SLD and Responsiveness
Although many parts of the RTI model are well-specified and rigorous, there appears to be some vagueness about the meaning of a successful response to instruction. Does a student need to show that they are reading at a level consonant with peers? Does a student merely have to read more regardless of whether they remain significantly behind their peers? What tests should be used to demonstrate improvement? How will measurement error associated with any criterion be addressed? Who decides when the level of failure warrants formal referral? How is no response to instruction differentiated from a marginal response to instruction? At this point, there are few established criteria for making such determinations, indicating a likelihood that there will be a reliance on somewhat vague "clinical" (i.e., teacher) judgments about the level of response. The associated vagueness suggests that extraneous factors such as teacher expectations may unduly influence perceptions about student performance (Brophy & Good, 1974). Additionally, stereotypes have been shown to bias decisions about special education eligibility (Algozzine & Ysseldyke, 1980). In a study about judgments under uncertainty, Ysseldyke, Algozzine, and Richey (1982) concluded that, "We have demonstrated that decision makers not only hold inordinately high estimates of the numbers of handicapped students, but that their estimates vary for different kinds of students" (p. 533). With the meaning of a positive response to instruction remaining vague, teacher expectations and perceptions rather than tangible criteria may be the primary influence in judgments that define a student as a non-responder and ultimately SLD. Under such indefinite circumstances, it is difficult to argue against the fact that "statistical" (i.e., test) results will provide for more rigorous, consistent, and systematic decisions about an individual student (Meehl, 1954).
The RTI use of narrowly focused interventions cannot account for the fact that these programs work for some students but not necessarily all students. This fact assumes greater importance when improved outcomes in reading for students with SLD have also been shown to be associated with, for example, instruction directed at higher-order processing and problem solving, reading comprehension, and written expression (Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000). The "one size fits all" intervention approach associated with RTI also fails to take into account the well-known heterogeneity of students with SLD (Kavale & Nye, 1991). For example, students with cognitive impairments (e.g., MR) may not respond to specific interventions such as systematic phonics instruction (Ehri et al., 2001). It is, therefore, virtually impossible to make either a valid diagnosis or an individualized intervention program without the test data gleaned from a comprehensive evaluation that elucidates individual strengths and weaknesses (Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989).
Previous Page | Next Page
(Validated Interventions) | (RTI & SLD Classification)
