Perspectives, 32(1), 20-24.
56. Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55-64.
57. Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-53, 78.
58. Vaughn, S., & Chard, D. (2006). Three-tier intervention research studies: Description of two related projects. Perspectives, 32(1), 30-34.
59. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146.
60. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to intervention as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391-409.
61. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S., Chen, R., Pratt, P. A., et al. (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, 601-638.
62. 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: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 437-480.