Learning Disability Quarterly

Professional confusion, as well as case law confusion, exists concerning the fidelity and integrity of response to intervention (RTI) as a defensible procedure for identifying children as having a specific learning disability (SLD) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Division is generated because of conflicting mandates specified in IDEA when compared to mandates in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This article is submitted to address (a) concerns about the misuse of RTI in identifying students with SLD and (b) how schools face the challenges of identifying students with learning disabilities, providing appropriate services within the least restricted environment while attempting to meet the requirements found in NCLB that all children will learn on grade level and be assessed accordingly.

In this issue of Learning Disability Quarterly (LDQ), Professors Daves and Walker reply to my earlier LDQ article on confusion in the cases and commentary about the legal dimension of RTI. In this brief rejoinder, I show that their reply confirms rather than resolves the confusion in their original commentary in 2010. This persistent problem appears to be largely attributable to lack of accuracy and precision in examining and evaluating the law—including the legislation, regulations, court decisions, and administrative rulings—as distinct from the lore—including their particular professional perceptions and recommendations. For example, they confuse the specific scope and requirements for RTI in the IDEA with the more generic, long-standing practice of general education interventions. Indeed, their response inadvertently compounds the confusion by less than careful and complete interpretation and citation of various legal sources.

In this study, the authors examined the validity of a holistically scored retell within a confirmatory factor analysis framework by comparing the fit of a three-factor model of reading with the data from a diverse sample of seventh and eighth graders. The final model demonstrated adequate fit, χ²(32) = 97.316; comparative fit index = .96; Tucker–Lewis index = .94; and root mean square error of approximation = .08. Retell’s chi-square difference, Δχ²(1) = 16.652, p < .001, and factor loading (.250, p < .001) were higher for the comprehension construct. Similarly, retell’s correlation to comprehension measures (r = .155–.257, p < .01) was stronger than its relationship to measures of fluency (r = .158–.183, p < .01) or word identification (r = .132, p < .05). However, retell had a large residual variance (.938) and low interrater reliability (κ = .37), suggesting that improvements to the instrument are needed. Despite overall latent differences, retell did not demonstrate differential item functioning.

This study investigated the relative effects of three treatments with varying instructional emphases in reading with a comparison condition. Eighty-seven students in fourth grade with reading impairments were assigned through stratified random assignment to one of four conditions: (a) comprehension emphasis, (b) word study emphasis, (c) emphasis of either comprehension or word study based on the student’s pretest reading profile, or (d) school-provided intervention comparison condition. Students in the three researcher-provided treatments received intervention in small groups with a trained tutor for 30 min daily for approximately 28 weeks. Results revealed no statistically significant main effects between conditions on measures of word reading, fluency, vocabulary, or comprehension. Students with limited English proficiency performed significantly better at posttest in all conditions than other students. Discussion addresses the challenges of successfully remediating reading problems with older students with significant reading problems.

This study examined the effectiveness of a classroom teacher intervention, the Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI), in helping struggling readers in kindergarten and first grade. This intervention used biweekly literacy coaching in the general education classroom to help classroom teachers use diagnostic strategies with struggling readers in one-on-one 15-min sessions. Five schools in low-income rural counties were randomly assigned to the experimental or control group. Five struggling and five nonstruggling readers were randomly selected to participate in each experimental and control classroom. There were 34 classrooms and 276 children. Experimental children achieved better gains in letter-word identification than did control children. Significant interactions were found with word attack skills. Children in the experimental group with poor rapid naming and better phonological awareness skills progressed the most compared with the control group. The TRI appeared to be a promising classroom teacher intervention to help young struggling readers.

This study reports on the perceptions and instructional practices of Grades 3 through 5 special education teachers in a school district that implemented a multitiered response to intervention (RTI) framework for the previous 5 years. The authors used focus groups and interviews to examine special education teachers’ perceptions of RTI. In addition, the authors observed the mathematics and reading instruction that these teachers provided. This study contributes to the literature by presenting a qualitative, in-depth description of special education teachers’ perceptions related to RTI implementation at the upper elementary level.