SLD and Empirically Validated Interventions
The primary advantage of the RTI model over previous prereferral efforts is that students experiencing difficulty are assured of receiving interventions with some empirical validation such as those reported by the National Reading Panel (1997) but which, nevertheless, have not gone unchallenged (Troia, 1999). It is important to note, however, that the power of specific interventions may have been somewhat overstated since, statistically, the actual effects can only be deemed moderate (see Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001). These interventions, therefore, are unlikely to result in a change in classification from, for example, poor to average reader. Practically, on standardized reading measures, the obtained average effects would indicate that the average student in the borderline range (i.e., standard score = 70) would move, at the end of intervention, to a standard score of 78, which still remains in the borderline range. Does this level of improvement indicate a significant response? Would above average effects resulting in a standard score of, for example, 83 be indicative of a positive response? Given the relatively modest effects, it seems reasonable to ask how a presumed failure to respond to a specific intervention can be confidently translated into a specific diagnosis. In a majority of cases, students with LA will probably not change status and remain low achievers. Low achievement is not a diagnosis and is best viewed as a fundamental symptom common to many disability conditions.
The use of an empirically validated intervention in the RTI model, although clearly an advantage, also becomes somewhat disadvantageous because of the narrow focus on phonological processing, particularly phonemic awareness at the word level. Pressley and Allington (1999) argued that reading research needs to consider a variety of conceptualizations about literacy (e.g., comprehension) that transcend the word level. The focus on phonological skills tends to obscure the fact that general language processes are also major contributors to reading success. Based upon findings from a meta-analysis investigating intervention research in SLD, Swanson (1999) concluded that the importance of phonological awareness training may have been overstated. Contributing to this perception is the well-supported double-deficit theory where RD is based on deficits in phonological processing and rapid naming of letters and digits (Wolf & Bowers, 1999). In a review, Allor (2002) concluded that performance on each task contributes uniquely to word reading. Additionally, besides the double-deficit criteria, Ackerman, Holloway, Youngdahl, and Dykman (2001) found that students with RD also differed on orthographic tasks, attention, arithmetic achievement, and WISC-III factors. Thus, an emphasis on phonological processing may be too narrowly focused and not really account for all the possible factors contributing to RD. In an open letter to Reid Lyon about the NICHD reading research efforts, Strauss (2001) suggested that, "Your narrow definition of reading, your avoidance of important questions on literacy . . . obligates us to question whether you really do welcome challenge . . . and to consider your statements with the same scientific skepticism that you purportedly advocate" (p. 32). Thus, RTI approaches generally deal with interventions that have received only modest validation and have focused on a single deficit in what may be best viewed as a multivariate problem.
Previous Page | Next Page
(SLD Diagnosis) | (SLD & Responsiveness)
