The purpose of this review was to update previous reviews on factors related to students’ responsiveness to early literacy intervention. The 14 studies in this synthesis used experimental designs, provided small-group or one-on-one reading interventions, and analyzed factors related to responsiveness to those interventions. Participants were students who required intervention supports, with the majority identified as at-risk learners. Factors identified as consistently predictive included word identification, alphabetic principle, fluency, and phonemic awareness. Intellectual functioning and memory were inconsistently predictive. Factors identified as generally not predictive included vocabulary, language, and demographics. Findings of this review may provide guidance to researchers in identifying students who require more intensive intervention supports.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300–316. doi:10.1177/07419325020230050501
2.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431. doi:10.1177/00222194060390050401
3.
BerningerV. W.AbbottR. D.BrooksherR.LemosZ.OgierS.ZookD.MostafapourE. (2000). A connectionist approach to making the predictability of English orthography explicit to at-risk beginning readers: Evidence for alternative, effective strategies. Developmental Neuropsychology, 17, 241–271. doi:10.1207/S15326942DN1702_06
4.
BerningerV. W.AbbottR. D.VermeulenK.OgierS.BrooksherR.ZookD.LemosZ. (2002). Comparison of faster and slower responders to early intervention in reading: Differentiating features of their language profiles. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 59–76. doi:10.2307/1511191
5.
California Department of Education. (2002). California English Language Development Test. Sacramento, CA: Author.
6.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.GilbertJ. K.BarqueroL. A.CrouchR. C. (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grade readers for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 327–340. doi:10.1037/a0018448
7.
ComptonD. L.GilbertJ. K.JenkinsJ. R.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ChoE.. . .BoutonB. (2012). Accelerating chronically unresponsive children to tier 3 instruction: What level of data is necessary to ensure selection accuracy?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 204–216. doi:10.1177/0022219412442151
8.
DentonC. A. (2012). Response to intervention for reading difficulties in the primary grades: Some answers and lingering questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 232–243. doi:10.1177/0022219412442155
9.
DentonC. A.KethleyC.NimonK.KurzT. B.MathesP. G.ShihM.SwansonE. A. (2010). Effectiveness of a supplemental early reading intervention scaled up in multiple schools. Exceptional Children, 76, 394–416.
10.
DunnL. M.DunnL. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
11.
FuchsD.ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S.BryantJ.DavisG. N. (2008). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the national research center on learning disabilities. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 413–436. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9083-9
12.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227. doi:10.2307/1593674
13.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279.
14.
FuchsD.YoungC. L. (2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73, 8–30.
15.
FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2012). Responsiveness-to-Intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203. doi:10.1177/0022219412442150
16.
GilbertJ. K.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2012). Early screening for risk of reading disabilities: Recommendations for a four-step screening system. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 6–14. doi:10.1177/1534508412451491
17.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills oral reading fluency passages for first through third graders (Tech. Rep. No. 10). Eugene: University of Oregon.
18.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. doi:10.1177/074193258600700104
19.
GreshamF. M.ElliottS. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
20.
HatcherP. J.HulmeC.MilesJ. N. V.CarrollJ. M.HatcherJ.GibbsS.. . .SnowlingM. J. (2006). Efficacy of small group reading intervention for beginning readers with reading-delay: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 47, 820–827. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01559.x.
21.
Individuals With Disabilities Act of 2004, Public Law 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
22.
Linan-ThompsonS.VaughnS.PraterK.CirinoP. T. (2006). The response to intervention of English language learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 390–398. doi:10.1177/00222194060390050201
23.
MathesP. G.DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M.AnthonyJ. L.FrancisD. J.SchatschneiderC. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182. doi:10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2
24.
McMasterK. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.
25.
MorrisR. D.LovettM. W.WolfM.SevcikR. A.SteinbachK. A.FrijtersJ. C.ShapiroM. B. (2012). Multiple-component remediation for developmental reading disabilities: IQ, socioeconomic status, and race as factors in remedial outcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 99–127. doi:10.1177/0022219409355472
26.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
27.
NelsonJ. R.BennerG. J.GonzalezJ. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18, 255–267. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00080
28.
O’ConnorR. E.BocianK.Beebe-FrankenbergerM.LinklaterD. L. (2010). Responsiveness of students with language difficulties to early intervention in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 220–235. doi:10.1177/0022466908317789
29.
O’ConnorR. E.KlingnerJ. (2010). Poor responders in RTI. Theory Into Practice, 49, 297–304. doi:10.1080/00405841.2010.510758
30.
SavageR.CarlessS. (2008). The impact of early reading interventions delivered by classroom assistants on attainment at the end of year 2. British Educational Research Journal, 34, 363–385. doi:10.1080/01411920701609315
31.
SimmonsD. C.CoyneM. D.Hagan-BurkeS.KwokO.SimmonsL.JohnsonC.. . . CrevecoeurY. C. (2011). Effects of supplemental reading interventions in authentic contexts: A comparison of kindergarteners’ response. Exceptional Children, 77, 207–228.
32.
StageS. A.AbbottR. D.JenkinsJ. R.BerningerV. W. (2003). Predicting response to early reading intervention from verbal IQ, reading-related language abilities, attention ratings, and verbal IQ-word reading discrepancy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 24–33. doi:10.1177/00222194030360010401
33.
TranL.SanchezT.ArellanoB.SwansonH. (2011). A meta-analysis of the RTI literature for children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 283–295. doi:10.1177/0022219410378447
34.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), selected years, 1992–2009 Reading Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer (NCES Publication No. 2011-033). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
35.
VadasyP. F.SandersE. A.PeytonJ. A. (2006). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 508–528. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.508
36.
VaughnS.DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M. (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 432–444.
37.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.MathesP. G.CirinoP. T.CarlsonC. D.Pollard-DurodolaS.. . .FrancisD. J. (2006). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 56–73. doi:10.1177/00222194060390010601
38.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.MurrayC. S.ScammaccaN.Linan-ThompsonS.WoodruffA. L. (2009). Response to early reading intervention examining higher and lower responders. Exceptional Children, 75, 165–183.
39.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.ZhangH.SchatschneiderC. (2008). Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 437–480. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9098-2
40.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2010). Tier 3 interventions for students with significant reading problems. Theory Into Practice, 49, 305–314. doi:10.1080/00405841.2010.510759
41.
WoodcockR. W. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Rev. ed. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
