Learning Disability Quarterly

The assessment procedures within Response to Intervention (RTI) models have begun to supplant the use of traditional, discrepancy-based frameworks for identifying students with specific learning disabilities (SLD). Many RTI proponents applaud this shift because of perceived shortcomings in utilizing discrepancy as an indicator of SLD. However, many professionals and organizations have noted the substantial variability between various RTI models and urged cautious implementation. RTI models that utilize substantively different assessment procedures as a primary or singular means of SLD identification are likely to produce numerous sources of measurement error, threats to validity, inaccuracy in identification, and potential legal challenges. This article examines from a psychometric perspective the risks in replacing discrepancy-based identification of SLD with the myriad options for measuring students' responsiveness and nonresponsiveness to instruction within the intervention tiers of RTI.

Under the accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind legislation, screening for reading risk has become routine in kindergarten. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of the timing of kindergarten assessment and the type of support provided to teachers to translate assessment results to instruction. Sixty-two schools with 201 kindergarten classrooms and 3,635 students in a southwestern state were randomly assigned to administer kindergarten assessment in the fall or in the winter, with teachers receiving onsite or web mentoring. A small, significant effect (d = 0.13) was found for outcomes on a standardized reading test administered at the end of kindergarten when teachers administered the screen in the fall and received web rather than onsite mentoring. A slight, nonsignificant, reduction in reading risk (i.e., reduction in false positives) was apparent. Given these small effects, there is little empirical support for initiating screening in the fall rather than in the winter of kindergarten.

Little is known about how best to teach mathematics to students with learning disabilities. This study explored the performance and self-reported calculator use of 13 sixth-grade and 15 seventh-grade students with learning disabilities educated in either standards-based or traditional mathematics curricula on multiple-choice and open-ended assessments. Across both groups of students: (a) curriculum did not impact the number of problems students answered correctly, (b) students answered more problems correctly on the multiple-choice than on the open-ended assessments, (c) students self-reported low percentages of calculator use, and (d) curriculum did not impact students' self-reported calculator use. Overall, the results suggest that students with learning disabilities are not advantaged or disadvantaged by receiving either a traditional or a standards-based mathematics curriculum.

An e-mail survey of special education directors was conducted to ascertain practices related to implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) processes in North Carolina schools. The data indicate that special education directors have information about RTI as a method of identifying students with disabilities, but there is little consensus on the procedural steps for implementation of the RTI process. Multiple professionals were named as persons to be responsible for collecting data, interpreting graphs, and determining students' responsiveness or nonresponsiveness to instruction. Finally, no consensus was found on whether the discrepancy model should be retained or dropped.