To examine a response to treatment model as a means for identifying students with reading/learning disabilities, 45 second-grade students at risk for reading problems were provided daily supplemental reading instruction and assessed after 10 weeks to determine if they met a prior criteria for exit. Students who met criteria no longer received supplemental instruction. Those who did not were regrouped and supplemental instruction was continued for another 10 weeks. After 20 weeks of supplemental instruction, students who still had not met criteria were provided another 10 weeks of supplemental instruction. Students who never met criteria were classified as no exit. Pretest scores on fluency, passage comprehension, and rapid naming were the significant predictors of students who did not meet exit criteria.
References
1.
American Guidance Services. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery. Circle Pines, MN: Author.*
2.
BatemanB. D. (1994). Toward a better identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5(2), 95–99.
3.
BocianK. M.BeebeM. E.MacMillanD. L.GreshamE. M. (1999). Competing paradigms in learning disabilities classification by schools and the variations in the meaning of discrepant achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 1–14.
4.
Children's Educational Services, Inc. (1987). Test of Oral Reading Fluency. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6.
DicksonS. V.BursuckW. D. (1999). Implementing a model for preventing reading failure: A report from the field. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(4), 191–202.
7.
ElbaumB. E.VaughnS.HughesM. T.MoodyS. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure?Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605–619.
8.
EppsS.YsseldykeJ.McGueM. (1984). Differentiating LD and non-LD students: “I know one when I see one.”Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 89–101.
9.
FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.ShaywitzS. E.LyonG. R.FoormanB. R.StuebingK. K.ShaywitzB. A. (1998). Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(4), 186–203.
10.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.BarnesM.SuebingK. K.FrancisD. J.OlsenR. K.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A. (2001). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. Paper prepared for the OSEP Learning Disabilities Initiative, Office of Special Education Program, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204–219.
12.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.FernstromP. (1992). Case-by-case reintegration of students with learning disabilities. Elementary School Journal, 92, 261–281.
13.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.SpeeceD. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–45.
14.
FuchsD.RobertsP. H.FuchsL. S.BowersJ. (1996). Reintegrating students with learning disabilities into the mainstream: A two-year study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 214–229.
15.
GreshamF. M. (2001). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. Paper prepared for the OSEP Learning Disabilities Initiative, Office of Special Education Program, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
16.
HallahanD. P. (1992). Some thoughts on why the prevalence of learning disabilities has increased. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 523–528.
17.
HellerK. A.HoltzmanW. H.MessickS. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18.
HowellD. C. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.
19.
JenkinsJ.O'ConnorR. E. (2001). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. Paper prepared for the OSEP Learning Disabilities Initiative, Office of Special Education Program, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
20.
KameenuiE. J.SimmonsD. C.CoyneM. D. (2000). Schools as host environments: Toward a school-wide reading improvement model. Annals of Dyslexia, 50, 33–51.
21.
KeoghB. K.SpeeceD. L. (1996). Learning disabilities within the context of schooling. In SpeeceD. L.KeoghB. K. (Eds.), Research on classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of children with learning disabilities (pp. 1–14). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
LernerJ. (1989). Educational intervention in learning disabilities. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 326–331.
23.
LyonG. R. (1999, December 12). Special education in state is failing on many fronts. Los Angeles Times, p. A1.
24.
MacMillanD. L.GreshamF. M.LopezM. F.BocianK. M. (1996). Comparison of students nominated for re-referral interventions by ethnicity and gender. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 133–151.
25.
MacMillanD. L.SpeeceD. L. (1999). Utility of current diagnostic categories for research and practice. In GallimoreR.BernheimerL. P.MacMillanD. L.SpeeceD. L.VaughnS. (Eds.), Developmental prespectives on children with high-incidence disabilities (pp. 117–134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instructions (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
27.
Notari-SyversonA.O'ConnerR. E.VadasyP. F. (1998). Ladders to Literacy: A preschool activity book. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.*
28.
O'ConnorR. E. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(1), 43–54.
29.
ReschlyD. J.TillyW. D.IIIGrimesJ. P. (Eds.). (1999). Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.*
30.
ReschlyD. J.YsseldykeJ. (1995). School psychology paradigm shift. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp. 17–32). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
31.
ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A.FletcherJ. M.EscobarM. D. (1990). Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls: Results of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 264, 998–1002.
32.
SiegelL. S. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 304–319.
33.
SnowC. E.BurnsS.GriffinP. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 415).
34.
SpeeceD. L.CaseL. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735–749.
35.
StuebingK. K.FletcherJ. M.LeDouxJ. M.LyonG. R.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading difficulties: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469–518.
36.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcome. New York: Guilford.*
Texas Education Agency (2000). Essential reading strategies for the struggling reader: Activities for an accelerated reading program. Austin, TX: Author.
39.
TorgesenJ. K. (2001). Individual differences in response to early intervention in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55–64.
40.
TorgesenJ. K.AlexanderA. W.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.VoellerK. S.ConwayT. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58, 78.
41.
VaughnS.GerstenR.ChardD. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99–114.
42.
VellutinoF.ScanlonD.LyonG. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223–238.
43.
VellutinoF.ScanlonD.SipayE. R.SmallS. G.PrattA.ChenR.DencklaM. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
44.
WagnerR.TorgesenJ.RashotteC. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.*
45.
WoodcockR.W.Muñoz-SandovalA. F. (1993). Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey Comprehensive Manual. Chicago: Riverside.*
46.
YsseldykeJ. E.AlgozzineB.EppsS. (1983). A logical and empirical analysis of current practice in classifying students as handicapped. Exceptional Children, 50, 160–166.
