Handbook of Response to Intervention...Handbook of Response to Intervention The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention Edited by Shane R. Jimerson University of California

P1: OTE/SPH P2: OTESVNY355-Jimerson (V1) July 2, 2007 23:42

Handbook ofResponse to Intervention

i


Handbook ofResponse to InterventionThe Science and Practice of Assessmentand Intervention

Edited by

Shane R. JimersonUniversity of CaliforniaSanta Barbara, CA, USA

Matthew K. BurnsUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, MN, USA

Amanda M. VanDerHeydenEducation Research and Consultingin Fairhope, Alabama

iii


Shane R. Jimerson Amanda M. VanDerHeydenUniversity of California, Santa Barbara Education Research and Consulting,1332 Phelps Hall-Department of CCSP Fairhope, AlabamaSanta Barbara, CA 93106-9490 email: [email protected]: [email protected]

Matthew K. BurnsUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis75 East River Road346 Elliott HallMinneapolis, MN 55455-0208email: [email protected]

Library of Congress Control Number: 2006939138

ISBN-10: 0-387-49052-3 e-ISBN-10: 0-387-49053-3ISBN-13: 978-0-387-49052-6

Printed on acid-free paper.

C© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLCAll rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher(Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connectionwith reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation,computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden.The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, isnot to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights.

Printed in the United States of America. (BS/DH)

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

springer.com

iv


This handbook is dedicated to the professionals who work diligently to educate and enhancethe success of students and to the scholars who inform our understanding of how to promotethe social and cognitive competence of students. Through bringing the best of science toprofessional practice, and highlighting lessons learned from implementation efforts acrossthe country, it is hoped that the information presented in this handbook serves as a cata-lyst that advances the science and practice of assessment and intervention at school, andultimately promotes enhanced student outcomes for all students.

v


Acknowledgments

The Editors acknowledge the exceptional efforts of colleagues who contributed to this handbook as authors,and also to the individuals at Springer publications who were instrumental in bringing this handbook toprint: Judy Jones, Angela Burke, Anne Meagher, Satvinder Kaur, and Peter Lewis. In addition, we aregrateful for the extraordinary efforts of numerous individuals who provided reviews of chapters, whichfurther enhanced the quality and contents; Michael Furlong, Cathi Christo, Chris Riley-Tillman, AimeeHiguita, Craig Albers, Mary Skokut, and the many chapter authors who also contributed their expertiseby providing reviews of chapters. The collective efforts of all those involved have resulted in the timelypublication of this extremely informative handbook.

Finally, it is important that we acknowledge the tremendous support, inspiration, and perspective that ourfamilies provided throughout the development of this handbook. The collective adventures, celebrations,and challenges we have shared has enriched each of us; our sincere appreciation to Kathryn O’Brien,Gavin O’Brien Jimerson, Mary Beth Burns, Kathleen Burns, Matthew Burns, Jr., Chad VanDerHeyden,and Benjamin VanDerHeyden.

vii


Contents

Foreword xiii

Contributors xv

Information About the Editors xxi

I. Foundations of Problem-Solving and Response-to-Intervention Strategies

1. Response to Intervention at School: The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention 3Shane R. Jimerson, Matthew K. Burns, and Amanda M. VanDerHeyden

2. Evolution of the Response-to-Intervention Concept: Empirical Foundationsand Recent Developments 10Frank M. Gresham

3. Response to Intervention: Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Implementation 25Thomas R. Kratochwill, Melissa A. Clements, and Kristen M. Kalymon

4. Consultation within Response to Intervention Models 53Steven E. Knotek

5. The Integration of Response to Intervention and Critical Race Theory–Disability Studies:A Robust Approach to Reducing Racial Discrimination in Evaluation Decisions 65Markeda Newell and Thomas R. Kratochwill

6. Potential Pitfalls of Response to Intervention 80Joseph F. Kovaleski

II. Assessment and Measurement

7. Psychometric Considerations when Evaluating Response to Intervention 93Theodore J. Christ and John M. Hintze

ix


x Contents

8. Decision-Making Validity in Response to Intervention 106David W. Barnett, Renee Hawkins, David Prasse, Janet Graden, Melissa Nantais, and Wei Pan

9. Assessing Student Response to Intervention 117Stephanie C. Olson, Edward J. Daly III, Melissa Andersen, April Turner, and Courtney LeClair

10. Ability–Achievement Discrepancy, Response to Intervention, and Assessment of CognitiveAbilities/Processes in Specific Learning Disability Identification: Toward a ContemporaryOperational Definition 130Kenneth A. Kavale and Dawn P. Flanagan

11. Contextual Influences and Response to Intervention: Critical Issues and Strategies 148Amy L. Reschly, Melissa Coolong-Chaffin, Sandra L. Christenson, and Terry Gutkin

12. Social Behavior Assessment and Response to Intervention 161Christine Kerres Malecki and Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray

13. Addressing Disproportionality with Response to Intervention 172John L. Hosp and Na’im H. Madyun

III. Research-Based Prevention and Intervention

14. Identifying Reading Disability Based on Response to Intervention: Evidence from EarlyIntervention Research 185Frank R. Vellutino, Donna M. Scanlon, and Haiyan Zhang

15. Effects from Intensive Standardized Kindergarten and First-Grade Interventions for thePrevention of Reading Difficulties 212Stephanie Al Otaiba and Joseph Torgesen

16. Monitoring Response to General Education Instruction 223Kristen L. McMaster and Dana Wagner

17. Monitoring Response to Supplemental Services for Students at Risk for Reading Difficulties:High and Low Responders 234Sharon Vaughn, Jeanne Wanzek, Sylvia Linan-Thompson, and Christy S. Murray

18. The Fundamental Role of Intervention Implementation in Assessing Responseto Intervention 244Kristin A. Gansle and George H. Noell

IV. Lessons Learned in Implementing Problem-Solving and Response-to-Intervention Strategies

19. The Heartland Area Education Agency 11 Problem-Solving Approach: An Overview andLessons Learned 255Martin J. Ikeda, Alecia Rahn-Blakeslee, Bradley C. Niebling, Jeri K. Gustafson,Randy Allison, and James Stumme


Contents xi

20. One Student at a Time; One Teacher at a Time: Reflections on the Use of Instructional Support 269James A. Tucker and Robert O. Sornson

21. Implementation of the Problem-Solving Model in the Minneapolis Public Schools 279Douglas Marston, Matthew Lau, and Paul Muyskens

22. The Ohio Integrated Systems Model: Overview and Lessons Learned 288Janet L. Graden, Stephanie A. Stollar, and Rita L. Poth

23. The Illinois Flexible Service Delivery Model: A Problem-Solving Model Initiative 300David W. Peterson, David P. Prasse, Mark R. Shinn, and Mark E. Swerdlik

24. The St. Croix River Education District Model: Incorporating Systems-Level Organizationand a Multi-Tiered Problem-Solving Process for Intervention Delivery 319Kerry A. Bollman, Benjamin Silberglitt, and Kimberly A. Gibbons

25. The Idaho Results-Based Model: Implementing Response to Intervention Statewide 331Wayne A. Callender

26. The System to Enhance Educational Performance (STEEP): Using Science toImprove Achievement 343Joseph C. Witt and Amanda M. VanDerHeyden

27. Moving from a Model Demonstration Project to a Statewide Initiative in Michigan: LessonsLearned from Merging Research-Practice Agendas to Address Reading and Behavior 354Ruth A. Ervin, Elizabeth Schaughency, Steven D. Goodman, Margaret T. McGlinchey,and Amy Matthews

28. The Florida Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention Model: Implementing a StatewideInitiative 378George M. Batsche, Michael J. Curtis, Clark Dorman, Jose M. Castillo, and Larry J. Porter

29. Using Technology Tools to Monitor Response to Intervention 396James E. Ysseldyke and Scott McLeod

30. Response to Intervention for English Language Learners: Current Development and FutureDirections 408Michael L. Vanderwood and Jeanie E. Nam

31. Using Response to Intervention to Promote Transition from Special Education Services 418Kristin Powers, Kristi Hagans, and Megan Miller

32. Toward a Unified Response-to-Intervention Model 428Matthew K. Burns, Stanley L. Deno, and Shane R. Jimerson

Author Index 441

Subject Index 449


Foreword

Response to Intervention (RTI) offers the best opportunity of the past three decades to ensure that everychild, no matter how gifted or challenged, will be equally valued in an education system where theprogress of every child is monitored, and individualized interventions with appropriate levels of intensityare provided to students as needed. Far too much attention has been focused on the different approachesto RTI by education leaders, researchers and implementers. It’s time to look to what is common in ourwork and unite together so this opportunity is not wasted. The best science will prove itself over time,but while the field is waiting for the evidence base to grow, RTI must advance in a responsible manner.This handbook includes 31 chapters with essential reading for all stakeholders seeking to increase theirknowledge base about RTI. It is an excellent and timely resource. I challenge everyone to read it, and thenfollow-up with actions to ensure that every child benefits from RTI.

Bill East, Executive DirectorNational Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)

xiii


Contributors

Randy Allison, EdS, NCSP, is Coordinator of System Supports for Educational Results, HeartlandAEA 11, Johnston, IA. [email protected]

Stephanie Al Otaiba, PhD, is an Associate Professor in Special Education at Florida State University andthe Florida Center for Reading Research. [email protected]

Melissa Andersen, MA, is a graduate student in Educational (School) Psychology at the University ofNebraska Lincoln. [email protected]

David W. Barnett, PhD, is a Professor of School Psychology at the University of [email protected]

George M. Batsche, EdD, is a Professor and Co-Director of the Institute for School Reform in the SchoolPsychology Program at the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida, and serves as the Co-Directorof the Florida PSM/RTI Project. [email protected]

Kerry A. Bollman, EdS, is an Academic Collaborative Planner with the St. Croix River Education Districtin Rush City, MN. [email protected]

Matthew K. Burns, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Educational Psychology and Coordinator of theSchool Psychology program at the University of Minnesota. [email protected]

Virginia Buysse, PhD, is a Senior Scientist at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute atthe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Virginia [email protected]

Wayne A. Callender, EdS, is a Regional Coordinator and RTI Trainer/Consultant at the University ofOregon. [email protected]

Jose M. Castillo, MA, is a doctoral student and Presidential Fellow in the School Psychology Program atthe University of South Florida. [email protected]

Theodore J. Christ, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of School Psychology at the University of [email protected]

xv


xvi Contributors

Sandra L. Christenson, PhD, is a Professor of Educational (School) Psychology at the University ofMinnesota. [email protected].

Melissa A. Clements, PhD, is a Research Scientist at the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research atthe University of Wisconsin-Madison. [email protected]

Melissa Coolong-Chaffin, EdS, is a graduate student in Educational (School) Psychology at the Universityof Minnesota. [email protected]

Michael J. Curtis, PhD, is a Professor and Co-Director of the Institute for School Reform in the SchoolPsychology Program at the University of South Florida and serves as the Co-Director of the FloridaPSM/RTI Project. [email protected]

Edward J. Daly III, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Educational (School) Psychology at the Universityof Nebraska-Lincoln. [email protected]

Stanley L. Deno, PhD, is a Professor of Educational Psychology with the Special Education program atthe University of Minnesota. [email protected]

Clark Dorman, EdS, is the Project Leader for the Florida PSM/RTI Project and a former school psychol-ogist in the Orange County (Orlando) School District. [email protected]

Ruth A. Ervin, PhD, is an Associate Professor of School Psychology and Special Education at Universityof British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. [email protected]

Dawn P. Flanagan, PhD, is a professor in the school psychology program at St. John’s University in NewYork. [email protected]

Kristin A. Gansle, PhD, is an Associate Professor in Special Education at Louisiana State [email protected]

Kimberly A. Gibbons, PhD, is the Special Education Director with St. Croix River Education District inRush City, MN. [email protected]

Steven D. Goodman, is a Teacher Consultant at the Ottawa Area Intermediate School District, Holland,Michigan.

Janet L. Graden, PhD, is a Professor of School Psychology at the University of [email protected]

Frank M. Gresham, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at Louisiana State [email protected]

Jeri K. Gustafson, MSEd, is a special education research practitioner on the Special Education ResearchTeam at Heartland Area Education Agency 11, in Johnston, Iowa.

Terry B. Gutkin, PhD, is a Professor of Counseling, San Francisco State University. [email protected]

Kristi Hagans, PhD, is an Assistant Professor and School Psychology Program Coordinator, CaliforniaState University, Long Beach. [email protected]


Contributors xvii

Renee O. Hawkins, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of School Psychology at the University of [email protected]

John M. Hintze, PhD, is an Associate Professor of School Psychology at the University of Massachusettsat Amherst. [email protected]

John L. Hosp, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Childhood Education, Reading, andDisability Services at Florida State University and research faculty at the Florida Center for ReadingResearch. [email protected]

Martin J. Ikeda, PhD, is Coordinator of Special Projects at Heartland AEA 11, and an AssessmentConsultant in Special Education for the Bureau of Children, Family, and Community Services of the IowaDepartment of Education. [email protected]

Shane R. Jimerson, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychologyat the University of California, Santa Barbara. [email protected]

Kristen M. Kalymon, MS, is a graduate student in the School Psychology Program at the University ofWisconsin-Madison.

Kenneth A. Kavale, PhD, is a Distinguished Professor of Special Education at Regent University, VirginiaBeach, VA. [email protected]

Christine Kerres Malecki, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Northern Illinois University,DeKalb. [email protected]

Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Northern Illinois Uni-versity, DeKalb. [email protected]

Joseph F. Kovaleski, DEd, is a Professor of Educational and School Psychology at the Indiana Universityof Pennsylvania. [email protected]

Steven E. Knotek, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of School Psychology in the Human Development andPsychological Studies Department in the School of Education at the University of North Carolina, ChapelHill. [email protected]

Thomas R. Kratochwill, PhD, is a Sears–Bascom Professor in the School Psychology Program at theUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison. [email protected]

Matthew Lau, PhD, is a school psychologist and program facilitator with Minneapolis Public Schoolsand Field Experience Coordinator with the University of Minnesota. [email protected]

Courtney LeClair, MA, is a graduate student in Educational (School) Psychology at the University ofNebraska–Lincoln. [email protected]

Sylvia Linan-Thompson, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Special Education at the University of Texasat Austin. [email protected]

Na’im Madyun, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the College of Education and Human Development atthe University of Minnesota. [email protected]


xviii Contributors

Douglas Marston, PhD, is a special education administrator for research and evaluation in the MinneapolisPublic Schools. [email protected]

Amy Matthews, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grand Valley State University, Allandale,Michigan. [email protected]

Margaret T. McGlinchey, is an Educational Consultant at Kalamazoo Regional Educational ServiceAgency, Kalamazoo, Michigan. [email protected]

Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in Educational Policy and Administration with theUniversity of Minnesota. [email protected]

Kristen L. McMaster, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in Special Education at the University of [email protected]

Megan Miller, BA, is a graduate student of school psychology, California State University, Long [email protected]

Christy S. Murray, MA, is a Senior Research Coordinator with the Vaughn Gross Center for Readingand Language Arts at the University of Texas at Austin. [email protected]

Paul Muyskens, PhD, is a school psychologist and program facilitator with Minneapolis Public [email protected]

Jeanie E. Nam, is a School Psychology Graduate Student in the Graduate School of Education at theUniversity of California-Riverside. [email protected]

Melissa Nantais, PhD, is an Educational Consultant at the Southwest Ohio Special Education RegionalResource Center. nantais [email protected]

Markeda Newell, MS, is a doctoral student in the School Psychology Program at the University ofWisconsin, Madison. [email protected]

Bradley C. Niebling, PhD, is a School Psychologist/Curriculum Alignment Specialist at HeartlandAEA 11, Johnston, IA. [email protected]

George H. Noell, PhD, is a Professor of Psychology with the School Psychology program at LouisianaState University. [email protected]

Stephanie C. Olson, MA, is a graduate student in Educational (School) Psychology at the University ofNebraska–Lincoln. [email protected]

Wei Pan, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Quantitative Educational Research at the University [email protected]

David W. Peterson, MS, is Co-Director of FED ED, an organization that represents the interests ofsuburban schools in Washington, [email protected]

Rita L. Poth, PhD, is Associate Director of the Southwestern Ohio Special Education Regional ResourceCenter, Cincinnati, OH. poth [email protected]


Contributors xix

Larry J. Porter, is a doctoral intern in the Pasco County School District in Land O’ Lakes, Florida and astudent in the School Psychology Program at the University of South Florida. [email protected]

Kristin Powers, PhD, is an Associate Professor of School Psychology, and Director of the EducationalPsychology Clinic, California State University, Long Beach. [email protected]

David P. Prasse, PhD, is a Professor and Dean in the School of Education at the Loyola University [email protected]

Alecia Rahn-Blakeslee, PhD, is a Research & Evaluation Practitioner/School Psychologist at HeartlandAEA 11, Johnston, IA. [email protected]

Amy L. Reschly, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology & Instructional Technologyat the University of Georgia. [email protected]

Donna M. Scanlon, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Reading Department at the State Universityof New York at Albany. She is also the Associate Director of the University’s Child Research and StudyCenter. [email protected]

Elizabeth Schaughency, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at University ofOtago, Dunedin, New Zealand. [email protected]

Mark R. Shinn, PhD, is a Professor of School Psychology at National Louis University, Evanston, [email protected]

Benjamin Silberglitt, PhD, is Senior Consultant, Assessment and Implementation with Technology andInformation Educational Services (TIES) in St. Paul. MN. Benjamin [email protected]

Robert O. Sornson, PhD, is the founder and President of The Early Learning Foundation, Brighton,Michigan. [email protected]

Stephanie A. Stollar, PhD, is an Educational Consultant at the Southwestern Ohio Special EducationRegional Resource Center, Cincinnati OH. stollar [email protected]

James Stumme, EdD, is an Associate Administrator at Heartland AEA 11, Johnston, [email protected]

Mark E. Swerdlik, PhD, is a Professor of Psychology and Coordinator of Graduate Programs in SchoolPsychology at Illinois State University, Normal. [email protected]

Joseph Torgesen, PhD, is the W. Russell and Eugenia Morcom Chair of Psychology and Education atFlorida State University and the Florida Center for Reading Research. [email protected]

James A. Tucker, PhD, is a Professor and McKee Chair of Excellence in Dyslexia and Related LearningExceptionalities, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. [email protected]

April Turner, MA, is a graduate student in Educational (School) Psychology at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. april d [email protected]

Amanda M. VanDerHeyden, PhD, is a Private Researcher and Consultant living in Fairhope, [email protected]


xx Contributors

Mike L. Vanderwood, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of School Psychology in the Graduate School ofEducation at the University of California–Riverside. [email protected]

Sharon Vaughn, PhD, is the H. E. Hartfelder/Southland Corp Regent Chair at the University of Texas atAustin. [email protected]

Frank R. Vellutino, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Psychology and the Department of Educa-tional and Counseling Psychology (joint appointment) at the State University of New York at Albany. Heis also the director of the University’s Child Research and Study Center. [email protected]

Dana Wagner, is a doctoral candidate in Special Education at the University of [email protected]

Jeanne Wanzek, PhD, is a Research Associate with the Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and LanguageArts at the University of Texas at Austin. [email protected]

Joseph C. Witt, PhD, is the Director of Research and Development iSTEEP Learning. [email protected]

James Ysseldyke, PhD, is a Birkmaier Professor in the School Psychology Program at the University ofMinnesota. [email protected]

Haiyan Zhang, MS, is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychologyat the State University of New York at Albany. [email protected]


Information About the Editors

Shane R. Jimerson, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psy-chology and Associate Dean for Research at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Among over150 professional publications, he is a co-author of a five-book grief support group curriculum series TheMourning Child Grief Support Group Curriculum (2001, Taylor and Francis), co-author of Identifying,Assessing, and Treating Autism at School (2006, Springer), a co-editor of Best Practices in School CrisisPrevention and Intervention (2002, National Association of School Psychologists), the lead editor of TheHandbook of School Violence and School Safety (2006, Lawrence Earlbaum, Inc.), and the lead editor ofThe Handbook of International School Psychology (2006, Sage). He serves as the Editor of The CaliforniaSchool Psychologist journal, Associate Editor of School Psychology Review, and is on the editorial boardsof the Journal of School Psychology and School Psychology Quarterly. Dr. Jimerson has chaired and servedon numerous boards and advisory committees at the state, national, and international levels, including chairof the Research Committee of the International School Psychology Association. His scholarly publicationsand presentations have provided further insights regarding developmental pathways, the efficacy of earlyprevention and intervention programs, school psychology internationally, and school crisis prevention andintervention. The quality and contributions of his scholarship are reflected in the numerous awards andrecognition that he has received. Dr. Jimerson received the Best Research Article of the year award fromthe Society for the Study of School Psychology in 1998, and then again in 2000. He also received the 2001Outstanding Article of the Year Award from the National Association of School Psychologists’ SchoolPsychology Review. Dr. Jimerson’s scholarly efforts were also recognized by the American EducationalResearch Association with the 2002 Early Career Award in Human Development. He and his UCSB re-search team received the 2003 Outstanding Research Award from the California Association of SchoolPsychologists. Also during 2003, Dr. Jimerson received the Lightner Witmer Early Career ContributionsAward from Division 16 (School Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. In 2005, hereceived an Outstanding Service Award from Division 16 of the American Psychological. In 2006, Dr.Jimerson received the President’s Award for Exemplary Contributions from the California Association ofSchool Psychologists. Also during 2006, Dr. Jimerson received the President’s Award of Excellence fromthe National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) for his efforts in bringing science to practice.His scholarship continues to highlight the importance of early experiences on subsequent development andemphasizes the importance of research informing professional practice to promote the social and cognitivecompetence of children.

Matthew K. Burns, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Educational Psychology and coordinator of theSchool Psychology program at the University of Minnesota. He is a Co-Guest Editor of a special issueof Assessment for Effective Intervention addressing response to intervention and is a contributor to twoother special series within different journals on the same topic. He has authored or co-authored over 60

xxi


xxii Information About the Editors

professional publications and has conducted an equal number of local, state, national, and internationalpresentations. The majority of Dr. Burns’s scholarly work addresses matching instructional demands tostudent skill with curriculum-based assessment, and problem-solving team processes and outcomes. Dr.Burns is an Associate Editor for Assessment for Effective Intervention and is on the editorial board ofSchool Psychology Review Psychology in the Schools, and Remedial and Special Education. Finally, Dr.Burns was a member of the task force and co-author of School Psychology: A Blueprint for Training andPractice III.

Amanda M. VanDerHeyden, PhD, is a private consultant and researcher living in Fairhope, Alabama.Dr. VanDerHeyden previously has held faculty positions at the Early Intervention Institute at LouisianaState University Health Sciences Center and in the School Psychology Program at University of Californiaat Santa Barbara. She has also worked as a researcher and consultant in a number of school districts. InVail Unified School District, Dr. VanDerHeyden led a district effort to implement the STEEP RTI modelfrom 2002 to 2005. In this district, identification of children as having specific learning disabilities wasreduced by half within 2 years, test scores increased, and the district was nationally recognized as a successstory related to No Child Left Behind by the US Department of Education. Dr. VanDerHeyden has authoredover 40 related articles and book chapters and has worked as a national trainer and consultant to assistdistricts to implement RTI models. In 2006, Dr. VanDerHeyden was named to an advisory panel for theNational Center for Learning Disabilities to provide guidance related to RTI and the diagnosis of specificlearning diability. She is associate editor of Journal of Behavioral Education and serves on the editorialboards for School Psychology Review, School Psychology Quarterly, and Journal of Early Intervention.Dr. VanDerHeyden recently co-edited special issues of Assessment for Effective Intervention and SchoolPsychology Review, each focusing on RTI. In 2006, Dr. VanDerHeyden received the Lightner WitmerEarly Career Contributions Award from Division 16 (School Psychology) of the American PsychologicalAssociation in recognition of her scholarship on early intervention, RTI, and models of data-based decision-making in schools.

P1: OTE/SPH P2: OTESVNY355-Jimerson (V1) April 27, 2007 15:38

IFoundations of Problem-Solving andResponse-to-Intervention Strategies

1


1Response to Intervention at School:The Science and Practice of Assessmentand InterventionShane R. Jimerson, Matthew K. Burns, and Amanda M. VanDerHeydenShane R. Jimerson, PhD is a Professor in the Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology at theUniversity of California, Santa Barbara. [email protected] K. Burns, PhD is an Associate Professor of Educational Psychology with the School Psychology programat the University of Minnesota. [email protected] M. VanDerHeyden, PhD is a private Researcher and Consultant living in Fairhope, [email protected]

Promoting the success of students is the primaryfocus of educational professionals. Systematicallyidentifying individual needs and subsequently pro-viding appropriate interventions is central to the taskof enhancing student outcomes. With the reautho-rization of the federal Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act (IDEA), referred to as the Individ-uals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act(IDEIA; signed into law in December 2004), theprocess of identifying students with learning dis-abilities (LDs) is at the forefront of education issuesin the United States. Regulations accompanyingthe reauthorized IDEIA permit the use of data (re-sponse) obtained when scientifically based interven-tion is implemented with a student (to intervention)to make eligibility decisions under LDs. The reg-ulatory provision reflects a fundamental paradigmshift that closes the gap between instruction andassessment.

Although response to intervention (RTI) was onlyrecently defined in federal regulations, the conceptis well established in other fields, such as medicine,which focus on response to treatment. Therefore,this chapter and handbook addresses research andapplication of RTI in K-12 schools by identifying theimportance of RTI as related to IDEIA, discussingthe functions of RTI, examining the historical basisfor RTI, providing contemporary definitions of RTI,and, finally, emphasizing the essential role of re-search in advancing the science and practice of as-

sessment and intervention (critical components ofRTI).

1.1 Importance of Response toIntervention at School

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Im-provement Act (IDEIA, 2004) allows local educationagencies to use a student’s response to intervention(RTI) as part of the evaluation procedure for iden-tifying students with specific learning disabilities[PL 108-446, Part B, Sec 614(b)(6)(b)]. The fol-lowing excerpts from IDEIA highlight key changesregarding the assessment and identification of chil-dren with specific learning disabilities (portions initalic for emphasis).

SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES—(IDEIA; 614,b, 6, A, B)

(A) IN GENERAL—Notwithstanding section 607(b),when determining whether a child has a specificlearning disability as defined in section 602, a lo-cal educational agency shall not be required totake into consideration whether a child has a se-vere discrepancy between achievement and intellec-tual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension,written expression, basic reading skill, reading com-prehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematicalreasoning.

3


4 Shane R. Jimerson, Matthew K. Burns, and Amanda M. VanDerHeyden

(B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY—In determiningwhether a child has a specific learning disability, a localeducational agency may use a process that determines ifthe child responds to scientific, research-based interven-tion as a part of the evaluation procedures described inparagraphs (2) and (3).

To further examine the role of RTI within specialeducation, it is important to consider what exactly isspecial education? Federal special education man-dates since P.L. 94-142 have all defined special ed-ucation as “Individualized instruction, at no cost tothe parents or guardians, to meet the unique needsof a child with a disability.” Thus, assessing studentneeds and designing instructional modifications tomeet those needs is at the very core of special edu-cation. Moreover, the definition of specific learningdisability within special education law has alwaysincluded the provision that prior to considerationfor special education it must be demonstrated that“the child was provided appropriate instruction inregular education settings” (§§ 300.309, Individu-als with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 2004).This latter mandate has often been overlooked inpractice, until RTI entered the national vernacularthat is.

1.2 Functions of Response toIntervention at School

Although RTI was included in the federal definitionof specific learning disabilities, to view it as onlya diagnostic tool is too limiting. We suggest thatRTI be considered the systematic use of assessmentdata to most efficiently allocate resources in orderto enhance student learning for all students and toeffectively identify those who are eligible for specialeducation services.

1.2.1 Brief Background

Gresham (2007) provides a brief summary of thehistorical antecedents of RTI, including: the Na-tional Research Council (NRC) report (see Heller,Holtzman, and Messick, 1982) in which the validityof the special education classification system wasevaluated; the LD Initiative that was sponsored bythe Office of Special Education Programs (U.S. De-partment of Education), which resulted in a national

conference held in Washington, DC, in 2001 (enti-tled the LD Summit); and the President’s Commis-sion on Excellence in Special Education (2002) thatrecognized RTI as an alternative to IQ-achievementdiscrepancy in the identification of SLD.

RTI is most often conceptualized as falling intotwo basic approaches to delivering interventions:(a) problem-solving approaches and (b) standardprotocol approaches (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, andYoung, 2003). The problem-solving approach isconceptualized as a systematic analysis of instruc-tional variables designed to isolate target skill/sub-skill deficits and shape targeted interventions (Bar-nett, Daly, Jones and Lentz, 2004). In the standardprotocol approach, a standard set of empirically sup-ported instructional approaches is implemented toremediate academic problems.

Although this dichotomous view of RTI is some-what common, most RTI models described in lit-erature combine the two approaches (Burns andCoolong-Chaffin, 2006; Reschly, 2003), which ap-pears to indicate that this dichotomy is somewhat ar-tificial (Christ, Burns, and Ysseldyke, 2005). Prob-lem solving is a term with a more general meaningthan that presented by Fuchs et al. (2003). Deno’s(2002) seminal paper described problem solving asany set of activities that are designed to “eliminatethe difference between ‘what is’ and ‘what shouldbe’ with respect to student development” (p. 38).There is a fundamental difference between problem-solving and standard protocol approaches to RTIregarding the depth of problem analysis that occursprior to the designing and implementing an interven-tion (Christ et al., 2005). However, both approachesare consistent with problem solving as described byDeno (2002), because both seek to reduce or elimi-nate the difference between what is and what shouldbe. Thus, both approaches to RTI are actually prob-lem solving and probably function optimally whenintegrated into one three-tiered service delivery sys-tem (O’Shaughnessy, Lane, Gresham, and Beebe-Frankenberger 2003).

What are commonly referred to as standard pro-tocol interventions are actually standardized small-group interventions that can be implemented with15% to 20% of the student population. This group-ing and standardization allows for more intensiveinterventions that are provided in typical class-room instruction through a relatively cost efficientmanner. Only when children fail to succeed in


1. RTI at School: The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention 5

these standardized approaches is it necessary to iso-late and manipulate individual environmental vari-ables through a problem analysis approach, or whatis commonly referred to as problem solving. Aneffective general education core curriculum andquality instructional methodology, and an effec-tive small-group standardized intervention shouldresult in only approximately 5% of the student pop-ulation requiring such an intensive data collectionand analysis procedure (VanDerHeyden, Witt, andGilbertson, 2007; VanDerHeyden, Witt, andNaquin, 2003).

1.3 Essential Role of Research inAdvancing Science and Practice

Rather than attempting to identify how RTI modelsdiffer, it is time to examine what they have in com-mon, because language regarding RTI within federalspecial education regulations is quite limited andvague. Some of the core concepts of RTI as iden-tified by the National Research Center on Learn-ing Disabilities (2002) include (a) students receivehigh-quality instruction in their general educationsetting, (b) general education instruction is researchbased, (c) school staff conduct universal screen-ings and continuously monitor progress, (d) schoolstaff implement specific, research-based interven-tions to address student difficulties and monitorprogress to determine if they are effective, and(e) the fidelity or integrity with which instructionand interventions are implemented is systematicallyassessed.

Whereas information provided by National Re-search Center on Learning Disabilities is helpful,clearly the operationalization and implementationof RTI requires further research and clarification.The U.S. Department of Education, Institute ofEducation Sciences (Institute of Educational Sci-ences, 2006) emphasizes the importance of system-atic and experimental application of RTI: (a) acrossthe full range of school curricula and content areasat the preschool, primary, elementary and secondaryschooling levels; (b) in which empirically estab-lished interventions are implemented with high fi-delity in various combinations under a range of taskand performance conditions within a three-tieredframework across the full range of grade levels orage groups; (c) across all levels of instructional in-

tensity, frequency, and duration (e.g., high, moder-ate, or low levels of intensity, frequency, and dura-tion in the presentation of stimuli and opportunitiesto respond within fixed or varied amounts of instruc-tional time); and (d) across a range of measures de-signed for initial screening and progress monitoring(p. 29).

Additionally, further research is needed regard-ing the implementation of RTI at the district and/orschool levels. Burns and Ysseldyke (2005) identi-fied several questions regarding RTI implementa-tion including: (a) are there validated interventionmodels; (b) are there adequately trained personnel;(c) what leadership is needed for success; (d) whenshould due process protection begin; (e) is RTI adefensible endpoint in the identification process; (f)what implementation procedures are needed at thesecondary level; (g) what role should parents havein the process; and (h) how should implementationintegrity be viewed and assessed? Previous studieshave addressed some of the questions, but othersremain unanswered.

Many equate implementation integrity with treat-ment fidelity, but the former term is more accu-rate to use in RTI because data are needed toassess the integrity with which interventions aredeveloped and implemented (Noell and Gansle,2006). For example, previous research has exam-ined the predictive validity of RTI data and earlyreading measures in predicting future reading dif-ficulties and disabilities (Jenkins, 2003; McMaster,Fuchs, Fuchs, and Compton, 2005; Ritchey and Fo-ley, 2006). However, Institute of Educational Sci-ences (2006) recommends further studies examin-ing how the accuracy of risk prediction is affectedby: (a) the assessment approaches (i.e., static, dy-namic, progress monitoring) or combination of as-sessment approaches implemented within a class-room or school; (b) the measures administered andskills assessed within a specified domain at particu-lar grade levels and times of the school year; and (c)decision rules for defining cut-scores and statisticaltechniques for analyzing student performance datathat determine inadequate response, predict futuredifficulties, and result in acceptable levels of sensi-tivity (e.g., indicates percentage of children who willbe identified as having a specific learning disabilityout of all the children who actually have one), speci-ficity (e.g., indicates percentage of children whowill be identified as not having a specific learning



disability out of all of the children who do not haveone), false positive rates (e.g., indicates percentageof students who will be identified as having a spe-cific learning disability out of all the children whoactually do not have one), and false negative rates(e.g., indicates the percentage of children who willbe identified as not having a specific learning dis-ability out of all of the children who actually do havea specific learning disability) (p. 29).

Based on the extant empirical evidence, a numberof key questions and principles are evident.

Key questions regarding the implementation ofRTI models. There are many questions that remain tobe addressed regarding wide-scale implementation,including:

1. What will the effects be on student and sys-temic outcomes? Although research has been con-ducted on the effects of RTI approaches on bothstudent (e.g., increasing student reading, decreas-ing student difficulties) and systemic (e.g., reduc-ing the number of referrals to and placements inspecial education) with positive effects (Burns, Ap-pleton, and Stehouwer, 2005), these studies fo-cused primarily on existing models with little ex-perimental control. Thus, additional research isneeded that examines the effects of RTI on sys-temic outcomes in tightly controlled studies. More-over, very few studies used randomization or controlgroups.

2. What will the effects be on educational pro-fessionals? Reschly (2003) presented data regard-ing the effect that practicing in an RTI model hadon the functions of school psychologists and Burnsand Coolong-Chaffin (2006) discussed specific ac-tivities that school psychologists should engage inwhen using an RTI model. However, few data havebeen published regarding the roles and outcomesfor other personnel. Moreover, how will RTI affecttraining programs? Do training programs graduateprofessionals with the skill set necessary to com-petently participate in RTI; and if not, how shouldthe training change? Previous studies demonstratedthat training preservice special education teachersin reading tutoring and curriculum-based measure-ment led to improved knowledge about reading in-struction (Al Otaiba and Lake, 2006), but little isknown about the frequency with which these skillsare taught in training programs.

Principles regarding the implementation of RTImodels. Successful wide-scale implementation willtake considerable, time, resources, leadership, plan-ning, preparation of professionals, and empirical ev-idence.

Time. Efforts to implement various RTI models(including Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio,Pennsylvania, and Minnesota) reveal that the pro-cess typically takes years, or even decades, and isbetter characterized as a dynamic ongoing process,rather than an event that is completed on a given date.Moreover, the more comprehensive the RTI model,the greater the duration to prepare, implement, andevaluate. School districts may benefit from imple-menting RTI procedures on a small scale with highquality while building local capacity for implemen-tation on a wider scale.

Resources. States that appear to have made themost progress in implementing RTI models havealso invested considerable resources. For example,Florida implemented a series of initiatives and in-vested millions of dollars during the past decadethat have set the foundation for current efforts toimplement RTI models state-wide, and the currentfunds invested in the implementation efforts involvemillions of dollars each year. Other states have im-plemented smaller grant initiatives.

Leadership. Each of the states that have madesignificant efforts to implement RTI models (e.g.,Florida, Michigan, and Ohio) includes strong lead-ership at the state level. This leadership is typicallyreflected at multiple levels of education in the state(e.g., State Department of Education, university fac-ulty, and school administrators). Representation,buy-in, and contributions of multiple stakeholdersare each important facets that may be facilitated byleaders. Moreover, successful state initiatives havebeen supported with considerable technical supportfrom the State Department of Education, often incollaboration with a university.

Planning. Strategic plans for the preparation ofprofessionals involved and implementation proce-dures are important for implementing RTI models.Research and focus are needed on pre-service pro-fessionals. In-service training was critical to previ-ously successful RTI implementation, and this willcontinue to be critical to successful RTI implemen-tation as professionals working in the field acquirethe skills necessary to successfully implement RTI.



Preparation of professionals. Implementation re-quires training to provide essential knowledge andskills to educational professionals who will be re-sponsible for implementing RTI models. Curric-ula of general education teachers, special educationteachers, and school psychologists should addresseffective instruction in general and across multi-ple topical areas, data-based instructional decisionmaking, involvement in effective problem-solvingteams, individual differences for learners, school–home collaboration, and making instructional mod-ifications to accommodate diversity within gen-eral education. Some of the specific skills associ-ated with RTI (e.g., curriculum-based assessmentand measurement, reading interventions) are per-haps best learned through case-based and service-learning activities (Al Otaiba, 2005). Thus, intern-ships in teaching and school psychology trainingprograms should include an RTI focus.

Empirical evidence. Quantifying the empiricalbase for RTI presents considerable challenges, asit is essential to identify the standards or criteriathat will be used in determining evidence-basedpractices. One source of information is the extantliterature base, but future RTI efforts must incor-porate emerging empirical evidence regarding as-sessment and intervention strategies. There is astrong research base for many practices within theareas of reading instruction, reading assessment,and interventions for exceptional learners. How-ever, more is needed regarding: small-group in-terventions for children at risk for reading fail-ure; effective problem-solving practices; effectiveschool-based screening and interventions for youthwith social, emotional, and behavioral problems;and effective interventions for youth in secondaryschools.

Evaluation. Systematic formative and summativeevaluation of RTI implementation is essential to fur-ther understanding critical features of models. Es-tablishing evaluation measures and processes to beshared throughout and across states would be espe-cially valuable in advancing knowledge of processesand student outcomes associated with various RTImodels.

The findings of the President’s Commission onExcellence in Special Education (2001) empha-sized that special education needs to focus on out-comes rather than processes. In addition, we be-

lieve process data are important when it comes toRTI. There is a growing consensus that implemen-tation integrity will be the most significant obstacleto overcome when implementing RTI on a nationallevel (Burns, Vanderwood, and Ruby, 2005; Burnsand Ysseldyke, 2005; Noell and Gansle, 2006; Ys-seldyke, 2005). Thus, assessing the fidelity withwhich RTI models are implemented will be criticalto its success.

1.4 Conclusions

Educational practices are already being modified;however, there is a paucity of resources that synthe-size essential knowledge regarding the conceptualand empirical underpinnings of RTI and actual im-plementation. In many ways, it appears that recentlegislation and many RTI initiatives during the pastdecade serve as a catalyst for further efforts andfuture scholarship to advance understanding of thescience and practice of assessment and interventionat school. The Handbook of Response to Interven-tion (Jimerson, Burns, and VanDerHeyden, 2007)provides a collection of chapters that address essen-tial aspects of RTI.

RTI models have considerable promise forscreening, intervention service delivery, and cata-lysts for system change. Research is needed to artic-ulate purposes, operationalize procedures and judg-ments, and evaluate the decision-making utility ofthe models in practice. It is important to articulatehow RTI can be judged (which behaviors to mea-sure, how frequently, for how long, under what stim-ulus conditions, and compared with what referencegroup using what units of measurement) and demon-strate that this judgment is functionally meaningful(VanDerHeyden and Jimerson, 2005). Whereas theroots of RTI are discernible in a research base thatstretches back over the last 30 years in the areas ofbehavior analysis, precision teaching, direct instruc-tion, curriculum-based assessment, measurement,and evaluation, and effective teaching, RTI remainstoday an evolving science of decision-making. Overtime, consensus may emerge about the purposes ofRTI, the best ways to operationalize the independentvariable or variables under RTI, and how technicaladequacy of RTI implemented in schools can bestbe evaluated (VanDerHeyden, Witt, and Barnett,



2005). Today’s schools operate within a challeng-ing context that is best addressed by adherence toscientific principles and consistent implementationof the scientific method to examine system and in-dividual variables (Ysseldyke et al., 2006). In otherwords, science should inform practice and practiceshould inform science. It is our intent that this hand-book will do just that for RTI in order to advanceboth science and practice, and enhance the lives ofthe children we serve.

References

Al Otaiba, S. (2005). Response to early literacy instruc-tion: Practical issues for early childhood personnelpreparation. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Edu-cation, 25, 201–209.

Al Otaiba, S. & Lake, V. E. (in press). Preparing specialeducators to teach reading and use curriculum-basedassessments. Reading and Writing Quarterly.

Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F. E.(2004). Response to intervention: Empirically basedspecial service decisions from single-case designs ofincreasing and decreasing intensity. The Journal ofSpecial Education, 38, 66–79.

Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J.D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of response-to-intervention research: Examining field-based andresearch-implemented models. Journal of Psychoed-ucational Assessment, 23, 381–394.

Burns, M. K. & Coolong-Chaffin, M. (2006). Response-to-intervention: Role for and effect on school psychol-ogy. School Psychology Forum, 1 (1), 3–15.

Burns, M. K., Vanderwood, M., & Ruby, S. (2005). Eval-uating the readiness of prereferral intervention teamsfor use in a problem-solving model: Review of threelevels of research. School Psychology Quarterly, 20,89–105.

Burns, M. K. & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Compari-son of existing responsiveness-to-intervention mod-els to identify and answer implementation ques-tions. The California School Psychologist, 10,9–20.

Christ, T. J., Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005).Conceptual confusion within response-to-interventionvernacular: Clarifying meaningful differences. Com-munique, 34(3).

Deno, S. L. (2002). Problem solving as best practices.In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices inschool psychology, 4th ed. (pp. 37–56). Bethesda, MD:National Association of School Psychologists.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L.(2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions,

evidence, and implications for the learning disabilitiesconstruct. Learning Disabilities Research and Prac-tice, 18, 157–171.

Gresham, F. M. (2007). Evolution of the RTI concept:empirical foundations and recent developments. InJimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., and VanDerHeyden, A.M. (Eds.), The Handbook of Response to Intervention:The Science and Practice of Assessment and Interven-tion. New York: Springer.

Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (1982).Placing Children In Special Education: Theoriesand Recommendations. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Institute of Educational Sciences (2006). Special Edu-cation Research Grants CFDA 84.324 (IES-NCSER-2007-01). Online at http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/funding/response/response.asp (downloaded 7.1.2006).

Jenkins, J. (2003). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at the National ResearchCenter on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton,D. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: Anexperimental field trial of identification and inter-vention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.

Noell, G. H. & Gansle, K. A. (2006). Assuring the formhas substance: Treatment plan implementation as thefoundation of assessing response to intervention. As-sessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 32–39.

National Research Center on Learning Disabili-ties. (2002). Core Concepts of RTI. Online athttp://www.nrcld.org/html/research/rti/concepts.html(downloaded 6.23.2006).

O’Shaughnessy, T. E., Lane, K. L., Greshman, F. M., &Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E. (2003). Children placedat risk for learning and behavioral difficulties: Imple-menting a school-wide system of early identificationand intervention. Remedial & Special Education, 24,27–35.

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Educa-tion (2001). A New Era: Revitalizing Special Educationfor Children and their Families. Washington, DC: USDepartment of Education.

Reschly, R. J. (2003). What if LD identification changedto reflect research findings? Paper presented at theNational Research Center on Learning DisabilitiesResponsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, KansasCity, MO.

Ritchey, K. D. & Foley, J. E. (2006). Responsiveness toinstruction as a method of identifying at-risk kinder-garten readers: a one-year follow-up. Paper presentedat the Council for Exceptional Children Annual Con-ference, Salt Lake City, UT.



VanDerHeyden, A. M. & Jimerson, S. R. (2005). Usingresponse to intervention to enhance outcomes for chil-dren. The California School Psychologist, 10, 21–32.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Barnett, D. A.(2005). The emergence and possible futures of re-sponse to intervention. Journal of PsychoeducationalAssessment, 23, 339–361.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. A.(2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a re-sponse to intervention (RTI) model on the identifica-tion of children for special education. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 45, 225–256.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Naquin, G. (2003).Development and validation of a process for screen-ing referrals to special education. School PsychologyReview, 32, 204–227.

Ysseldyke, J. (2005). Assessment and decision makingfor students with learning disabilities: What is this isas good as it gets? Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 28,125–128.

Ysseldyke, J., Burns, M., Dawson, P., Kelley, B., Morri-son, D., Ortiz, S., et al. (2006). School Psychology: ABlueprint for Training in Practice III. Bethesda, MD:National Association of School Psychologists.

P1: OTE/SPH P2: OTE

SVNY355-Jimerson (V1) April 27, 2007 15:42

2Evolution of the Response-to-InterventionConcept: Empirical Foundations andRecent Developments

Frank M. GreshamFrank M. Gresham, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at Louisiana State [email protected]

Traditionally, schools address students’ academicand behavioral difficulties in terms of a predictablethree-stage process that can be described as a “refer-test-place” approach. That is, students presentingacademic and/or behavior problems are referred toa child study team that offers recommendations foran intervention to resolve the problem. Very often,however, these interventions are not evidence basedand are often ineffective in solving the referral con-cern. These ineffective interventions then are fol-lowed by an official referral to a school psychol-ogist or an assessment team to determine whetherthe student meets eligibility requirements for spe-cial education under a designated disability cate-gory (typically specific learning disabilities, emo-tional disturbance (ED), or mild mental retarda-tion). Finally, if a team believes that the studentis eligible for special education and related ser-vices, he or she is placed into special educationand an individualized educational plan (IEP) is writ-ten (see Bocian, Beebe, MacMillan, and Gresham,1999).

The aforementioned process has been the mostcommon process in determining special educationeligibility and placement since 1975, when the Edu-cation of All Handicapped Children Act was passed(Public Law 94-142). Despite over 30 years of ex-perience with this approach, there are some ma-jor drawbacks and disadvantages inherent in thisprocess. This approach often penalizes students byusing arbitrary eligibility criteria that many timesresult in delaying services and often providingthese students with ineffective and scientificallybaseless interventions to remediate their academic

and behavioral difficulties (Denton, Vaughn andFletcher, 2003; Gresham, 2002; Vaughn and Fuchs,2003).

The purpose of this chapter is to present the evo-lution of the response to intervention (RTI) conceptand discuss how that concept can be and is beingused to provide more effective services to childrenand youth with both academic and social/behavioraldifficulties. A definition of RTI is provided, alongwith a brief discussion of the historical antecedentsof RTI in the literature. RTI is described as beingpresented in either a problem-solving or standardprotocol approach; however, some applications ofthis process use a combination of both approaches.Recent empirical support for using RTI principlesais described, along with measurement challengesthat present themselves when applying RTI to makeintervention and eligibility determinations for bothacademic and behavioral difficulties.

2.1 Conceptual and DefinitionalAspects of Response to Intervention

RTI is based on the notion of determining whetheran adequate or inadequate change in academic orbehavioral performance has been achieved becauseof an intervention (Gresham, 1991, 2002). In an RTIapproach, decisions regarding changing or intensi-fying an intervention are made based on how well orhow poorly a student responds to an evidence-basedintervention that is implemented with integrity. RTIis used to select, change, or titrate interventionsbased on how the child responds to that intervention.

10

P1: OTE/SPH P2: OTE


2. Evolution of the Response-to-Intervention Concept 11

RTI assumes that if a child shows an inadequate re-sponse to the best interventions available and fea-sible in a given setting, then that child can andshould be eligible for additional assistance, includ-ing more intense interventions, special assistance,and special education and related services. RTI isnot used exclusively to make special education en-titlement decisions, although it may be used for thispurpose.

RTI is not a new concept in other fields. The fieldof medicine provides a particularly salient exampleof how physicians utilize RTI principles their every-day practice to treat physical diseases. Physiciansassess weight, blood pressure, and heart rate everytime they see a patient because these three factorsare important indicators of general physical healthand have scientifically well-established benchmarksfor typical and atypical functioning. If weight andblood pressure exceed established benchmarks, thenphysicians may recommend that the patient diet, ex-ercise, and quit smoking. The next time the patientsees the physician, these same indicators are mea-sured; if the indicators show no change, then thephysician may place the patient on a specific dietand exercise regimen and tell the patient to stopsmoking. The next time the physician sees the pa-tient these same indicators are taken; if they stillshow no change, then the physician may put the pa-tient on medication, refer to a dietician, and sendthe patient to a smoking cessation clinic. Finally,the next time the physician sees the patient, thesame indicator data are collected and if they arestill in the atypical range, then, upon further assess-ments, the patient may require surgery to preventmortality. Several important points should be notedin considering the above example. First, interven-tion intensity is increased only after data suggestthat the patient shows an inadequate response to in-tervention. Second, treatment decisions are based onobjective data that are collected continuously over aperiod of time (data-based decision-making). Third,the data that are collected are well-established indi-cators of general physical health. Finally, decisionsabout treatment intensity are based on the collectionof more and more data as the patient moves througheach stage of treatment intensification. RTI can andshould be used in a parallel manner in schools tomake important educational decisions for childrenand youth.

2.2 Historical Antecedents ofResponse to Intervention

The basis of the RTI approach, at least in special edu-cation, can be traced back to the National ResearchCouncil (NRC) report (see Heller, Holtzman, andMessick, 1982), in which the validity of the specialeducation classification system was evaluated on thebasis of three criteria: (a) the quality of the generaleducation program, (b) the value of the special ed-ucation program in producing important outcomesfor students, and (c) the accuracy and meaningful-ness of the assessment process in the identificationof disability. Vaughn and Fuchs (2003) suggestedthat the first two criteria emphasized the quality ofinstruction (both general education and special ed-ucation), whereas the third criterion involved judg-ments of the quality of instructional environmentsand the student’s response to instruction delivered inthose environments. The third criterion described inthe NRC report is consistent with Messick’s (1995)evidential and consequential bases for test use andinterpretation. That is, there must be evidential andconsequential bases for using and interpreting testsin a certain way. If these bases exist to a sufficientdegree, then we may conclude that there is suffi-cient evidence for the validity of a given assessmentprocedure.

Speece (2002) described problems with IQ-achievement discrepancy in terms of unintended so-cial consequences, such as the difficulty of youngchildren qualifying under this criterion and the over-representation of males and minority children usingthis approach. Additionally, there are concerns thatthe discrepancy approach does not inform instruc-tional decisions that might be used to improve stu-dent outcomes (Gresham, 2002). Heller et al. (1982)argued that a special education classification mightbe considered valid only when all three criteria aremet.

2.2.1 Concept of Treatment Validity

Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) argued for a reconceptual-ization of the learning disabled (LD) identificationprocess based on a treatment validity criterion. Thisapproach does not classify as LD unless and until ithas been demonstrated empirically that they are not

P1: OTE/SPH P2: OTE


12 Frank M. Gresham

benefiting from the general education curriculum.Treatment validity (sometimes called instructionalutility) can be defined as the extent to which anyassessment procedure contributes to beneficial out-comes for individuals (Cone, 1989; Hayes, Nelson,and Jarrett, 1987). A central feature of treatment va-lidity is that there must be a clear and unambiguousrelationship between the assessment data collectedand the recommended intervention. Although thenotion of treatment validity evolved from the behav-ioral assessment literature, it shares several commonfeatures and concepts with the traditional psycho-metric literature.

First, treatment validity is based, in part, uponthe idea of incremental validity, in that it requiresthat an assessment procedure improve predictionbeyond existing assessment procedures (Sechrest,1963). As will be discussed later, a major advan-tage of an RTI approach is the collection of addi-tional information over time that adds incrementalvalidity to the assessment process. Second, treat-ment validity involves the concepts of utility andcost–benefit analysis that are common concepts inthe personnel selection literature (Mischel, 1968;Wiggins, 1973). Third, treatment validity involvesMessick’s (1995) notion of the evidential and con-sequential bases of test use and interpretation as itrelates to construct validity, relevance/utility, andsocial consequences of testing. It should be notedthat an assessment procedure might have adequateevidence for construct validity, but have little, if any,relevance or utility for treatment planning (i.e., ab-sence of treatment validity). As will be describedlater, all cognitive ability tests suffer from this fatalflaw of treatment invalidity (see Cronbach, 1975;Gresham and Witt, 1997; Reschly and Ysseldyke,2002).

For any assessment procedure to have treatmentvalidity, it must lead to identification-relevant areasof concern (academic or behavioral), inform treat-ment planning, and be useful in evaluating treatmentoutcomes. Traditionally, many assessment proce-dures in applied psychology have failed to demon-strate treatment validity because they do not informinstructional and behavioral intervention practices(Cronbach, 1975; Gresham, 2002). The concept ofRTI depends largely upon the treatment validity ofmeasures used to determine adequate or inadequatetreatment response.

2.2.2 Operationalizing of the NationalResearch Council Criteria

Fuchs and Fuchs (1997, 1998) operationalized theNRC criteria by using a curriculum-based measure-ment (CBM) approach that measures a student’sresponsiveness or unresponsiveness to interventiondelivered in the general education classroom. In ear-lier work, Fuchs (1995) compared the RTI approachwith the practice used in medicine, whereby a child’sgrowth over time is compared with that of a same-age group. A child showing a large discrepancy be-tween his or her height and that of a normative sam-ple might be considered a candidate for certain typesof medical intervention (e.g., growth hormone ther-apy). In education, a child showing a discrepancybetween the current level of academic performanceand that of same-age peers in the same classroommight be considered a candidate for special educa-tion. It should be noted that a low-performing childwho shows a growth rate similar to that of peersin a low-performing classroom would not be con-sidered a candidate for special education becausethe child is deriving similar educational benefitsfrom that classroom (Fuchs, 1995). Thus, employ-ing an IQ-achievement discrepancy criterion us-ing national norms may identify this child as LD,whereas using an RTI approach using local normswould not.

Unlike traditional LD assessment, which mea-sures students at one point in time using ability,achievement, and processing measures, the treat-ment validity approach repeatedly measures the stu-dent’s progress in the general education curriculumusing CBM. Special education is considered onlyif the child’s performance shows a dual discrep-ancy (DD), in which performance is below the levelof classroom peers and the student’s learning rate(growth) is substantially below that of classroompeers.

The CBM-DD model for determining LD eligi-bility consists of three phases. Phase I involves thedocumentation of adequate classroom instructionand dual discrepancies. This phase meets the firstcriterion of the NRC report involving the adequacyof the general education curriculum (Heller et al.,1982). During this phase, overall classroom perfor-mance is compared with the performance relativeto other classrooms or district norms. If classroom

P1: OTE/SPH P2: OTE


2. Evolution of the Response-to-Intervention Concept 13

performance is adequate, then individual studentdata are evaluated to determine the presence of aDD based on: (a) a difference of one standard de-viation between a student’s CBM median score andthat of classmates (level) and (b) a difference of onestandard deviation between a student’s CBM growth(slope) and that of classmates. Students meetingthese criteria and who do not have accompanying ex-clusionary conditions (e.g., mental retardation, sen-sory disabilities, autism) move on to Phase II of theprocess.

Phase II of this process involves implementationof a prereferral intervention focusing on remediat-ing the student’s DD. CBM data are collected tojudge the effectiveness of the intervention with theprovision that the teacher implements a minimum oftwo interventions over a 6-week period. If a studentdoes not show an adequate response to interventionin terms of level of slope, then the student entersPhase III of the process.

Phase III involves the design and implementa-tion of an extended intervention plan. This phaserepresents a special education diagnostic trial pe-riod in which the student’s responsiveness to a moreintense intervention is measured. This phase oftenlasts 8 weeks, after which a team reconvenes andmakes decisions about the student’s most appropri-ate placement. The team could decide that the in-tervention was successful and an IEP would be de-veloped and the plan continued. Alternatively, theteam could decide that the intervention was unsuc-cessful in eliminating the DD and consider alter-native decisions, such as changing the nature andintensity of the intervention, collecting additionalassessment information, considering a more restric-tive placement, or changing to a school having ad-ditional resources that better addresses the student’sneeds. In this CBM-DD model, a student qualifiesfor LD if he or she passes a three-pronged test: (a)a DD between the student’s performance level andgrowth (one standard deviation for each), (b) thestudent’s rate of learning with adaptations made inthe general education classroom is inadequate, and(c) the provision of special education must resultin improved growth. Speece and Case (2001) pro-vided further validity evidence for the CBM-DDmodel in identifying students as LD. Children wereidentified as being at risk for reading failure if theirmean performance on CBM reading probes placed

them in the lower quartile of their classes. A contrastgroup was identified that included five students fromeach classroom based on scores at the median (twostudents) and the 30th, 75th, and 90th percentiles(one student at each level). At-risk students wereplaced into one of three groups: CBM DD (CBM-DD), regression-based IQ-reading achievement dis-crepancy (IQ-DS), and low achievement (LA). Stu-dents in the CBM-DD group were given 10 CBMoral reading probes administered across the schoolyear. Slopes based on ordinary least-squares regres-sion for each child and classroom were computedand each student’s performance level was based onthe mean of the last two data points. Children wereplaced in the CBM-DD group (n = 47) if their slopeacross the year and level of performance at the endof the year was greater than one standard deviationbelow that of classmates. Students were placed inthe IQ-DS group (n = 17) if their IQ-DS was 1.5 ormore standard errors of prediction (approximately a20-point discrepancy). Children were placed in theLA group (n = 28) if their total reading score wasless than a standard score of 90.

Speece and Case (2001) showed that students inthe CBM-DD group were more deficient on mea-sures of phonological processing and were rated byteachers as having lower academic competence andsocial skills and more problem behaviors than stu-dents in the IQ-DS and LA groups. The CBM-DDand IQ-DS groups were not different on a standard-ized measure of reading achievement demonstrat-ing the sensitivity of the CBM-DD model. Thesedata offer further support for the CBM-DD modelto identify students as LD, specifically those withphonological deficits. In later commenting on thisstudy, Speece, Case, and Molloy (2003, p. 150)stated:

. . . by focusing on both level and growth in reading

achievement as indexed by CBM, a valid group of chil-

dren who experience reading problems was identified.

Although much simpler identification methods would be

preferred, other analyses indicated that single indicators

of reading difficulty (letter sound fluency, oral reading

fluency, phonological awareness) were not sensitive indi-

cators of either DD or status as problem readers. . . The

dual discrepancy method would require major challenges

in the way children are identified; however, our initial ev-

idence suggests that benefits may outweigh the costs of

change.

P1: OTE/SPH P2: OTE


14 Frank M. Gresham

2.2.3 The Learning Disabilities Summit

The RTI concept received further attention as a vi-able alternative to the IQ-achievement discrepancyapproach from the LD Initiative that was sponsoredby the Office of Special Education Programs (USDepartment of Education). The LD Initiative wasa working group meeting held in Washington, DC,in May, 1999, and was attended by numerous re-searchers and leaders in the field over a 2-day period.Based on the LD Initiative, a national conferencewas held in Washington, DC, in August, 2001, enti-tled the LD Summit. Nine white papers were writtenand presented over a 2-day period to a group of LDprofessionals and stakeholders from all over the US.One paper (Gresham, 2002) specifically addressedthe literature on responsiveness to intervention thatwas responded to by four professionals within thefield of LD (Fuchs, 2002; Grimes, 2002; Vaughn,2002; Vellutino, 2002). This paper argued that astudent’s inadequate response to an empirically val-idated intervention implemented with integrity canand should be used as evidence of the presence ofLD and should be used to classify students as such.Gresham (2002) maintained that RTI was a viablealternative to defining LD, particularly in light of themyriad of difficulties with discrepancy-based mod-els that were and are currently being used to identifythis disability.

Subsequent to the LD Summit, the President’sCommission on Excellence in Special Education(2002) emphasized RTI as a viable alternative to IQ-achievement discrepancy in the identification of LD.In December, 2004, President Bush signed into lawthe reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabil-ities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004).The law now reads with respect to specific learningdisabilities:

Specific learning disabilities: (A) General: Notwithstand-

ing section 607 of this Act, or any other provision of law,

when determining whether a child has a specific learn-

ing disability as defined under this Act, the LEA shall

not be required to take into consideration whether a child

has a severe discrepancy between achievement and in-

tellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehen-

sion, reading recognition, . . . (B) Additional Authority: In

determining whether a child has a specific learning dis-

ability, a LEA may use a process which determines if a

child responds to a scientific, research based intervention.

(Emphases added)

Clearly, the reauthorized version of IDEIA doesnot require nor does it eliminate IQ-achievementdiscrepancy as a basis of identifying children withLD. Moreover, it allows, but does not require, schooldistricts (LEAs) to use an RTI approach to identify-ing LD.

2.3 Response-to-InterventionModels

There are two basic approaches to delivering in-terventions within an RTI model: (a) problem-solving approaches and (b) standard-protocol ap-proaches (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, and Young, 2003).These two approaches are described in the follow-ing section. Some RTI models combine the twoapproaches, particularly within a multi-tier modelof service delivery, and may be particularly usefulin school settings (Barnett, Daly, Jones, and Lentz,2004; Duhon et al. 2004; Noell et al., 1998; VanDerHeyden, Witt, and Naquin, 2003). These modelsare best described as multi-tier RIT approaches tointervention.

2.3.1 Problem-Solving Approaches

Problem solving can be traced back to the behav-ioral consultation model first described by Bergan(1977) and later revised and updated by Bergan andKratochwill (1990). Behavioral consultation takesplace in a sequence of four phases: (a) problem iden-tification, (b) problem analysis, (c) plan implemen-tation, and (d) plan evaluation. The goal in behav-ioral consultation is to define the problem in clear,unambiguous, and operational terms, to identify en-vironmental conditions related to the referral prob-lem, to design and implement an intervention planwith integrity, and to evaluate the effectiveness of theintervention (Bergan and Kratochwill, 1990). Morerecently, the behavioral consultation model was de-scribed by Tilly (2002) in the form of four funda-mental questions governing the identification andintervention of school-based academic and behav-ioral problems: (a) What is the problem? (b) Whyis the problem happening? (c) What should be doneabout it? (d) Did it work? Each of these problem-solving steps is described briefly in the followingsection.

Documents

Handbook of Response to Intervention...Handbook of Response to Intervention The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention Edited by Shane R. Jimerson University of California