Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
1
Running head: CONCEPTUAL & EMPIRICAL ISSUES OF RTI
Conceptual & Empirical Issues Related to
Developing a Response-to-Intervention Framework
John M. Hintze
University of Massachusetts
Correspondance regarding this article should be directed to John M. Hintze, Ph.D., University of
Massachusetts at Amherst, School Psychology Program, 362 Hills House South, Amherst, MA,
01003 or email at <hintze@educ.umass.edu>.
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
2
Abstract
Response to Intervention (RTI) is used to promote the use of evidence-based instruction in
classrooms with the goal to make general, remedial, and special education work together in a
more integrated way. In doing so, RTI provides a means of identifying students at-risk for
academic difficulties and specialized forms of education using assessment data that reflects
students’ response to general education instruction and more targeted forms of intervention. This
paper presents a conceptual overview of RTI and discusses key dimensions most salient to RTI
development. Implementation issues and empirical research needs are discussed.
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
3
Conceptual & Empirical Issues Related to
Developing a Response-to-Intervention Framework
At the present time, students with learning disabilities (LD) constitute the majority of the
school-age individuals with disabilities, with the number of LD students increasing from 1.2
million in 1979-1980 to 2.9 million in 2003-2004 (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). As a
result of these increasing prevalence rates, establishing acceptable criteria for LD identification
has been a controversial issue in the field (Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002). From a policy
perspective as well, the identification of LD is a particularly salient issue in part because of the
increase cost associated in providing special education to students served under this
classification: $12,000 per student in special education versus $6,500 per student in general
education (Chambers, Parrish, & Harr, 2002).
Central to the identification controversy is the IQ-Achievement discrepancy. Although
not required by law, a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability is
frequently used for identification, in spite of the numerous measurement and conceptual
problems this approach presents (Fletcher et al., 2002; Kavale, 2002). For example, for students
with reading difficulties, few cognitive or affective characteristics differentiate poor readers with
discrepancies from those without discrepancies (Fletcher, Lyon, & Barnes, 1994; Foorman,
Francis, Fletcher, & Lynn, 1996; Stuebing et al., 2002). The degree of discrepancy from IQ does
not meaningfully relate to the severity of the LD (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). Moreover, the
discrepancy score has been demonstrated to be unreliable (Reynolds, 1984) and the
preponderance of the evidence suggests that such an approach fails to inform instruction in
important and meaningful ways (Elliott & Fuchs, 1997).
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
4
Dissatisfaction with the discrepancy approach to LD identification has been echoed by
recent federal initiatives such as the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education
and the Office of Special Education Programs Learning Disabilities Initiative. Each has called
for a reconceptualization of LD from a within-child endogenous assessment of skills and
weaknesses to a model which considers LD from the perspective of responsiveness to
scientifically validated forms of instruction (Berninger & Abbott, 1994; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998;
Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). Moreover, the recent reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) contains authority that allows local education agencies
to discontinue the use of IQ-Achievement discrepancy approach and to use RTI as part of the
evaluation procedures for identifying students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) [PL 108446, Part B, Sec 614(b)(6)(b)]. As an alternative to the discrepancy approach to LD
identification, RTI holds considerable promise and has the potential to (1) identify students with
SLDs earlier and more reliably, (2) reduce the number of students who are referred
inappropriately to special education, and (3) reduce the overidentification of minority students
placed in special education (National Academy of Sciences – Donovan & Cross, 2002; National
Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2005).
Theoretical/Conceptual Rationale for RTI
RTI is an approach to LD identification that was first proposed by a 1982 National
Research Council report (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982), whereby three criteria were
proposed for judging the validity of a special education classification. The first criterion was
whether the quality of the general education program is such that adequate learning might be
expected. The second consideration was whether the special education is of sufficient value to
improve student outcomes and thereby justify the classification. Lastly, the third criterion was
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
whether the assessment process used for identification was accurate and meaningful. When all
three criteria are met, a special education classification is deemed valid. The first two criteria
emphasize instructional quality; first in the setting were the problem develops and second under
the auspices of the special services the classification affords. By implication, the assessment
process, referred to in the third criterion requires judgments about the quality of instructional
environments and the student’s response to those environments.
In 1995, Fuchs operationalized the Heller et al. (1982) framework (see also Fuchs &
Fuchs, 1998) with the following assessment phases. In Tier I, the rate of growth for all students
is documented. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether the aggregate rate of
responsiveness to the instructional environment or general education curriculum is sufficiently
nurturing to expect student progress. If the mean rate of growth across students is low compared
to other classes in the same building, in the same district, or in the nation, then the appropriate
decision is to intervene at the aggregate level to develop a stronger or more beneficial
instructional program. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is classroom, grade level,
school, district, state, or national comparisons, students at this aggregated level should be
progressing at an appropriate rate without greater than expected numbers of students falling
behind. Tier I assessment addresses Heller et al.’s first criterion that the quality of general
education be such that adequate learning might be expected.
After the presence of a generally effective general education curriculum has been
established, Tier II assessment begins with the identification of individuals whose level of
performance and rate of improvement are below the aggregate mean. Here the purpose of
assessment is to identify a subset of students who may be at-risk for poor academic outcomes
and possibly LDs as indicated by a lack of adequate responsiveness to the generally effective
5
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
6
high quality general education curriculum. For this subset of students, standard protocol
interventions are implemented that have been specifically chosen to supplement the general
education curriculum and provide needed remediation in specified areas of academic skill
development (e.g., phonological awareness, phonics, alphabetic principle, vocabulary, reading
fluency, or reading comprehension). Student progress is routinely assessed and both level of
performance and rate of improvement evaluated after a 6 to 8 week intervention period. Students
who are responsive to Tier II intervention exit from the standard protocol intervention and
returned to Tier I status (i.e., all instruction is delivered in general education).
Students who fail to demonstrate change in level of performance or rate of improvement
in Tier II are transitioned to Tier III where an individualized plan of remediation is developed
and implemented with a small student:teacher ratio. The purpose of Tier III intervention and
assessment is to determine if and with what types of intervention supports can the general
education setting be transformed into a productive learning environment for students most at-risk
for LDs. Student responsiveness to intervention efforts are monitored on a frequent (e.g.,
weekly) basis to examine changes in student performance level and rate of improvement. When
corrective action fails to yield adequate growth does consideration of special education services
to supplement general education become warranted? The assumption is that if such level of
corrective adaptations in general education cannot produce growth for the individual, then the
student has some intrinsic deficit (i.e., disability) making it difficult to derive benefit from the
instructional environment that benefits the overwhelming majority of students (Fuchs & Vaughn,
2005). The conceptual framework for RTI and the RTI decision making process is illustrated in
the Figures 1 and 2.
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
7
Contemporary Issues Related to RTI Practices
Since Fuchs (1995) operationalized Heller et al.’s (1982) framework, RTI as a model of
instructional and assessment related service delivery has been redefined as a general education
initiative with special education serving as a defining aspect of responsiveness to intervention. In
particular, most contemporary conceptualizations of RTI contain the following essential
components that require various levels of technical assistance to support implementation at the
district level (NASDE, 2005):
Overarching Principles

We can effectively teach all children. RTI practices are founded on the assumption and
belief that all children can learn. The corollary is that it is responsibility of the school
system to identify the curricular, instructional and environmental conditions that enable
learning. Once identified, systems must determine the means and systems to provide
those resources.

Intervene early. It is best to intervene early when learning problems are relatively small.
Solving small problems is both more efficient and more successful than working with
more intense and severe problems. Highly effective universal interventions in K-3
informed by sensitive continuous progress monitoring enjoy strong empirical support for
their effectiveness with at-risk students.

Use of a multi-tier model of service delivery. Use efficient, needs-driven, resource
deployment systems to match instructional resources with student need. To achieve high
rates of student success for all students, instruction in schools must be differentiated in
both nature and intensity. To efficiently differentiate instruction for all students, tiered
models of service delivery are used in RTI systems.
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI

8
Use research-based, scientifically validated interventions/instruction to the extent
possible. NCLB and IDEA both require the use of scientifically-based curricula and
interventions. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that students are exposed to
curriculum and teaching that has demonstrated effectiveness for the type of student and
setting.

Monitor student progress to inform instruction. The only method to determine if a
student is improving is to measure the student’s progress. The use of assessments that
can be collected frequently and that are sensitive to small changes in student behavior is
recommended. Determining the effectiveness (or lack) of an intervention early is
important to maximize the impact of that intervention with the student.

Use data to make decisions. A data-based decision regarding student response to
intervention is central to RTI progress. Decisions in RTI practice are based on
professional judgment informed directly by student performance data. This principle
requires both that ongoing data collection systems are in place and that resulting data are
used to make informed instructional decisions.

Use assessment for three different purposes. In RTI, three types of assessments are used:
(a) screening applied to all children to identify those who are not making academic or
behavioral progress at expected rates, (b) diagnostics to determine what children can and
cannot do in important academic domains, and (c) progress monitoring to determine if
academic or behavioral interventions are producing desired effects.
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
9
Although most if not all users of RTI agree with the above overarching principles,
various models vary on a number of key dimensions.
Salient Dimensions in Implementing RTI

Number & Purpose of Tiers. Most proponents of RTI adopt a multi-tiered model of
intervention in which the intensity of services that are delivered is increased only after the
child’s performance has shown to be to inadequate or under-responsive to intervention
(Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005; NASDE, 2005; Reschly, Tilly, & Grimes, 1999). Such
a multi-tiered framework is not new and has its origin in the prevention science literature.
Although the number of tiers in the model vary, the focus of the tiers is typically on
universal, selected, and indicated (or primary, secondary, and tertiary, respectively)
interventions that are structured so that a student can progress through levels of
intervention with progress monitored throughout the tiers (Kratochwill, Clements, &
Kalymon, 2007). It is the movement through the tiers that provides the decision-making
framework of the RTI approach. For example, in typical 3-tier approaches Tier 1 is
characterized by a scientifically validated core curricula and universal screening. In Tier
2, targeted students who are lagging behind their peers on the universal screening
measures are provided with either standardized or problem-solving designed
interventions and response to such interventions is monitored weekly. Students who are
under-responsive to Tier 2 interventions receive specialized forms of support in Tier 3
under the auspices of special education with individually developed instructional
strategies tailored to the individual student’s needs. Comparatively, most 4-tier models
again use scientifically validated core curricula and universal screening in Tier 1. Tier 2
again makes use of standard protocol treatments with frequent progress monitoring to
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
10
targeted students, however, individualized problem-solving is reserved until
responsiveness to intervention that works for most students is assessed. If students are
under-responsive to Tier 2, Tier 3 then involves more individualized problem-solving
strategies that are typically more intensive as compared to Tier 2. Such intervention is
often consistent with the types of interventions used in special education (and may indeed
be delivered by a special education teacher), however, the working hypothesis is that the
intervention is corrective, time limited, with the goal of having students progress back to
Tier 2 and subsequently to Tier 1. Finally, for those students whose needs require
sustained and long-term intensive and specialized forms of support, special education is
provided under an individualized education plan. The difference in the two models lays
primarily the manner in which intensive support is conceptualized with Tier 3 viewed as
providing time-limited corrective support and Tier 4 being long-term continuous support.

How At-Risk Students Are Identified. Although all models regardless of the number of
tiers make provisions for identifying students who are at-risk in Tier 1 through universal
screening, currently there is no agreed consensus regarding what these criteria should be
(McMaster & Wagner, 2007). Using a relative normative approach, some approaches
establish a percentile criterion whereby students performing below such percentile would
be considered at-risk. For example, all students scoring below the 25th percentile may be
considered at-risk (Fletcher, Francis, Morris, & Lyon, 2005; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005). A
potential problem with such a normative approach is that, by definition, there will always
be students who fall in the lowest quartile and thus will always appear to be at-risk,
regardless of their performance level (Torgesen, 2000).
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
11
Alternatively, absolute performance levels (e.g., benchmarks) can be used to
determine risk status (e.g., Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 2001). For example, thirdgrade students who read fewer than 70 words correct per minute at the beginning of the
school year may be considered to be at-risk. Benchmarks may be based on national or
local data, and can be determined by using inferential statistics to calculate scores that
predict later success, such as meeting end-of-year academic standards or passing state
mandated tests (Hintze & Silberglitt, 2005; Silberglitt & Hintze, 2005).

The Nature of Tier 2 Secondary Treatment. Once students are identified to be at-risk and
move to Tier 2, interventions are implemented with the goal of remediating the area of
concern and returning the student to Tier 1 status. Here, one of two approaches to
interventions is commonly used: Problem-Solving Approaches and Standard-Protocol
Approaches. Tracing back to the behavioral consultation model first described by Bergan
(1977), problem-solving approaches attempt to address areas of concern by attending to
and answering fundamental questions related to the areas of concern (Tilly, 2002): (a)
What is the problem? (b) Why is the problem happening? (c) What should be done about
it? (d) Did it work? In doing so, problems are defined as a discrepancy between current
and desired levels of performance. For example, if a student is currently reading 40 words
correct per minute and the desired level of performance is 80 words read correctly per
minute, then there is a 50% discrepancy between what the child can currently do and the
desired level of performance. Here, interventions are individualized to address areas of
concern, delivered, and response to the problem-solving intervention is progress
monitored using data-based decision making. Because of the individualized nature of the
problem-solving approach each child who is found to be at-risk is handled differently,
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
12
although general classes of interventions may be used to address specific acquisition or
skill deficits.
Comparatively, standard-protocol approaches apply validated intervention
approaches to areas of concern in a standardized fashion. As opposed to problem-solving
approaches where each student’s skill deficit is considered individually, standardprotocol approaches apply interventions is a standard manner across students with similar
areas of concern. Such approaches are often manualized or come with a protocol that is
followed for all students, thus minimizing the individualized nature of the intervention as
done with problem-solving. The operating principle with standard-protocol approaches is
that students are experiencing difficulties not because of some underlying processing or
idiosyncratic disorder, but because they have not been provided with adequate
opportunities to learn (Clay, 1987). Standard-protocol approaches have demonstrated
convincing empirical evidence that they can be used to effectively remediate academic
difficulties in most, but not all, students (Gresham, 2007). The primary advantage of
standard-protocol approach is that because of the manualized nature of the intervention,
fidelity of implementation is more easily controlled thus providing better quality control
of instruction.

How “Response” is Determined. Although there is no single definition of what
constitutes adequate response to intervention, most adopters of RTI utilize a combined
approach that uses both idiographic (i.e., slope) and nomothetic (i.e., risk and/or final
status) comparison features to determine “response” (Christ & Hintze, 2007). Such “dual
discrepancy” approaches (cf. Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998) consider both learning rate and the
level of performance as the primary sources of information used in ongoing decision-
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
13
making. Here, learning rate refers to a student’s growth in achievement competencies
over time compared to prior levels of performance and peer growth rates. Comparatively,
level of performance refers to a student’s relative standing on some dimension of
achievement/performance compared to expected performance (either criterion- or normreferenced) (NASDE, 2005). In this sense, student response to intervention is a measure
of student progress toward pre-established goal attainment (i.e., skill proficiency) and
decreased risk (Callender, 2007). For example, if a low-performing student (as
determined by relative risk-status) is learning at a rate similar to the growth rate of other
students in the same classroom environment, he or she is demonstrating the capacity to
profit from the educational environment and additional intervention is likely
unwarranted. However, when a low-performing student is not manifesting growth in a
situation where others are thriving, consideration of a special intervention is warranted.
Alternative instructional methods must be tested to address the apparent mismatch
between the student’s learning requirements and those represented in the conventional
instructional program (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Speece, 2002; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young,
2003).
Benefits & Empirical Questions That Still Need To Be Addressed
The potential benefits of implementing an RTI model of identification and intervention
are indeed numerous. First, using such a model for identifying students with potential learning
problems has the highly desirable benefit of early identification and intervention. Screening
students at-risk for learning difficulties as early as October of kindergarten decreases the
likelihood of students slipping through the system with undetected learning problems. In
addition, students can receive highly targeted and specific supports in academic areas of need.
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
14
That being said, however, questions regarding the timing of screening assessments and the
interaction of screening with the normal course of academic skill development are still
unanswered. For example, screening at kindergarten may be less precise due to the rapidly
changing skill development of students during this time of development. Will the interaction of
timing of screening and academic skill development yield increased levels of false positives? Do
students identified as at-risk who, over time and with no supplemental intervention, progress at
adequate improvement rates? Are some students provided intervention unnecessarily, with
supplemental instruction becoming expensive as it treats an inflated number of students? Do
highly specified interventions provided early in the detection process decrease the likelihood that
a student may develop a learning disability at some future point in time? Finally, what is the cost
benefit associated with the RTI process?
A second potential benefit of the RTI model of LD identification is the reduction in
screening bias. By using systematic screening of all students, the reliance on teacher-based
referral is decreased, thereby potentially reducing the bias and the variability of identification
practices. The variability in teachers’ views and attributes associated with poor learning results in
misidentification of students, with missed opportunities to serve students with true learning
difficulties (Gresham, 2002). The reduction in screening bias through systematic school-wide
screening represents a possible means for addressing issues related to disproportionate
representation in special education. Still, however questions remain. If screening and progress
monitoring data are to be used for identification, how should disability status be determined?
What absolute differences in performance levels need to be evidenced for a student to be
considered at-risk? Relatedly, what standards for rates of improvement should be used to indicate
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
15
that a student is or is not making adequate progress and responding or not responding to the
intervention?
A final potential benefit of RTI is linking identification assessment with instructional
planning. The predominant discrepancy approach to LD identification commands substantial
resources, with little connection between the resulting test scores and the design of effective
intervention. Many general and special education teachers find results from typical IQ and
achievement tests of little help in defining the appropriate educational program or designing
instruction. Using RTI to identify students with LD shifts the assessment focus from endogenous
student processing skills to the interaction of the learner with the educational and instructional
environment. Conceptualizing LD in this manner opens the door to numerous manipulatible
environmental variables that are rarely if ever considered with the discrepancy approach to LD
identification. This shift in emphasis from assessment for identification to instructionally
relevant assessment involves student progress monitoring and the systematic testing of
instructional adaptations. While these procedures hold promise for informing instruction,
numerous questions arise as to whether schools are adequately equipped with the knowledge and
skills to affect such reform? Although one of the positive features of RTI rests on its logical
appeal and a straightforward model of hypothesis testing, such an approach represents a
paradigmatic shift in the manner in which students with learning difficulties and disabilities have
been considered for the last 30 years. Whereby the discrepancy approach relies on the technical
skills of a handful of school staff, RTI commits the use of an entire school staff to make
decisions. Scaling the process up in such a manner requires the careful consideration of
knowledge, skills, and resources from multiple school staff at multiple levels including the LEA
level (e.g., mission plan, commitment to ongoing professional development, etc.), the school
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
16
building level (e.g., school improvement plans, accountability systems, delegation of
responsibilities, administrators’ values, release time, etc.), and the student level (e.g., appropriate
assessments are used, use of progress monitoring data, instructional plans are developed and
implemented, etc.).
Conclusions
Recent legislation and policy initiatives have called for empirical challenges to current
notions of educational services delivery and the manner in which we identify students in need of
special educational services. RTI holds great promise in serving as a catalyst for further efforts –
from both practice and scientific perspectives – in examining the way in which we provide
assessment and intervention in schools. RTI models have considerable promise for screening,
intervention services delivery, and system change. That being said, however, continued research
is warranted to operationalize procedures and judgments, and evaluate the decision-making
utility of the models in practice.
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
17
References
Bergan, J. (1977). Behavioral consultation. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Berninger. V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (1994). Redefining learning disabilities: Moving beyond
aptitude-achievement discrepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment protocol.
In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New
views on measurement (pp. 163-183). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (2002). Identification of learning disabilities:
Research to practice. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies
for effective practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Callender, W. A. (2007). The Idaho results-based model: Implementing response to intervention
statewide. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.). Handbook of
response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp.
331-342). New York: Springer.
Chambers, J. G. Parrish, T., & Harr, J. J. (March, 2002). What are we spending on special
education services in the United States, 1999-2000? Advance Report, #1, Special
Education Expenditure Project (SEEP), American Institute for Research.
Christ, T. J., & Hintze, J. M. (2007). Psychometric considerations when evaluating response to
intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.). Handbook
of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp.
93-105). New York: Springer.
Clay, M. (1987). Learning to be learning disabled. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies,
22, 155-173.
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
18
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted educaton.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Elliott, S. N., & Fuchs, L. S. (1997). The utility of curriculum-based measurement and
performance assessment as alternatives to traditional intelligence and achievement tests.
School Psychology Review, 26, 224-233.
Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Morris, R. D., & Lyon, G. R. (2005). Evidence-based assessment
of learning disabilities in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 34, 506-522.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., & Barnes, M. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: A
evidenced-based evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.),
Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 185-250). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L.,Liberman, I. Y., Fowler et al.
(1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low
achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 1-18.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., & Lynn, A. (1996). Relation of phonological and
orthographic processing to early reading: Comparing two approaches to regression-based,
reading-level-match designs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 619-652.
Fuchs, L. S. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement and eligibility decision making: An
emphasis on treatment validity and growth. Paper presented at the Workshop on
Alternatives to IQ Testing. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing
the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13,
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
19
204-219.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners,
policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57-61.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for
identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33-45.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention:
Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171.
Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. R. (2005). Response-to-intervention as a framework for the
identification of learning disabilities. Trainers Forum, 12-19.
Good, R. H. III, Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance of decision making
utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third
grade high stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.
Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to 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.
Gresham, F. M. (2007). Evolution of the response-to-intervention concept: Empirical
foundations and recent developments. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M.
VanDerHeyden (Eds.). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice
of assessment and intervention (pp. 10-24). New York: Springer.
Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special
education: A strategy for equity. Wasington, DC: National Academy Press.
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
20
Hintze, J. M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A Longitudinal Examination of the Diagnostic
Accuracy and Predictive Validity of R-CBM and High-Stakes Testing. School
Psychology Review, 34, 372-386.
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.
Kratochwill, T. R., Clements, M. A., & Kalymon, K. M. (2007). Response to intervention:
Conceptual and methodological issues in implementation. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K.
Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.). Handbook of response to intervention: The
science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 25-52). New York: Springer.
McMaster, K. L., & Wagner, D. (2007). Monitoring response to general education instruction. In
S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.). Handbook of response to
intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 223-233).
New York: Springer.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDE). (2005). Response to
intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. NASDE: Alexandria, VA.
National Joint Council on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and
learning disabilities. http://www.ldonline.org. Retrieved on October 29, 2007.
Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (1999). Special education in transition:
Functional assessment and noncategorical programming. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Reynolds, C. R. (1984). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. The Journal of
Special Education, 18, 451-476.
Silberglitt, B., & Hintze, J. M. (2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut scores to track
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
21
progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 304-325.
Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profiles of children with
reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable difference
model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24-53.
Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A.
(2002). Validity of discrepancy classifications of reading difficulities: A meta-analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469-518.
Tilly, W. D. (2002). Best practices in school psychology as a problem-solving enterprise. In A.
Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-IV (pp. 21-36).
Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The
lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15,
55-64.
U.S. Department of Education (2004). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs, Data Analysis System, 2004 IDEA Part B Child Count.
Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and
reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 33, 321-363.
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
Figure 1. RTI Conceptual Framework
Core Instructional
Interventions
 All Students
 Preventative,
Proactive
~5%
~15%
~ 80% of Students
Intensive, Individualized
Interventions
 Individual Students
 High Intensity
 Of Longer Duration
Targeted Group
Interventions
 Some Students
(at-risk)
 High Efficiency
 Rapid Response
22
Conceptual & Empirical Issues of RTI
Figure 2. RTI Decision Making Framework.
TIER 1: Primary Prevention
- General education setting
- Research-based instruction
- Screening to identify students suspected to be
at risk
- Brief Progress Monitoring to (dis)confirm
risk status
AT RISK
TIER 2: Secondary Prevention
- Validated standard protocol or
research based intervention
- Progress Monitoring to assess
responsiveness
TIER 3: Tertiary Prevention
- Intensified individually designed
remedial interventions
- Possible eligibility classification
- Continuous progress monitoring
- Progress monitoring to formulate
IEP goals
- Progress monitoring to assess
responsiveness
Responsive
Unresponsive
Responsive
Unresponsive
23