Response to intervention: A research-based summary

Theory into Practice

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 4-11

  Hughes, Charles A ^a   Dexter, Douglas D ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78751629525     PISSN: 00405841     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2011.534909     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Al Otaiba, S., Kosanovich-Grek, M. L., Torgesen, J. K., Hassler, L., & Wahl, M. (2005). Reviewing core kindergarten and first-grade reading programs in light of No Child Left Behind: An exploratory study. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 377-400.
2. Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N., Peaster, L. G., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85-95.
3. Dexter, D. D., & Hughes, C. A. (2009). Progress monitoring within a response-to-intervention model. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://www.rtinetwork.org
4. Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: Guilford.
5. Foorman, B. R. (2007). Primary prevention in classroom reading instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 24-30.
6. Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. (2008). Making "secondary intervention" work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 413-436.
7. Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129-136.
8. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to responsiveness-to-intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 93-99.
9. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsivenessto-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216-227.
10. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Bryant, J. D., Hamlett, C. L., & Seethaler, P. M. (2007). Mathematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: Implications for responsiveness to intervention. Exceptional Children, 73, 311-330.
11. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Zumeta, R. O. (2008). A curricular-sampling approach to progress monitoring: Mathematics concepts and applications. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 225-233.
12. Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2003). Scientifically based progress monitoring. Washington, DC: National Center on Student Progress Monitoring.
13. Hintze, J. M. (2007, September). Conceptual & empirical issues related to developing a responseto-intervention framework. Paper presented at National Center on Student Progress Monitoring, Washington, DC. Retrieved May 26, 2008 from http://studentprogress.org/doc/Hintze2008ConceptualandEmpiricalIssuesofRTI.doc.
14. Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2008a). Selecting a scientifically based core curriculum for Tier 1. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://www.rtinetwork.org
15. Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2008b). Response to Intervention: A Research Review. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://www.rtinetwork.org Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
16. 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. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/jenkins/index.html.
17. 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.
18. McKenzie, R. G. (2009). Obscuring vital distinctions: The oversimplification of learning disabilities within RTI. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 32, 203-215.
19. McMaster, K. L., & Wagner, D. (2007). Monitoring response to general education instruction. 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. 223-233). New York: Springer.
20. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read (NIH Publication No. 00-4654). Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
21. Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, K. J. (2003). A consumer's guide to evaluating a core reading program grades K-3: A critical elements analysis. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/rti03_reading/cons_guide_instr.pdf.
22. Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 55-64.
23. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391-409.
24. Yell, M. L., & Drasgow, E. (2007). Assessment for eligibility under IDEIA and the 2006 regulations. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 202-213.