11

Response to InterventionResponse to Intervention(RTI)(RTI)

Preventing and Identifying LD Preventing and Identifying LD

Douglas Fuchs and Lynn S. FuchsDouglas Fuchs and Lynn S. Fuchs

Vanderbilt UniversityVanderbilt University

22

Presentation OutlinePresentation OutlinePresentation Outline

1. Changes in Federal Law

2. Experimental Studies inReading and Math

33

1. Changes in Federal Law1. Changes in Federal Law

44

Across Methods:Across Methods:““SignatureSignature”” Characteristic of LD Characteristic of LD

UnexpectedUnexpected and and SpecificSpecific Learning Failure Learning Failure

The child with The child with unexpectedunexpected learning failure (or learning failure (orunderachievement) is perceived by parents and teachersunderachievement) is perceived by parents and teachersas generally competent. The learning difficulty isas generally competent. The learning difficulty issurprising and puzzling.surprising and puzzling.

SpecificSpecific learning failure suggests neurological dysfunctionlearning failure suggests neurological dysfunctionand processing deficits, which are presumed to causeand processing deficits, which are presumed to causesevere problems in reading, writing, or math.severe problems in reading, writing, or math.

55

IQ-Achievement DiscrepancyIQ-Achievement Discrepancy

In regulations accompanying EducationIn regulations accompanying Educationof All Handicapped Children Act (1975),of All Handicapped Children Act (1975),““underachievementunderachievement”” has been has beenoperationalizedoperationalized as IQ-achievement as IQ-achievementdiscrepancy.discrepancy.

66

Criticisms ofIQ-Achievement Discrepancy

Criticisms ofCriticisms ofIQ-Achievement DiscrepancyIQ-Achievement Discrepancy

• IQ tests do not necessarily measure intelligence.

• IQ and academic achievement are not independent; so,difference scores are unreliable.

• In the case of word reading skill deficits, fewmeaningful differences between IQ-achievementdiscrepant poor readers and IQ-achievement consistentpoor readers.

• Children must fail before they can beidentified as LD.

77

Number of Students Served with LearningNumber of Students Served with LearningDisabilities Under IDEA by AgeDisabilities Under IDEA by Age

1999-2000 School Year1999-2000 School Year36,369

87,436

160,840

239,255 286,719

306,533

310,787

302,604

289,168

267,153

239,305

199,628

112,987

24,796

5,602

1,784

136

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

88

The Prominent Alternative:The Prominent Alternative:Defining LD in Terms of SevereDefining LD in Terms of Severe

Low AchievementLow Achievement

RTIRTILD as LD as nonrespondersnonresponders to validated instruction to validated instruction

(unexpected underachievement).(unexpected underachievement).

Assumption: If a child does not respond to instructionAssumption: If a child does not respond to instructionthat is effective for the vast majority of children, thenthat is effective for the vast majority of children, thenthere is something different about the child causingthere is something different about the child causingthe the nonresponsenonresponse..

RTI eliminates poor instructional quality as a viableRTI eliminates poor instructional quality as a viableexplanation for learning difficulty.explanation for learning difficulty.

99

Two Purposes of RTITwo Purposes of RTITwo Purposes of RTI

• To reorient service delivery toprovide early intervention

• To provide an alternative method ofLD identification

1010

Newest IDEANewest IDEA

Cites Two Methods for LD IdentificationCites Two Methods for LD Identification

1. IQ-Achievement Discrepancy1. IQ-Achievement Discrepancy

2. RTI2. RTI

1111

Typical RTI ProcedureTypical RTI ProcedureTypical RTI Procedure• Tier 1 (Primary Prevention)

• All children receive the universal, core instructional program.

• All children are tested once in the fall.

• At-risk students are identified for Tier 2 intervention on the basis oflow performance.

• Tier 2 (Secondary Prevention)

• For at-risk students, a second tier of prevention is implemented usingstandard research-validated tutoring protocols.

• Student progress is monitored throughout intervention, and students arere-tested following intervention.

• Growth/performance is dichotomized as responsive or unresponsive.

• Tier 3 (Tertiary Prevention)

• Those who do not respond receive a multidisciplinary team evaluationand are identified for individualized programming in special education(LD, BD, MR).

1212

Primary Prevention:Universal Core Program

forAll Students

Secondary Prevention:Standard, Research-Based

Tutoringfor At-Risk Students

Tertiary Prevention:Individualized

Programs for Studentswho Do Not Respond to

Standardized Intervention

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

CONTINUUM OFSCHOOL-WIDE

SUPPORT

1313

Advantages of RTI ApproachAdvantages of RTI ApproachAdvantages of RTI Approach

Provides assistance to needy children in timelyfashion. It is NOT a wait-to-fail model.

Helps ensure that the student’s poor academicperformance is not due to poor instruction.

Assessment data are collected to inform theteacher and improve instruction. Assessmentsand interventions are closely linked.

1414

2. Experimental Studies in Reading and Math

1515

National Research Center onNational Research Center onLearning Disabilities (NRCLD)Learning Disabilities (NRCLD)

Vanderbilt University and University of KansasVanderbilt University and University of Kansas

OSEP OSEP Grant #H324U010004Grant #H324U010004

VanderbiltVanderbilt Experimental RTI StudiesExperimental RTI Studies

Collaboration amongCollaboration among

Doug Fuchs, Lynn Fuchs, and Don ComptonDoug Fuchs, Lynn Fuchs, and Don Compton

1616

Experimental RTI StudiesExperimental RTI Studies•• Preventing and Identifying Learning DisabilityPreventing and Identifying Learning Disability

•• Reading and Math Studies (initiated in subsequent years, soReading and Math Studies (initiated in subsequent years, sosamples do not overlap)samples do not overlap)

•• Across Reading and Math StudiesAcross Reading and Math Studies•• 3 Purposes3 Purposes

1. Examine efficacy of 11. Examine efficacy of 1stst-grade preventative tutoring-grade preventative tutoring2. Assess LD prevalence and severity, with and without2. Assess LD prevalence and severity, with and without

Tier 2 tutoring and as a function of identificationTier 2 tutoring and as a function of identificationmethodmethod

3. Explore pretreatment cognitive abilities associated3. Explore pretreatment cognitive abilities associatedwith developmentwith development

•• Random assignment to 1Random assignment to 1stst-grade study conditions-grade study conditions•• Longitudinal follow up to assess development of long-Longitudinal follow up to assess development of long-

term difficultyterm difficulty

1717

In This Presentation In This Presentation ……,,

Focus on Purpose #1Focus on Purpose #1

1.1. Examine efficacy of 1Examine efficacy of 1stst-grade Tier 2 tutoring-grade Tier 2 tutoring

(2. Assess LD prevalence and severity(2. Assess LD prevalence and severity~ with/without Tier 2 tutoring~ with/without Tier 2 tutoring~ as a function of identification method)~ as a function of identification method)

(3. Explore the pretreatment cognitive abilities(3. Explore the pretreatment cognitive abilitiesassociated with development)associated with development)

1818

Presentation OrganizationPresentation Organization

Math RTI StudyMath RTI Study

Reading RTI StudyReading RTI Study

Concluding ThoughtsConcluding Thoughts

1919

The Prevention andThe Prevention andIdentification of Math DisabilityIdentification of Math Disability

Lynn Fuchs, Don Compton, Doug Fuchs,Lynn Fuchs, Don Compton, Doug Fuchs,

Kim Paulsen, Joan Bryant, and Carol HamlettKim Paulsen, Joan Bryant, and Carol Hamlett

Vanderbilt UniversityVanderbilt University

National Research Center on Learning DisabilitiesNational Research Center on Learning Disabilities

OSEP OSEP Grant #H324U010004Grant #H324U010004

2020

RTI Research in MathRTI Research in Math

Compared to reading, much less is known about math,Compared to reading, much less is known about math,even at 1even at 1stst grade. grade.

No validated tutoring protocols exist at 1No validated tutoring protocols exist at 1stst grade. grade.

The small body of work on math RTI (school psychThe small body of work on math RTI (school psychliterature) is limited to:literature) is limited to:

__ Basic facts or simple computationBasic facts or simple computation

__ Using brief, drill/practice interventionUsing brief, drill/practice intervention

__ In few classrooms (unrepresentative of range ofIn few classrooms (unrepresentative of range ofinstructional quality)instructional quality)

2121

RationaleRationale

This study:This study:

Addressed other curricular componentsAddressed other curricular components

Incorporated sustained tutoringIncorporated sustained tutoring

Used random assignmentUsed random assignment

Included larger samplesIncluded larger samples

Focused on how to Focused on how to operationalizeoperationalize response and response anddefine MDdefine MD

2222

SampleSample

41 141 1stst-grade teachers in 6 Title 1 and 4 non-Title 1 schools-grade teachers in 6 Title 1 and 4 non-Title 1 schools

Using Week 4 CBM Computation, 139 lowest performing (21% ofUsing Week 4 CBM Computation, 139 lowest performing (21% of667 consented students) identified as at risk (AR)667 consented students) identified as at risk (AR)

139 AR randomly assigned to control or tutoring139 AR randomly assigned to control or tutoring

Not at risk (NAR): Not at risk (NAR): 528 528 remaining students with consentremaining students with consent

Of 528 NAR:Of 528 NAR:

__ All weekly CBM ComputationAll weekly CBM Computation

__ 180 sampled for individual 180 sampled for individual andand group pre/ group pre/posttestingposttesting

__ Remaining 345 were only group pre/Remaining 345 were only group pre/posttestedposttested

With attrition, samples sizes at end of 1With attrition, samples sizes at end of 1stst grade: grade:

__ 127 AR: 127 AR: 63 control + 64 tutored63 control + 64 tutored

__ 437 NAR: 145 individually/group tested + 292437 NAR: 145 individually/group tested + 292 group tested group tested

2323

MeasuresMeasures MathMath (Pre/Post/FU) (Pre/Post/FU)

__ Group: Fact Fluency, CBM Computation, Group: Fact Fluency, CBM Computation, GrGr 1 Concepts and 1 Concepts andApplications, Story ProblemsApplications, Story Problems

__ Individual: WJ Applied Problems, WJ CalculationIndividual: WJ Applied Problems, WJ Calculation

Math CBM for Progress MonitoringMath CBM for Progress Monitoring (Weekly) (Weekly)

Cognitive AbilitiesCognitive Abilities (Pre) (Pre)__ LanguageLanguage (WASI Vocabulary, WASI Similarities, (WASI Vocabulary, WASI Similarities, WoodcockWoodcock

Diagnostic Reading Battery Listening Comprehension)Diagnostic Reading Battery Listening Comprehension)__ VisuospatialVisuospatial (WASI Matrix Reasoning, WASI Block Design) (WASI Matrix Reasoning, WASI Block Design)__ PhonologicalPhonological (CTOPP Rapid Digit Naming, CTOPP Sound Matching) (CTOPP Rapid Digit Naming, CTOPP Sound Matching)__ Processing SpeedProcessing Speed (WJ Psycho-Educational Battery-R Cross Out) (WJ Psycho-Educational Battery-R Cross Out)__ InductionInduction (WJ III Concept Formation) (WJ III Concept Formation)__ Working MemoryWorking Memory (Working Memory Test Battery for Children (Working Memory Test Battery for Children ––

Listening Recall)Listening Recall)__ AttentionAttention ( (Social Skills Rating System 4 itemsSocial Skills Rating System 4 items))

(Test sessions were (Test sessions were audiotapedaudiotaped and coded for accuracy.) and coded for accuracy.)

2424

Pretest PerformancePretest Performance

NAR > AR Tutored, AR ControlNAR > AR Tutored, AR Control

__ WASI IQWASI IQ__ WRMT WID and WAWRMT WID and WA__ WJ Calculation and Applied ProblemsWJ Calculation and Applied Problems__ Fact FluencyFact Fluency__ Story ProblemsStory Problems__ Grade 1 Concepts/ApplicationsGrade 1 Concepts/Applications__ CBM ComputationCBM Computation

2525

TutoringTutoring

Small groups of 2-3 studentsSmall groups of 2-3 students

3 times per week outside classrooms3 times per week outside classrooms

Each session:Each session:

__ 30 min of teacher-led instruction30 min of teacher-led instruction

__ 10 min of student use of software, Math10 min of student use of software, MathFlash, designed to improve automaticFlash, designed to improve automaticretrieval of math factsretrieval of math facts

2626

Teacher-Led InstructionTeacher-Led Instruction

Concrete objects to promote conceptual learningConcrete objects to promote conceptual learning

17 scripted topics (number sense, number17 scripted topics (number sense, numberconcepts, numeration, place value, numberconcepts, numeration, place value, numbercombinations, story problems, 2-digit procedurescombinations, story problems, 2-digit procedureswithout regrouping, missing addends)without regrouping, missing addends)

Computerized Practice on Number CombinationsComputerized Practice on Number Combinations

Each small group completed 48 sessions.Each small group completed 48 sessions.

All sessions All sessions audiotapedaudiotaped; tapes were sampled for; tapes were sampled forcoding; fidelity of implementation was strong.coding; fidelity of implementation was strong.

2727

Tutoring EfficacyTutoring Efficacy

ImprovementImprovement

Weekly Weekly CBM Computation SlopeCBM Computation Slope__ AR tutoredAR tutored = NAR > AR control = NAR > AR control

WJ III CalculationWJ III Calculation__ AR tutoredAR tutored > NAR and AR > NAR and AR

Grade 1 Concepts/ApplicationsGrade 1 Concepts/Applications__ AR tutoredAR tutored > NAR and > NAR and AR controlAR control

Story ProblemsStory Problems__ NAR > NAR > AR tutoredAR tutored > AR control > AR control

First-grade tutoring enhances outcomesFirst-grade tutoring enhances outcomes..

2828

Tutoring EfficacyTutoring EfficacyDid tutoring decrease MD prevalence at end of 1Did tutoring decrease MD prevalence at end of 1stst grade? grade?

Yes, across identification options,Yes, across identification options,

tutoring substantially decreased prevalence.tutoring substantially decreased prevalence.

ExampleExample

Final Low Achievement (<10Final Low Achievement (<10thth percentile) percentile)

on on GrGr 1 Concepts/Applications, prevalence went from 9.75% without tutoring 1 Concepts/Applications, prevalence went from 9.75% without tutoringto 5.14% with tutoring.to 5.14% with tutoring.

~ 2.5 million fewer children identified MD~ 2.5 million fewer children identified MD

At end of 2At end of 2ndnd grade, MD prevalence was still twice grade, MD prevalence was still twiceas high in the untutored group.as high in the untutored group.

2929

3030

In Sum, Results In Sum, Results ……

Demonstrate efficacy of 1Demonstrate efficacy of 1stst-grade tutoring-grade tutoring

Indicate that RTI can reduce MD prevalence, atIndicate that RTI can reduce MD prevalence, atleast through end of 2least through end of 2ndnd grade. grade.

Other finding illustrate how options forOther finding illustrate how options fordesignating MD affect prevalence and severity.designating MD affect prevalence and severity.

3131

Doug Fuchs, Don Compton, Lynn FuchsJoan Bryant, Loulee Yen, Marie Smith

Vanderbilt UniversityVanderbilt University

National Research Center on Learning DisabilitiesNational Research Center on Learning Disabilities

OSEP Grant #324U010004

The Prevention andIdentification of Reading

Disability

The Prevention andThe Prevention andIdentification of ReadingIdentification of Reading

DisabilityDisability

3232

PurposesPurposes

1. Examine the efficacy of 11. Examine the efficacy of 1stst-grade preventative tutoring in-grade preventative tutoring inreadingreading

2. Assess RD prevalence and severity, with and without2. Assess RD prevalence and severity, with and withoutpreventative tutoring and as a function of identificationpreventative tutoring and as a function of identificationmethodmethod

3. Explore pretreatment cognitive abilities associated with3. Explore pretreatment cognitive abilities associated withreading developmentreading development

Again, In This Presentation, Focus on Purpose #1Again, In This Presentation, Focus on Purpose #1

3333

Districts, Schools, andDistricts, Schools, andTeachersTeachers

2 school districts in Tennessee (urban Metro-2 school districts in Tennessee (urban Metro-Nashville and suburban Williamson County)Nashville and suburban Williamson County)

8 Title 1 and 8 non-Title 1 elementary8 Title 1 and 8 non-Title 1 elementaryschoolsschools

42 first-grade teachers assigned randomly42 first-grade teachers assigned randomlywithin schools to PALS (within schools to PALS (nn = 21) and No- = 21) and No-PALS (PALS (nn = 21); in this presentation, we = 21); in this presentation, wecollapse PALS and No-PALS classes intocollapse PALS and No-PALS classes intoTier 1 instructionTier 1 instruction

3434

Identifying Identifying ““At-RiskAt-Risk”” Students Students

In the 42 classes, all students screened on:In the 42 classes, all students screened on:__ RLN (CTOPP)RLN (CTOPP)

__ CBM Word Identification FluencyCBM Word Identification Fluency

__ Teacher judgmentTeacher judgment

The 6 lowest students per class on one or bothThe 6 lowest students per class on one or bothmeasures, also judged as such by the teacher,measures, also judged as such by the teacher,were designated were designated ““low study entry.low study entry.””

3535

Study ConditionsStudy Conditions In each class, the 6 In each class, the 6 ““low study entrylow study entry”” were rank were rank

ordered and split into top and bottom strata.ordered and split into top and bottom strata.

Within each stratum, children were randomlyWithin each stratum, children were randomlyassigned to:assigned to:

__ Fall Tutoring Fall Tutoring ((nn = 84) = 84)__ Spring Tutoring Spring Tutoring ((nn =84) -- if unresponsive to general =84) -- if unresponsive to general

educationeducation__ Control Control ((nn = 84). = 84).

In this presentation, we focus on Spring TutoringIn this presentation, we focus on Spring Tutoringand Control conditions (not the Fall Tutoringand Control conditions (not the Fall Tutoringcondition).condition).

3636

Study Conditions (ContStudy Conditions (Cont’’d)d)

We collected weekly WIF data: 9 waves in the fallWe collected weekly WIF data: 9 waves in the falland 9 waves in the spring.and 9 waves in the spring.

We identified the subset of students who wereWe identified the subset of students who wereunresponsive to Tier 1 general education, usingunresponsive to Tier 1 general education, using““dual discrepancydual discrepancy”” on fall WIF slope and level. on fall WIF slope and level.

Tier 1-unresponsive students to fall generalTier 1-unresponsive students to fall generaleducation instruction:education instruction:

__ Spring Tutoring: Spring Tutoring: nn = 40 = 40__ Control: Control: nn = 24 = 24

3737

Study Conditions (ContStudy Conditions (Cont’’d)d) We administered a battery of standardized reading tests atWe administered a battery of standardized reading tests at

fall, mid-year, end of grade 1, end of grade 2.fall, mid-year, end of grade 1, end of grade 2.

Unresponsive students comparable by condition on:Unresponsive students comparable by condition on:__ IQIQ__ VocabularyVocabulary__ CTOPP Rapid Digit Naming, Elision, Memory for DigitsCTOPP Rapid Digit Naming, Elision, Memory for Digits__ WRMT WID and WAWRMT WID and WA__ TOWRE Sight Word and Phonemic DecodingTOWRE Sight Word and Phonemic Decoding__ Teacher Ratings of Effort and DistractibilityTeacher Ratings of Effort and Distractibility

They were:They were:__ ~ 2/3 ~ 2/3 SDSD < mean on WIF local norms < mean on WIF local norms__ ~ 2/3 ~ 2/3 SD < SD < national norms on IQ, Vocabulary, Phonologicalnational norms on IQ, Vocabulary, Phonological

ProcessingProcessing__ 1/3 to 2/3 1/3 to 2/3 SDSD < national norms on reading measures < national norms on reading measures__ TeachersTeachers’’ mean effort rating ~ 60% mean effort rating ~ 60%__ TeachersTeachers’’ mean distractibility rating between mean distractibility rating between ““sometimessometimes”” and and

““very oftenvery often””

3838

TutoringTutoring Groups of 2-4 studentsGroups of 2-4 students

Validated treatment protocolValidated treatment protocol__ Letter-sound correspondence, decoding words, sightLetter-sound correspondence, decoding words, sight

word recognition, fluency-building, and partner reading,word recognition, fluency-building, and partner reading,with point system for motivationwith point system for motivation

__ 9 wks, 4x per wk, 35-45 min per session9 wks, 4x per wk, 35-45 min per session

FidelityFidelity__ All sessions All sessions audiotapedaudiotaped__ Tapes of sessions #14 and #28 checked for all tutorsTapes of sessions #14 and #28 checked for all tutors

against a 79-item checklistagainst a 79-item checklist__ Inter-rater agreement on coding of tapes was 96% acrossInter-rater agreement on coding of tapes was 96% across

sessions and tutorssessions and tutors__ > 95% tutor fidelity across sessions and tutors> 95% tutor fidelity across sessions and tutors

3939

MeasuresMeasures ScreeningScreening

__ CTOPP Rapid Letter Naming, CBM-WIFCTOPP Rapid Letter Naming, CBM-WIF

Progress MonitoringProgress Monitoring__ Weekly CBM-WIFWeekly CBM-WIF

FallFall__ CTOPP (Elision, Memory for Digits); 4-subtest WASI; WRMT-RCTOPP (Elision, Memory for Digits); 4-subtest WASI; WRMT-R

(WI, WA); Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery (Listening(WI, WA); Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery (ListeningComprehensionComprehension); ); Cognitive battery also administered.Cognitive battery also administered.

Mid-YearMid-Year__ WRMT-R (WID, WA); TOWRE (Sight Word Reading, PhonemicWRMT-R (WID, WA); TOWRE (Sight Word Reading, Phonemic

Decoding)Decoding)

End-Year and End Grade 2End-Year and End Grade 2__ WJ (Passage Comprehension); WRMT-R (WID, WA), TOWREWJ (Passage Comprehension); WRMT-R (WID, WA), TOWRE

(Sight Word Reading, Phonemic Decoding); Woodcock Diagnostic(Sight Word Reading, Phonemic Decoding); Woodcock DiagnosticReading Battery (Listening Comprehension); Social Skills RatingReading Battery (Listening Comprehension); Social Skills RatingSystem (SSRS; short form); Teacher Rating of Reading EffortSystem (SSRS; short form); Teacher Rating of Reading Effort

4040

Tutoring EfficacyTutoring EfficacyProgress Monitoring DataProgress Monitoring Data

Spring Tutored and Control exhibited similar growthSpring Tutored and Control exhibited similar growthfrom fall to mid-year, prior to tutoring (slope 1).from fall to mid-year, prior to tutoring (slope 1).

Spring Tutored group showed greater growth thanSpring Tutored group showed greater growth thancontrol from mid-year to end-year, during tutoringcontrol from mid-year to end-year, during tutoring(slope 2).(slope 2).

4141

Tutoring Efficacy:Tutoring Efficacy:Standardized Reading MeasuresStandardized Reading Measures

For 3 or 4 measures (all but Sight Word Efficiency):For 3 or 4 measures (all but Sight Word Efficiency):interaction between condition and time, wherebyinteraction between condition and time, whereby

__ Contrast from pretest to mid-year was comparable forContrast from pretest to mid-year was comparable forSpring Tutored and ControlSpring Tutored and Control

__ Contrast from mid-year to posttest was significant, withContrast from mid-year to posttest was significant, withSpring Tutored outperforming Control.Spring Tutored outperforming Control.

Effects maintained at end of grade 2.Effects maintained at end of grade 2.

4242

Word ID

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Entrance Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Follow-up

Raw

Sco

re

Tutor

Control

4343

Word ID

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Entrance Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Follow-up

Raw

Sco

re

Tutor

Control

4444

Word Attack

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Entrance Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Follow-up

Raw

Sco

re

TutorControl

4545

Sight Word Efficiency

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Entrance Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Follow-up

Raw

Sco

re

TutorControl

4646

Decoding Efficiency

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Entrance Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Follow-up

Raw

Sco

re

TutorControl

4747

Tutoring EfficacyTutoring Efficacy

Did tutoring decrease RD prevalenceDid tutoring decrease RD prevalenceat end of 1at end of 1stst grade? grade?

Defining RD = 1Defining RD = 1stst-grade WID slope < .75 -grade WID slope < .75 SDSDbelow normative mean slopebelow normative mean slope

Yes: RD rates significantly lower in SpringYes: RD rates significantly lower in SpringTutored (43.5%) than Control (81.8%)Tutored (43.5%) than Control (81.8%)

4848

In Sum, Results In Sum, Results ……

Demonstrate efficacy of 1Demonstrate efficacy of 1stst-grade tutoring in the-grade tutoring in thespring semester for students unresponsive to Tierspring semester for students unresponsive to Tier1 general education1 general education

Indicate that RTI can reduce RD prevalence, atIndicate that RTI can reduce RD prevalence, atleast at end of 1least at end of 1stst grade. grade.

Other findings illustrate how options forOther findings illustrate how options fordesignating RD affect prevalence and severity.designating RD affect prevalence and severity.

4949

Concluding ThoughtsConcluding ThoughtsAcross Math and ReadingAcross Math and Reading

RTI is a promising practice for preventing LD.RTI is a promising practice for preventing LD.

Less is known about RTI for identification.Less is known about RTI for identification.__ Across math and reading, findings indicate thatAcross math and reading, findings indicate that

prevalence and severity of LD changes depending onprevalence and severity of LD changes depending onhow how ““responseresponse”” is is operationalizedoperationalized..

__ This could lead to varying identification rates acrossThis could lead to varying identification rates acrossstates and districts, creating heterogeneity of categorystates and districts, creating heterogeneity of categorysimilar to traditional definitions.similar to traditional definitions.

__ So, guidance on how to So, guidance on how to ““standardizestandardize”” response is response isneeded.needed.

In addition, guidance is needed about whatIn addition, guidance is needed about whatconstitutes constitutes ““interventionintervention”” within RTI and how to within RTI and how tomeasure quality of that intervention is required.measure quality of that intervention is required.

5050

Other NRCLD Activities:Other NRCLD Activities:Collaboration between VU and KUCollaboration between VU and KU

Survey research on state practices (VU)Survey research on state practices (VU)

Technical assistance on RTI (KU)Technical assistance on RTI (KU)

Identification and description of RTI modelIdentification and description of RTI modelsites (KU)sites (KU)

5151

For Additional InformationFor Additional InformationContact:Contact:Flora MurrayFlora Murray

flora.murray@vanderbilt.eduflora.murray@vanderbilt.edu

Vanderbilt UniversityVanderbilt University

328 Peabody College328 Peabody College

Department of Special EducationDepartment of Special Education

Nashville, TN 37203Nashville, TN 37203

(615) 343-4782(615) 343-4782