Competing Views: A Dialogue on Response to Intervention

Assessment for Effective Intervention

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 6-19

  Batsche, George M ^a   Kavale, Kenneth A ^b   Kovaleski, Joseph F ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b REGENT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992812940     PISSN: 15345084     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/15345084060320010301     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Aaron, P.G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461—502.
2. Barbour, B. (2002). Best practices in promoting educational reform at a school district level. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 293—300). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
3. Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
4. Buck, G.H., Polloway, E.A., Smith-Thomas, A., & Cook, K.W. (2003). Prereferral intervention processes: A survey of state practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 349—360.
5. Chalfant, J.C., & King, F.S. (1976). An approach to operationalizing the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 228—243.
6. Crawford, L., & Tindal, G. (2002). Curriculum-based collaboration in secondary schools. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems: Preventive and remedial approaches (2nd ed., pp. 825—852). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
7. Cullinan, D., & Kaufman, J.M. (2005). Do race of student and race of teacher influence ratings of emotional and behavioral problem characteristics of students with emotional disturbance? Behavior Disorders, 30, 393—402.
8. Denton, C.A., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J.M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 201—211.
9. Donovan, M.S., & Cross, C.T. (2002). Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
10. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 401.
11. Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (1965). 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.
12. Finlan, T.G. (1994). Learning disability: The imaginary disease. West-port, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
13. Fletcher, J.M., & Denton, C. (2003, December). Validity of alternative approaches to the identification of L.D.: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness to Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/index.html
14. Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Olson, R.K., et al. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 185—250). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Florida Department of Education. (2004). An academic support plan for K—3 readers. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from http://www.firn.edu/doe/commhome/progress
16. 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 curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3—17.
17. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216—227.
18. 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 and Practice, 18(3), 157—171.
19. Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 172— 186.
20. Fuchs, L.S. (2005). Prevention research in mathematics: Improving outcomes, building identification models, and understanding disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 350—352.
21. Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A simplifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 4, 204—219.
22. Gerber, M.M. (2005). Response to tough teaching: The 2% solution. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 189—190.
23. Good, R. H., III, & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS; 6th ed.) Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. (Available at http://dibels.uoregon.edu)
24. Gordon, M., Lewandowski, L., & Keiser, S. (1999). The LD label for relatively well-functioning students: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 485—490.
25. Gresham, F. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467—519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Gresham, F., MacMillan, D.L., & Bocian, K.M. (1998). Agreement between school study team decisions and authoritative definitions in classification of students at-risk for mild disabilities. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 181—191.
27. Gresham, F.M., Reschly, D.J., Tilly, W.D., Fletcher, J., Burns, M., Christ, T., et al. (2005). Comprehensive evaluation of learning disabilities: A response to intervention perspective. TheSchoolPsychologist, 59, 26—30.
28. Hale, J.B., Naglieri, J.A., Kaufman, A.S., & Kavale, K.A. (2004). Specific learning disability classification in the new individuals with disabilities education act: The danger of good ideas. The School Psychologist, 59(1), 6—13, 29.
29. Hallahan, D.P., & Mercer, C.D. (2002). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 1—67). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1990).
31. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1990)(amended 1997).
32. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, H.R. 1350, 108 Cong., 2nd Sess. (2004).
33. Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (2001). Assessment of specific learning disabilities in the new millennium: Issues, conflicts, and controversies. In A. Kaufman & N. Kaufman (Eds.), Specific learning disabilities and difficulties in children and adolescents: Psychological assessment and evaluation (pp. 433—461). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34. Kavale, K.A. (1987). Theoretical issues surrounding severe discrepancy. Learning Disabilities Research, 3, 12—20.
35. Kavale, K.A. (2002). Discrepancy models in the 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.
36. Kavale, K.A. (2005). Identifying specific learning disability: Is responsiveness to intervention the answer? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 553—562.
37. Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (1995). The nature of learning disabilities: Critical elements of diagnosis and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (1998). The politics of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 245—273.
39. Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (1999). Effectiveness of special education. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed.; pp. 984—1024). New York: Wiley.
40. Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and don't say: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 239—256.
41. Kavale, K.A., Fuchs, D., & Scruggs, T.E. (1994). Setting the record straight on learning disabilities and low achievement: Implications for policy-making. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, 70—77.
42. Kavale, K.A., Holdnack, J.A., & Mostert, M.P. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 2—16.
43. Kavale, K.A., Holdnack, J., Mostert, M.P., & Schmied, C.M. (2003, December). The feasibility of a response to intervention approach for the identification of specific learning disability: A psychometric alternative. Paper presented at the Responsiveness to Intervention Symposium of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/index.html
44. Kavale, K.A., Kaufman, A.S., Naglieri, J.A., & Hale, J.B. (2005). Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of poorly supported ideas. The School Psychologist, 1, 16—25.
45. Kavale, K.A., & Reese, J.H. (1992). The character of learning disabilities: An Iowa profile. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 74—94.
46. Keogh, B.K. (1987). Learning disabilities: In defense of a construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 3, 4—9.
47. Kovaleski, J.F. (2005). IDEA reauthorization includes RTI: Now what? Communiqué, 34, 26.
48. Kovaleski, J.F., & Glew, M.C. (2006). Bringing instructional support teams to scale: Implications of the Pennsylvania experience. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 16—25.
49. MacMillan, D.L., Gresham, F.M., & Bocian, K.M. (1998). Discrepancy between definitions of learning disabilities and school practice: An empirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 314—326.
50. Marston, D. (2002). A functional and intervention-based assessment approach to establishing discrepancy for students with learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 437— 447). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 187—200.
52. Mastropieri, M.A. (2003). Feasibility and consequences of responses to intervention (RtI): Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Responsiveness to Intervention Symposium of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/index.html
53. McBride, G.M., Dumont, R., & Willis, J.O. (2004). Response to response to intervention legislation: The future for school psychologists. The School Psychologist, 58, 86—91, 93.
54. McKnight, R.T. (1982). The learning disability myth in American education. Journal of Education, 164, 351—359.
55. Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. (2002). M. Suzanne Donovan and Christopher T. Cross (Eds)., National Research Council, Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.
56. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).
57. Peterson, K.M.H., & Shinn, M.R. (2002). Severe discrepancy models: Which best explains school identification practices for learning disabilities? School Psychology Review, 31, 459—476.
58. Reschly, D.J. (2003). What if LD identification changed to reflect research findings? Paper presented at the Responsiveness to Intervention Symposium of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/index.html
59. Reschly, D.J. (2005). Learning disabilities identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, and then what? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 510—515.
60. Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 155—168.
61. Shapiro, E. (2004). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.
62. Shepard, L.A., & Smith, M.L. (1983). An evaluation of the identification of learning disabled students in Colorado. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 115—127.
63. Siegel, L.S. (2003). IQ-discrepancy definitions and the diagnosis of LD: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 2—3.
64. Stage, S.A., Abbott, R.D., Jenkins, J.R., & Berninger, V.W. (2003). Predicting response to early reading intervention from verbal IQ, reading-related language abilities, attention ratings, and verbal IQword reading discrepancy: Failure to validate discrepancy method. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 24—33.
65. Stuebing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., LeDoux, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469—518.
66. Tilly, W.D. (2003, December). Results of a three tiered model implementation: The Heartland Early Literacy Project (HELP). Paper presented at the Responsiveness to Intervention Symposium of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/index.html
67. Tilly, W.D., III. (2005, November). Response to Intervention. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Minneapolis, MN.
68. Tilly, W.D., III, Reschly, D.J., & Grimes, J.P. (1999). Disability determination in problem-solving systems: Conceptual foundations and critical components. In D. J. Reschly, W. E. Tilly, III, & J. P. Grimes (Eds.), Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming (pp. 285—321). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
69. Torgeson, J.K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 7—26.
70. U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families, Washington, DC: Author.
71. VanDerHeyden, A.M., & Witt, J.C. (2005). Quantifying context in assessment: Capturing the effect of base rates on teacher referral and problem-solving model of identification. School Psychology Review, 34, 161—183.
72. VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., & Barnett, D.W. (2005). The emergence and possible futures of response to intervention. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 339—361.
73. VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., & Gilbertson, D. (2005). Effect of a problem-solving model (STEEP) on identification of children for special education. Manuscript submitted for publication.
74. Vaughn, S.A., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 37, 140—147.
75. Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Lyon, G.R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223—238.