How the Three Studies are Linked
One reason these three articles effectively address our key question is they contain the basic principles of the response to intervention model. In the Common Ground Report (2002), published by the National Research Center for Learning Disabilities, eight professional groups met to discuss and agree on the core elements of a Response to Intervention Model.
- National Association of School Psychologists
- American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
- Council for Exceptional Children/Division for Learning Disabilities
- International Reading Association
- Association for Higher Education and Disability
- International Dyslexia Association
- Learning Disabilities Association of America
- National Center for Learning Disabilities
This group generated 14 consensus statements related to Identification, Eligibility, and Intervention. If we examine each statement and the extent to which it applies to the RTI methods used in these three papers, for the most part, the models and data presented by Vaughn, O'Connor, and Tilly are consistent with these principles. Let's look at the consensus statements with a brief comment on each.
Identification
"Identification should include a student-centered, comprehensive evaluation and problem-solving approach that ensures students who have a specific learning disability are efficiently identified." Comment: Vaughn, O'Connor, and Tilly all qualify here. All have elaborated on a multi-tier design in which students not responding to interventions receive increasingly more intensive instruction. There are typically several types of assessments used to evaluate student performance.
"Regular education must assume active responsibility for delivery of high-quality instruction, research-based interventions, and prompt identification of individuals at risk while collaborating with special education and related services personnel." Comment: For all three research studies Tier I is primarily a general education activity. All three specify the significance of using research-based interventions and there appears to be considerable professional development in literacy instruction. Two II interventions are delivered by a mix of general and special educators. Indeed, the level of collaboration of general and special education staff is increased at Tier II. Tier III also is a mix of general and special education, although it seems the provision of services may begin tilting toward specialists with more experience with intensive interventions and students with greater needs.
Eligibility
"The ability-achievement discrepancy formula should not be used for determining eligibility." Comment: A foregone conclusion - the formula is not even mentioned by any of the authors, although Tilly provides a brief review of traditional eligibility systems using IQ tests.
"Decisions regarding eligibility for special education services must draw from information collected from a comprehensive individual evaluation using multiple methods and sources of relevant information." Comment: For all three papers there are a variety of indices, typically literacy measures, used to select those students that need increasingly more intensive instruction. It should also be noted here that the content of the evaluation summary report used during special education eligibility would look different in the RTI model. That is, in addition to the reporting of a variety of assessments often used during evaluation, there would be a detailed description of the interventions tried with the student and the extent to which the student did not respond. The specificity of these descriptions will improve the "comprehensive" nature of the individual evaluation which should improve IEP planning and lead to more appropriate interventions in special education.
"Decisions on eligibility must be made through an interdisciplinary team, using informed clinical judgment, directed by relevant data, and based on student needs and strengths." Comment: The three articles do not describe in any detail the activities of the interdisciplinary team in the RTI model. Given federal law and the role of the team in eligibility decisions, it is an area to be included, if not emphasized, in future research.
"Decisions on eligibility must be made in a timely manner." Comments: Timelines in Tier II are specified by Vaughn and implemented in a timely manner. O'Connor and Tilly were less specific. This is an important area and researchers should also include this in future studies.
"Based on an individualized evaluation and continuous progress monitoring, a student who has been identified as having a specific learning disability may need different levels of special education and related services under IDEA at various times during the school experience." Comments: Since the articles focus on the "pre-referral and referral" stages of RTI that lead up to special education, this element does not directly impact the work of the researchers. However, the multi-tiered models described can be expanded to include special education intervention tiers for students later identified as needing LD services. This element is remindful of Evelyn Deno's Cascade of Special Education Services.
Intervention
"The field should continue to advocate for the use of scientifically based practices. However, in areas where an adequate research base does not exist, data should be gathered on the success of promising practices." Comment: All three researchers identify the critical elements of the National Reading Panel as major components of their professional development activities and essential to the interventions implemented in Tiers I, II, and III. Tilly, in fact, lists eight research-based practices used in the HELP project. It can also be noted that typically frequent, data collection occurs within Tiers II and III and could be utilized by teachers and researchers to examine the effectiveness of any interventions implemented.
"Schools and educators must have access to information about scientifically based practices and promising practices that have been validated in the settings where they are to be implemented." Comment: As mentioned in the prior statement, the researchers have made a concerted effort to incorporate scientifically based practices and make professional development in these areas available to school staff. This reviewer is impressed with the considerable resources the researchers have devoted to this area.
"Students with specific learning disabilities require intensive, iterative (recursive), explicit scientifically based instruction that is monitored on an ongoing basis to achieve academic success." Comment: All of the researchers have made it clear that the Problem Solving process includes best practice treatments provided with fidelity and monitored on a frequent basis. All describe intensive efforts to train staff on progress monitoring and using data to make instructional changes when necessary. While all three papers seem to remain true to these essential requirements, it should be noted that Vaughn and O'Connor describe more frequent measurement efforts (twice per month) in Tiers II and III of their studies.
"Students with specific learning disabilities require a continuum of intervention options through regular and special education across all grades and ages." Comments: These articles certainly address a continuum of interventions leading up to identification. However, the focus of the studies was not on special education interventions, and therefore does not address special education intervention tiers after eligibility.
"Interventions must be timely and matched to the specific learning and behavioral needs of the student." Comment: To a large extent our researchers offer documentation of using timely interventions matched to student needs. Student data dictated movement through the continuum of interventions. Vaughn was quite specific about the parameters for Tier II, with an emphasis on 10 week intervals. O'Connor notes Tier II interventions ranged from 8 weeks to years. Tilly's article did not provide details on the duration of the tiers in the HELP model. Regarding "matched" to needs, the investigators trained staff to use data to determine movement through tiers. O'Connor made a point of saying Tier II interventions were customized as a function of student weaknesses.
"An intervention is most effective when it is implemented consistently, with fidelity to its design, and at a sufficient level of intensity and duration." Comment: Fidelity of treatment played a central role in the research conducted by Vaughn and O'Connor. In Vaughn's study each interventionist was observed for eight validity checks. Treatment fidelity is not addressed to a large degree in the paper by Tilly, although its importance is acknowledged.
"Regular and special education must be coordinated as part of a coherent system which is held accountable for the educational outcomes of students with specific learning disabilities." Comment: It is apparent in all three studies that a significant degree of collaboration exists between regular and special education. The professional development activities include all staff. It appeared there was also cooperation among staff in planning and delivering interventions across the three tiers.
Previous Page | Next Page
(Introduction) | (Study Results)
