Implementation of Response to Intervention (RtI) Model in Spain: An example of a collaboration between Canarian universities and the department of education of the Canary Islands;Implementación del Modelo de Respuesta a la Intervención (RtI) en españa: Un ejemplo de colaboración entre las Universidades Canarias y la Consejería de Educación del Gobierno de Canarias

Psicothema

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 935-942

  Jiménez, Juan E ^a   Rodríguez, Cristina ^a   Crespo, Patricia ^a   González, Desirée ^a   Artiles, Ceferino ^b   Alfonso, Miguel ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA LAGUNA   (Spain)

^b Instituto Canario de Ciencias Marinas   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COOPERATION; CURRICULUM; DYSLEXIA; EARLY CHILDHOOD INTERVENTION; EDUCATION; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; LANGUAGE TEST; LEARNING DISORDER; MALE; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHONETICS; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; READING; SPAIN; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNIVERSITY; VULNERABLE POPULATION;

CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; CURRICULUM; DYSLEXIA; EARLY INTERVENTION (EDUCATION); EDUCATION, SPECIAL; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; HUMANS; LANGUAGE TESTS; LEARNING DISORDERS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MODELS, THEORETICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PHONETICS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; READING; SPAIN; UNIVERSITIES; VULNERABLE POPULATIONS;

EID: 78549251054     PISSN: 02149915     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Baker, R.H., Good, Knutson, N., & Watson, J.M. (2006). Indicadores dinámicos del éxito en la lectura (7a ed.). Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group. Available: http://www.dibels.uoregon.edu/.
2. Berkeley, S., Bender, W.N., Gregg, L., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention. A Shapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85-95.
3. Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to intervention: 1997. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 8-13.
4. Fuchs, D., y Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99.
5. 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.
6. Gove, A. (2008). Early grade reading assessment toolkit. World Bank and RTI International, Washington, D.C.
7. Grigorenko, E.L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 111-132.
8. Guzmán, R., & Jiménez, J.E. (2001). Estudio normativo sobre parámetros psicolingüísticos en niños de 6 a 8 años: la familiaridad subjetiva. Cognitiva, 13, 153-191.
9. Ho, C.S.H., Chan, D.W.O., Tsang, S.M., & Lee, S.H. (2002). The Hong Kong test of specific learning difficulties in reading and writing (HKT-SpLD) (Hong Kong, Hong Kong Specific Learning Difficulties Research Team).
10. Hurford, D.P., Johnston, M., Nepote, P., Hampton, S., Moore, Sh., Neal, J., et al. (1994). Early identification and remediation of phonological processing deficits in first-grade children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 647-659.
11. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004).
12. 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, 582-600.
13. Jiménez, J.E., & García, I. (1999). Is IQ-ahievement discrepancy relevant in the definition of arithmetic learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 291-301.
14. Jiménez, J.E., & Hernández-Valle, I. (1999). A Spanish perspective on learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 267-275 (Spanish translation in EduPsykhé, 2002, 1, 275-293).
15. Jiménez, J.E., & O'Shanahan, I. (2009). Enseñanza de la lectura: de la teoría y la investigación a la práctica educativa. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 45, 1-22.
16. Jiménez, J.E., & Rodrigo, M. (1994). Is it true that the differences in reading performance between students with and without LD cannot be explained by IQ? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 155-163.
17. Jiménez, J.E., Siegel,L.S., O'Shanahan, I., & Ford, L. (2009). The relatives roles of IQ and cognitive processes in reading disability. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 27-43.
18. Johnson, E., Mellard, D.F., & Byrd, S.E. (2005). Alternative models of learning disabilities identification: Considerations and initial conclusions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 569-572.
19. Kavale, K.A. (2002). Discrepancy models in identification of learning disability. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D.P. Hallahan (Eds.): Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 369-426). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. McLaughlin, M.J., Dyson, A., Nagle, K., Thurlow, M., Rouse, M., Hardman, M., Norwich, B., Burke, P., & Perlin, M. (2006). Crosscultural perspectives on the classification of children with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 46-58.
21. Mathes, P.G., Linan-Thompson, S., Pollard-Duradola, S.D., Hagan, E.C., & Vaughn, S. (2003). Lectura proactive para principiantes: Intensive small group instruction for Spanish speaking readers. Developed with funds provided by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (#HD-99-012), Development of English Literacy in Spanish Speaking Children.
22. National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. (2007). Core concepts of RTI. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from http://www.nrcld.org.
23. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidencebased assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, D.D: U.S. Government Printing Office.
24. Rodrigo, M., & Jiménez, J.E. (2000). IQ vs phonological recoding skill in explaining differences between poor readers and normal readers in word recognition: Evidence from a naming task. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 129-142.
25. Semrud-Clikeman M. (2005). Neuropsychological aspects for evaluating learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 563-568.
26. Share D.L., McGee R., & Silva P.A. (1989). IQ and reading progress: A test of the capacity notion of IQ. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 97-100.
27. Siegel, L.S. (1988). Evidence that IQ scores are irrelevant to the definition and analysis of reading disability. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 201-215.
28. Siegel, L.S. (1989). I.Q. is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469-478.
29. Siegel, L.S. (1990). IQ and learning disabilities: R.I.P. In H.L. Swanson & B. Keogh (Eds.): Learning disabilities: Theoretical and research issues (pp. 111-128). Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA.
30. Siegel, L.S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 618-629.
31. Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32. Stanovich, K.E. (1989). Has the learning disabilities field lost its intelligence? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 487-492.
33. Stanovich, K.E. (1994). Are discrepancy-based definitions of dyslexia empirically defensible? In K.P. Van den Bos, L.S. Siegel, D.J. Bakker, & D.L. Share (Eds.): Current directions in dyslexia research (pp. 15-30). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
34. 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.
35. Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.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, 33-58.
36. Vellutino, F.R, Scanlon, D.M., & Lyon, R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readly remediated poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223-238.
37. Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S.G., Chen, R., Pratt, 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.
38. 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 & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 437-480.
39. Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541-561.