| RTI Practices | Introduction | Reading Study | Math Study | Publications | Resources |
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., Bryant, J.D., Hamlett, C.L., & Seethaler, P.M. (in press). Mathematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: Implications for responsiveness-to-intervention. Exceptional Children.
This study assessed the predictive utility of screening measures for forecasting math disability (MD) at the end of second grade and the predictive and discriminant validity of math progress-monitoring tools. Participants were 225 students who entered the study in first grade and completed data collection at the end of second grade. Screening measures were number identification/counting, fact retrieval, curriculum-based measurement (CBM)-computation, and CBM-concepts/applications. For number identification/counting and CBM-computation, 27 weekly assessments also were collected. MD was defined as below the 10th percentile at the end of second grade on calculation and word problems. Logistic regression showed that the four-variable screening model produced good and similar fits in accounting for MD-calculation and MD-word problems. Classification accuracy was driven primarily by CBM-concepts/applications and CBM-computation; CBM-concepts/applications was the better of these predictors. CBM-computation, but not number identification/counting, demonstrated validity for progress monitoring.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (in press). The role of assessment within a multi-tiered approach to reading instruction. In Haager, D., Vaughn, S, & Klingner, J. (Eds.), Validated practices for three tiers of intervention. Baltimore: Brookes.
This chapter provides an overview of assessment methods for implementing a multitiered approach to reading instruction. Discussion focuses on the use of screening measures for identifying students who require a second tier of instruction, in addition to general education and for monitoring student progress in response to second-tier instruction to determine which students require consideration for special education and learning disabilities classification.
Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Bryant, J.D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394-409.
Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) models for identifying learning disabilities rely on the accurate identification of children who, without Tier 2 tutoring, would develop reading disability (RD). This study examined two questions about how well we can use first-grade assessment data to predict RD at the end of second grade: (a) Does adding initial word identification fluency (WIF) and five weeks of WIF progress-monitoring data (WIF-level and WIF-slope) to a typical first-grade prediction battery improve the accuracy of the prediction? and (b) Can innovative statistical tools, which could be used by school staff via computers, increase the accuracy of the prediction? To answer these questions we contrasted four classification models based on 206 first-grade children and followed them through the end of second grade. A combination of initial WIF, five-week WIF-level, and five-week WIF-slope and classification tree analyses improved prediction sufficiently to recommend their use with RTI.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to responsiveness-to-intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 92-99.
IDEA 2004 differs from previous versions in that it permits the identification of reading disability (RD) using responsiveness to intervention (RTI), which is also a means of providing early intervention to all children at risk for school failure. IDEA 2004 permits districts to use as much as 15 percent of its special education monies to fund early intervention activities. All this has implications for the number and type of children identified, the kinds of educational services provided, and who delivers them. This creates the possibility of an expanded role for reading specialists, who may require pre- and inservice professional development activities. In this article, we explain important features of RTI, why it is viewed as a viable substitute for IQ-achievement discrepancy, and what issues still require investigation.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Hope, S.K., Hollenbeck, K.N., Capizzi, A.M., Craddock, C.F., & Brothers, R.L. (2006). Extending responsiveness-to-intervention to math problem solving at third grade. Teaching Exceptional Children, Mar/Apr, 59-63.
This article describes research-based procedures for implementing a three-tiered responsiveness-to-intervention system to prevent and identify learning disabilities in mathematics problem solving at third grade. Overviews are provided of Tier 1 general education validated math problem-solving instruction and of Tier 2 validated math problem-solving tutoring procedures. A table highlights important distinctions between what occurs at Tier 1 versus what occurs at Tier 2. Also, expected reductions in students experiencing serious difficulty with math problem solving are reported with (a) conventional general education instruction in math problem solving (86 percent to 100 percent of students fall below the 16th percentile), (b) validated math problem-solving instruction at Tier 1 only (29 percent to 54 percent of students fall below the 16th percentile), (c) validated math problem-solving instruction at Tier 2 only (55 percent to 86 percent of students fall below the 16th percentile), and (d) validated math problem-solving instruction at Tiers 1 and Tier 2 (12 percent to 26 percent of students fall below the 16th percentile). This illustrates how two tiers of validated math problem-solving instruction can substantially reduce student difficulty at third grade.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Implementing responsiveness-to-intervention to identify learning disabilities. Perspectives, 32(1), 39-43.
To implement responsiveness-to-intervention models of learning disabilities identification, schools must make decisions about six procedural dimensions: how many tiers of intervention to use, how to target students for preventive (Tier 2) intervention, the nature of that preventive (Tier 2) intervention, how to determine whether students have responded adequately to Tier 2 intervention, the nature of the multidisciplinary evaluation before special education, and the function and design of special education. For each of these procedural dimensions, we describe some options for implementation. Then, we offer recommendations for how schools might proceed. We close with two case studies illustrating an RTI process that incorporates our recommended practices.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 57-61.
The authors define responsiveness to intervention by specifying a four-step process and distinguish between what they believe are "acceptable practices" and more desirable "best practices." They then illustrate how the process might work by presenting a series of four "case studies." They conclude by making explicit several of their preferences and emphasize that the blueprint is but one way to define RTI.
Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J.D., & Hamlett, C.L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493-513.
The purposes of this study were to (a) examine the efficacy of preventive first-grade tutoring in mathematics; (b) estimate the prevalence and severity of mathematics disability, with and without preventive tutoring and as a function of identification method; and (c) explore the pretreatment cognitive characteristics associated with mathematics development. Participants were 564 first-graders in 41 classrooms, 127 of whom were designated as at risk (AR) for mathematics difficulty and randomly assigned to tutoring or control conditions. Before treatment, AR children and not-AR peers were assessed on cognitive and academic measures. Tutoring occurred three times weekly for 16 weeks; treatment fidelity was documented; and math outcomes were assessed. The efficacy of tutoring was supported on computation and concepts/applications. Tutoring decreased the prevalence of math disability, with prevalence and severity varying as a function of identification method and math domain. Attention accounted for unique variance in predicting each aspect of end-of-year math performance. Other predictors, depending on the aspect of math performance, were nonverbal problem solving, working memory, and phonological processing.
Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. & Hamlett, C.L. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention: Preventing and identifying mathematics disability. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(4), 60-63.
This article describes research-based procedures for implementing a three-tiered responsiveness-to-intervention system to prevent and identify learning disabilities in mathematics. The system is described at first grade, with an overview of Tier 2 tutoring procedures. The reduction in students experiencing math disability (MD) is discussed when validated Tier 2 tutoring is implemented. For example, using one responsiveness-to-intervention method for designating MD, in which students are deemed MD if their final achievement on first-grade concepts and applications falls below the 10th percentile, prevalence fell from 9.75 percent without prevention to 5.14 percent with Tier 2 tutoring. Assuming 53.3 million school-age children, this translates into approximately 2.5 million fewer children experiencing MD.
Fuchs, L.S., & Vaughn, S.R. (2005). Response to intervention as a framework for the identification of learning disabilities. Trainers of School Psychologists Forum, 25(1), 12-19.
In this article, a responsiveness-to-intervention approach to learning disabilities (LD) identification is presented. First, RTI as an LD identification procedure is explained. Then, the promises and the potential pitfalls of such an approach are described. Finally, clarification is provided about how such an approach represents the application of education science to practice.
McMaster, K.N., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445-463.
The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of alternative approaches for providing a second tier of intervention with a responsiveness-to-intervention model for preventing and identifying learning disabilities. Participants were 232 first-graders who were receiving a research-validated form of general education reading instruction, Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies. Children whose improvement over the first semester in response to Tier 1 Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies was poor, both in terms of slope of improvement during the fall semester and in terms of end-of-first-semester level, were identified for Tier 2 intervention. These 56 children were randomly assigned to remain with unmodified classroom Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies, to participate in an adapted form of classroom Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (which slowed the pace and relied on strong peer tutors), or individual adult tutoring. The proportion of nonresponders to Tier 2 intervention suggested that individual adult-directed tutoring was the most efficacious way of providing Tier 2 intervention.
Fuchs, D., Deshler, D.D., & Reschly, D.J. (2004). National Research Center on Learning Disabilities: Multimethod studies of identification and classification issues. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 189-195.
This paper provides the context for the special issue of Learning Disability Quarterly and outlines the National Research Center on Learning Disability's four lines of programmatic activities: (1) conduct randomized field trials to explore the relative utility of specific identification methods in reading and math; (2) conduct surveys and focus groups to describe and understand identification practices at the state and local levels; (3) select school districts or school buildings across the country in which practitioners are implementing validated and replicable responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) methods to identify students with specific learning disabilities; and (4) provide technical assistance and dissemination to a broad array of end users nationally.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness to instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216-228.
In this study, we contrasted alternative methods for identifying reading disability (RD) within the context of a responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) approach to identification. The literature suggests four options for classifying response: (1) rate of improvement during tutoring within the top half of tutored students, (2) performance on a norm-referenced achievement test within the average range at the end of tutoring, (3) achieving a criterion-referenced "benchmark" at the end of tutoring associated with future, (4) demonstrating a strong rate of progress during tutoring and achieving a strong final score at the end of tutoring. For each option, variations on measures and cut-points were considered. We considered these four options using data from two RTI studies, one at first grade and one at second grade, incorporating two criteria for considering the technical merit of RTI options for designating RD. The first criterion was prevalence, with the goal of identifying the expected 2 to 5 percent of the population as RD. The second criterion was severity, with the goal of identifying children with the largest deficits across the greatest range of reading behaviors. In combining the criteria, the goal was to identify options that yield the expected proportion of children with the most severe reading difficulties. Findings indicated that options for designating response result in dramatically different prevalence rates and severity, but that a combination of strong slope during tutoring combined with a strong score at the end of tutoring may work well. Also, results suggest the potential value of focusing on short-term (such as three-week) maintenance immediately after intervention ends to designate RD.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., McMaster, K.L., Yen, L., & Svenson, E. (2004). Non-responders: How to find them? How to help them? What do they mean for special education? Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(6), 72-77.
This piece describes a five-step assessment procedure for classifying children as nonresponders and three alternative strategies for providing Tier 2 intervention for children who are classified as nonresponders to Tier 1. The article summarizes a study in which adult tutoring reduced the prevalence of nonresponse to Tier 2 by 50 percent, whereas adaptations to the classroom reading instruction resulted in a reduction of only 25 percent. Implications for the practice of responsiveness-to-intervention for preventing and identifying learning disabilities are discussed.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D.L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7-21.
Response-to-intervention models of learning disabilities identification and prevention require continuing progress monitoring to help determine whether students are responding to intervention. In this study, we examined the technical merits of two contrasting measures for monitoring students' reading development in first grade. The first measure was the widely used nonsense word fluency. The other measure was curriculum-based measurement's word identification fluency. At-risk children (n = 151) were assessed (a) on criterion reading measures in the fall and spring of first grade and (b) on the two progress-monitoring measures each week for seven weeks and twice weekly for an additional 13 weeks. Concurrent and predictive validity for performance level and predictive validity for the slopes of improvement demonstrated the superiority of word identification fluency over nonsense word fluency. Findings are discussed in terms of the measures' utility for identifying children in need of Tier 2 intervention and for monitoring children's progress through first grade.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157-171.
Long-standing concern about how learning disabilities (LD) are defined and identified, coupled with recent efforts in Washington, D.C., to eliminate IQ-achievement discrepancy as an LD marker, have led to serious public discussion about alternative identification methods. The most popular of the alternatives is responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI), of which there are two basic versions: the "problem-solving" model and the "standard-protocol" approach. The authors describe both types, review empirical evidence bearing on their effectiveness and feasibility, and conclude that more needs to be understood before RTI may be viewed as a valid means of identifying students with LD.
Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Assessing treatment responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 172-186.
Different methods for identifying reading disability within the context of a responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) approach to identification were explored. We considered (1) rate of improvement in the top half of tutored students, (2) performance on a norm-referenced achievement test within the average range at the end of tutoring, (3) achieving a criterion-referenced benchmark associated with future success at the end of tutoring, and (4) showing a strong rate of progress during tutoring and achieving a strong final score at the end of tutoring. For each option, variations on measures and cut-points were considered. The goal was to identify options for designating response that yield the expected proportion of children with the most severe reading difficulties. Findings indicated that options for designating response result in dramatically different prevalence rates and severity, but that a combination of strong slope during tutoring combined with a strong score at the end of tutoring may work well.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146.
In this introduction to the special issue, a response-to-instruction approach to learning disabilities (LD) identification is discussed. Then, an overview of the promise and the potential pitfalls of such an approach is provided. The potential benefits include identification of students based on risk rather than deficit, early identification and instruction, reduction of identification bias, and linkage of identification assessment with instructional planning. Questions concern the integrity of the LD concept, the need for validated interventions and assessment methods, the adequacy of response to instruction as the endpoint in identification, the appropriate instructional intensity, the need for adequately trained personnel, and due process. Finally, an overview of the articles constituting the special issue is provided.
Paulsen, K., Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., & Bryant, J.D. (2005). First-Grade Tier 2 Tutoring in Math within a Response-to-Intervention Program for Preventing and Identifying Learning Disabilities: A Manual. Available from flora.murray@vanderbilt.edu.
This manual provides a complete, scripted program for implementing a responsiveness-to-intervention Tier 2 tutoring intervention at first grade in math.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Finelli, R., & Hollenbeck, K.N. (2005). Hot Math Tutoring: A Tier 2 Tutoring Program in Mathematics Problem Solving for Use in Third Grade within a Response-to-Intervention Program for Preventing and Identifying Learning Disabilities (manual). Available from flora.murray@vanderbilt.edu.
This manual provides a complete, scripted program for implementing a responsiveness-to-intervention Tier 2 tutoring intervention at third grade in math problem solving.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K.R., & Finelli, R. (2004). Hot Math: A Tier 1 Whole-Class Instruction in Mathematics Problem Solving for Use in Third Grade within a Response-to-Intervention Program for Preventing and Identifying Learning Disabilities (manual). Available from flora.murray@vanderbilt.edu.
This manual provides a complete, scripted program for implementing a responsiveness-to-intervention Tier 1 whole-class instruction at third grade in math problem solving.
Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, L.S., Yen, L., McMaster, K.L., & Bryant, J.D. (2004). First-Grade Tier 2 Tutoring in Reading within a Response-to-Intervention Program for Preventing and Identifying Learning Disabilities: A Manual. Available from flora.murray@vanderbilt.edu.
This manual provides a complete, scripted program for implementing a responsiveness-to-intervention Tier 2 tutoring intervention at first grade in reading.
Funding for NRCLD is provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs. Award No. H324U010004. Opinions expressed herein are those of the National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S.
Department of Education.
© 2007 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities
Last Updated: November 19, 2007
Contact: nrcld@ku.edu