Examining the Impact of Federal Specific Learning Disability Inclusionary Criteria on Multidisciplinary Team Decision Making When Using Response to Intervention-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Examining the Impact of Federal Specific Learning Disability Inclusionary Criteria on Multidisciplinary Team Decision Making When Using Response to Intervention

Published:2022-08-11 Issue: Volume: Page:073194872211151
ISSN:0731-9487
Container-title:Learning Disability Quarterly
language:en
Short-container-title:Learning Disability Quarterly

Author:

Hunter Drew¹,Boneshefski Michael²,Kovaleski Joseph F.³,Runge Timothy J.³

Affiliation:

1. Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network, Harrisburg, USA

2. Heartland Area Education Agency, Johnston, IA, USA

3. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract

There are still many unanswered questions regarding the application of response to intervention (RTI) to making eligibility decisions for specific learning disabilities (SLD). Both federal regulations and research support that students identified with SLD using RTI should be deficient in both level of academic functioning and rate of growth in response to scientifically based instruction. To date, there is little research examining whether these eligibility criteria are predictive in identifying students with SLD by evaluation teams in schools. Two studies conducted in different states examined if level of academic performance and rate of improvement (ROI) using curriculum-based measurement in reading (CBM-R) predicted student eligibility for special education. Logistic regression results indicated that level of performance predicted special education eligibility across sites and that ROI did not. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Behavioral Neuroscience,General Health Professions,Education

Link

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/07319487221115172

Reference48 articles.

1. Algozzine B., Christenson S. L., Ysseldyke J. E. (1982). Probabilities associated with the referral to placement process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5(3), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840648200500304

2. Ardoin S. P., Christ T. J. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Standard errors associated with progress monitoring outcomes from DIBELS, AIMSweb, and an experimental passage set. School Psychology Review, 38(2), 266–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2009.12087837

3. Ardoin S. P., Christ T. J., Morena L. S., Cormier D. C., Klingbeil D. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.09.004

4. Bose M., Kohli N., Newell K. W., Christ T. J. (2019). Response to intervention: Empirical demonstration of a dual-discrepancy population via random effects mixture models. Learning and Individual Differences, 71, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.03.004

5. Burns M. K., Appleton J. J., Stehouwer J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(4), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290502300406

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Developing and Implementing a Tier 1 Reading Program Within an RTI Framework: A University–School Partnership;Learning Disabilities Research & Practice;2024-03-26

2. The Impact of Initial Level of Performance on Multidisciplinary Team Eligibility Decisions When Using Response to Intervention;Learning Disabilities Research & Practice;2023-12-28