Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 47(5), 2010 C© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pits.20479

INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE: THE ROLE OF LITERACY ASSESSMENTAND INTERVENTION IN SPECIAL EDUCATION

LISA A. PUFPAFF, NINA YSSEL, AND ALLISON GARWOOD

Ball State University

It is with great honor and privilege that we serve as guest editors of this special issue ofPsychology in the Schools on literacy and disabilities. The goal of this issue is to provide readerswith contemporary literacy research in the arena of special education through the collaboration offield experts. With the ongoing changes in federal legislation related to reading achievement of allchildren, it is imperative that research efforts continue to focus on the unique needs of America’sschool children with disabilities. The importance of literacy research cannot be understated, forstudents’ success, particularly in special education, depends on the efficacy of their teachers.

In the opening article of our special issue, Bursuck and Blanks set the stage by calling onschool psychologists to act as quality control in the Response to Intervention (RTI) system. Theirarticle suggests that, by ensuring that evidence-based reading practices are properly implemented,achievement gaps will likely be filled and false identification of students without disabilities willbe prevented. Bursuck and Blanks include guidelines for implementing evidence-based practices inreading with integrity to enhance the effectiveness of the RTI system.

In the next article, Vaughn and her colleagues provide a review of evidence-based practicesrelated to intensive reading intervention within the RTI system. Their results question the efficacy ofplacing students with the most severe reading difficulties in Tier 2 intervention programs. Given thatthe goal of RTI is to accelerate the growth in reading skills to get students caught up to grade-levelachievement, Vaughn and colleagues suggest moving students more quickly into Tier 3 interventions,where they can receive the intensive interventions necessary to close the performance gap with theirtypically developing peers.

Allor and her colleagues then provide evidence for the application of scientifically basedreading instruction among elementary-age students with mild or moderate intellectual impairment.Their longitudinal study comparing the progress of students in an intensive, comprehensive readingprogram to those in a control program revealed significant improvement across a broad range ofliteracy skills including phonemic awareness (PA), decoding, and oral reading fluency.

Thatcher’s study investigated the developmental trends of PA in typically developing childrencompared to children with specific language impairment (SLI). The clinical implications derivedfrom her study provide information with regard to treatment as well as identification of children withSLI. Thatcher’s research on the literacy profile of SLI, particularly with regard to PA, continues topaint the unique picture of this language disorder while highlighting the importance of identifyingthe PA abilities of children with SLI.

Next, Swanson and Vaughn present the results of an observational study examining the currentstatus of alignment of resource-room reading instruction to evidence-based practices among studentswith learning disabilities. Although their results provide a promising trend over previous, similarstudies for resource-room teachers to provide interventions aligned with scientific evidence, studentprogress over the course of the study failed to demonstrate accelerated growth in reading skills.Particularly lacking in the reading curriculum of these classrooms was intensive instruction in PAskills and the subsequent application of PA skills to decoding and fluency. Evidence has repeatedly

Correspondence to: Lisa A. Pufpaff, Department of Special Education, Teachers College, Room 710, Ball StateUniversity, Muncie, IN 47306. E-mail: lapufpaff@bsu.edu

419

420 Pufpaff et al.

emphasized that students with significant difficulties in reading acquisition are likely lacking in thefoundational PA skills necessary to build their fluency and, consequently, comprehension skills. Theresults of this study emphasize the need for special education teachers to be well prepared to providehigh quality, intensive literacy instruction and remediation among students with special needs.

The importance of preparing special educators in literacy instruction is gaining attention in theliterature. Preservice teacher education has been spotlighted as questions regarding the effectivenessof this training have surfaced concurrently with teacher accountability. The next article by Pufpaffand Yssel on literacy education for special educators will be of interest to those in higher education,as well as those involved in continuing education. Their research on the effects of a 6-week literacyunit embedded within a methods course demonstrates that large gains in knowledge related to literacyassessment and instruction can be acquired in a short amount of time. These results may lead thosein special education teacher preparation programs to focus attention on the need to include literacyknowledge and skills within the curriculum, as teaching literacy to students with disabilities requiresa knowledge and skill base well beyond that of a novice.

Regarding an area of critical need, Baker and his colleagues reviewed literacy assessment ofstudents with severe disabilities and investigated the construct validity of the Nonverbal LiteracyAssessment (NVLA). The NVLA was created to assess early literacy skills of students with severedevelopmental disabilities who have little or no functional speech. The results of this study suggestthat the NVLA can be used to measure the overall literacy abilities of students with severe develop-mental disabilities, but may not be sensitive enough to individual student variables to identify relativestrengths and weaknesses in specific areas of literacy such as PA, phonics skills, and vocabularydevelopment. Given the emerging nature of this line of research, however, the confirmed constructvalidity of the NVLA provides a promising starting point for improved literacy outcomes amongstudents with severe or multiple disabilities.

Finally, this special issue comes to a close with a study regarding the efficacy of premade,commercially available communication boards for use among students with augmentative and alter-native communication (AAC) needs during storybook reading interactions. Communication boardsopen the door to literacy for children who lack functional speech and supply vocabulary for theexpansion of their language and literacy development. Contrary to consumers’ possible assumptionsabout these products, Da Fonte and colleagues found a lack of correlation between the vocabulary oncommercially available materials and actual vocabulary use of those with typically developing liter-acy skills. The authors supply readers with an insightful perspective on the application of premadeAAC materials.

Our gratitude to Psychology in the Schools cannot be overstated. As guest editors, our goal wasnot only to provide answers to contemporary literacy questions and problems, but to encourage andpromote further research in the literacy sector of special education. We aspire, as do the contributorsto this special issue, to provide educators with contemporary knowledge and tools necessary toprovide quality instruction to students with special needs through the works within this issue.Seeking information beyond school walls not only expands the minds of those reading, but theminds of those being taught. By reading this special issue you, too, are embarking on a journey ofknowledge, modeling a proactive approach to learning for your students.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits