Title: Response to Intervention (RtI) in General, Remedial and Special Education
1Response to Intervention (RtI) in General,
Remedial and Special Education
Daniel J. Reschly dan.reschly_at_vanderbilt.edu Ore
gon School Administrators Eugene, OR September
19, 2005
2What To Do With Egbert??
- 1st Grade, falling behind in reading
- Slow progress compared to peers
- Likely to miss benchmarks related to passing 3rd
Grade reading test - Distractible, inattentive, disruptive
- Sound Familiar
- WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? Driven by Federal Legislation
3Progression of Federal Education Legislation
1960s 2000s Assistance
Results __________________________ ESEA EHA Goa
ls NCLB/ 2000 Rdg
1st Process Results Number Served Goals
4NCLB Long-term Goals
- By 2013-2014, all students will reach high
standards, at a minimum, attaining proficiency or
better in reading and mathematics. - By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by
highly qualified teachers. - All students will be educated in learning
environments that are safe, drug free, and
conducive to learning. - All students will graduate from high school.
5Scientifically-based Interventions
- Strong internal validity, did the intervention
actually make a difference - Rigorous experimental designs
- Random assignment
- Subjects described in detail
- Contrasting intervention conditions
6Not Scientifically-based
- Absent experimental designs-no control group no
random assignment - Simple pre post-test designs
- Theoretically-driven, but no data
- Claims not supported by data
- Claim that it is impossible to conduct
experimental investigations - Claims from small N studies, no control group,
data not published in refereed journals
7Policy Analysis Influences
- Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S. Griffin, P. (Eds.)
(1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington DC National Academy Press. - Teaching children to read An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature
on reading and its implications for reading
instruction http//www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/
nrp/smallbook.pdf - Minority Disproportionality Report, National
Academy of Sciences/National Research Council
Panel Report - http//www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html
- LD Summit Researchers Recommendations (Bradley et
al., 2002) - Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special
Education (2002) report, http//www.ed.gov/inits/c
ommissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports.html
8What Next for Egbert?
- Chapter I tutoring
- Pull out, brief
- Poor results
- Little benefit despite billions spent
- Poor instruction, little progress monitoring,
rare changes in instruction based on results - Billions spent, dubious benefits
9What Next for Egbert?
- Pre-referral Intervention
- For most, meaningless step
- Behavioral Definition? 15
- Data prior to intervention? 10
- Written Plan? 15
- Progress monitored/changes? 5
- Compare pre to post 10
10PROBLEM SOLVING CHART
Does the damn thing work?
Yes
No
Dont mess with it!
Did you mess with it?
You Idiot!
Yes
No
No
Will you catch hell?
Hide it!
Yes
Does anyone else know?
No
Yes
You poor slob!
Ignore it
Can you blame somebody else?
No
Yes
NO PROBLEM
11Refer Egbert for Special Education Consideration
- Comprehensive Evaluation-Battery of Tests,
common battery? - Assessment largely outside of the natural context
- Dubious generalizations from test behavior to
classroom - Eligibility assessment unrelated to intervention
- Team decision-making
- Egbert not eligible at 1st, 2nd, or 3rd grade
- WAIT TO FAIL EFFECT
12Categories Meaningful?
- OR
- MR 0.4 (NJ) to 3.0 (WV) 7Xs 0.6
- ED 0.1 (AR) to 2.0 (MN) 20Xs 0.8
- LD 2.7 (KY) to 9.3 (RI) 3Xs 5.7
- Sp/L 0.8 (HI) to 3.8 (WV) 5Xs 2.8
- OHI 0.1 (MS) to 2.1 (RI) 21Xs 1.0
- All 9.7 (CO) to 17.9 (RI) 2Xs 12.0
- What Accounts for the Differences?? Also
differences between LEAs within states - 2002-2003, age 6-17, school enrollment, Table
AA-13, www.IDEAdata.org
13Foundations for Policy Changes What Does Work?
Sp Ed Placement??
- Treatment/Intervention aEffect Size
- EMR/Sp. Ed. Placement (IQ 60-75) -.14
- Slow Learner/Sp. Ed. IQ 75-90 -.34
- SLD and E/BD Sp. Ed. .29
- Traditional Placement Practices???
- Weak Relationships to Outcomes
- Note Effect size is expressed in SD units,
analogous to a z-score -
14IDEA 2004 Statute Re LD Identification
- Re SLD, the local educational agency shall not
be required to take into consideration whether
the child has a severe discrepancy between
achievement and intellectual ability - The LEA may use a process which determines if a
child responds to scientific, research-based
intervention - RTI
15IDEA 2004 Proposed Regulations Re LD
Identification 300.307 Specific learning
disabilities
- (a) General. State must establish criteria and
LEA must use state criteria - (1) State can prohibit use of severe discrepancy
between achievement and intellectual ability
(severe discrepancy) - (2) State cannot require use of severe
discrepancy - (3) State must permit the use of a process that
determines if the child responds to scientific,
research-based intervention (Response to
Intervention or RtI) - (4) State may permit the use of other
alternative research-based procedures
16IDEA 2004 Proposed Regulations Re LD
Identification
- 300.308 Group members. No significant changes
- 300.309 Determining the existence of a specific
learning disability. - (a) The group described in 300.308 may
determine that a child has a specific learning
disability if - (1) The child does not achieve commensurate with
the childs age in one or more of the following
areas, when provided with learning experiences
appropriate for the child's age - Adds Reading fluency to the existing 7 areas
17300.309 Determining the existence of a specific
learning disability continued
- (2)
- (i) The child fails to achieve a rate of learning
to make sufficient progress to meet
State-approved results in one or more of the
areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section when assessed with a response to
scientific, research-based intervention process - or
18300.309 Determining the existence of a specific
learning disability continued
- or
- (ii) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths
and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or
both, relative to intellectual development, that
is determined by the team to be relevant to the
identification of a specific learning disability,
using appropriate assessments consistent with
300.304 and 300.305 and
19300.309 Determining the existence of a specific
learning disability continued
- NEW AND SIGNIFICANT
- (b must consider, as part of the evaluation
described data that demonstrates that - (1) Prior to, or as a part of the referral
process, the child was provided appropriate
high-quality, research-based instruction in
regular education settings, consistent with
section 1111(b)(8)(D) and (E) of the ESEA,
including that the instruction was delivered by
qualified personnel and - (2) Data-based documentation of repeated
assessments of achievement at reasonable
intervals, reflecting formal assessment of
student progress during instruction, was provided
to the child's parents.
20Multi-Tiered Academic Interventions of Increasing
Intensity and Measurement Precision
- Academics (Empirically validated instruction)
- Level I General Education All students
- Level II Standard Protocol and Problem Solving
Small group and individualized interventions with
eligibility determination if response is
insufficient - Level III Special education More intense
services brought to student
21Multi-Tiered Academic Interventions of Increasing
Intensity and Measurement Precision
- Behavior-Empirically validated
- Level I General Education School wide positive
discipline - Level II Standard Protocol Treatments and
Problem Solving Classroom organization and
management and targeted individual interventions
in general education. Eligibility determination
if necessary. - Level III Special education More intense
services brought to the students
22Tier I Primary Prevention
- Scientifically-based instruction
- Curricula-content
- Teaching methodology
- Periodic Assessment of Progress
- Screen all students, begin in mid-kindergarten 3
times per year - More intense instruction and monitoring for
students below class medians - Connect results to benchmarks, additional
assistance to non-predictors - Emphasis on Prevention
23Tier I cont.
- Low performing students
- Assess progress monthly
- Establish additional learning opportunities using
specialized materials and instruction - In general education classroom
- Grouping students
- Tutoring by paraprofessionals
- Train parents when appropriate
24Tier I Case Example Behavior
- Egbert middle of Ktg.
- Teacher observation of behavior
- Eggie is aggressive toward other children and,
occasionally, toward adults - Disrupts classroom activities, large and small
group settings - Now What?
- Ensure effective classroom organization and
management Rules, expectations, examples,
consistent application, etc. - Focus attention on positive behaviors, ignore
(when possible) negative behaviors - Clear consequences for aggressive behavior toward
others (inclusion time out)
25Reading Benchmarks
Big Idea of Literacy CBM Measure
Indicator of Risk-KTG Letter Naming Fluency
Phonemic Awareness Initial Sound Fluency Phoneme Seg Fluency
Alphabetic Principle Nonsense Wd Fluency
Accuracy and Fluency with Text Oral Rdg Fluency (ORF)
Comprehension ORF and Retell Fluency
Vocabulary Word Use Fluency
26Reading Benchmarks (DIBELS)
Age/Grade Measure Fluency (FL) Criterion
Winter KTG Letter Naming Fl Initial Sound Fl 25 sounds per minute (pm)
Spring KTG Phoneme Seg 35 sounds pm
Winter 1st gr. Spring 1st gr. Spring 2nd gr. Spring 3rd gr. Nonsense WD Oral Rdg Fluency Oral Rdg Fluency Oral Reg Fluency 50 sounds pm 40 wds pm 90 wds pm 110 wds pm
27Tier I Case Example Academics
- Egbert middle of Ktg.
- Screening data, Eggie below benchmarks for Ktg in
letter-sound recognition - Now What?
- Classroom instruction for all children
emphasizing phonemic recognition skills - Increase assessment once per month for Eggie and
others similar to him - Additional small group instruction in the
classroom with continued monitoring
28Tier I Case Example Behavior
- Egbert middle of Ktg.
- Teacher observation of behavior
- Eggie is aggressive toward other children and,
occasionally, toward adults - Disrupts classroom activities, large and small
group settings - Now What?
- Ensure effective classroom organization and
management Rules, expectations, examples,
consistent application, etc. - Focus attention on positive behaviors, ignore
(when possible) negative behaviors - Clear consequences for aggressive behavior toward
others (inclusion time out)
29Tier I Screening in General Education
303rd Grade Classroom Example
- Did not pass Passing Scores
31Results of Tier I
- Prevention Effect
- Measure progress monthly for children below
benchmarks - Many children below Curriculum Based Measurement
Reading benchmarks respond to general education
classroom interventions. - Non-responders?
- Tier II interventions provided
32Tier II Secondary Prevention
- Academics Standard protocol treatments
- Small group, pull out, similar needs
- More intense instruction and monitoring
- 5-component reading interventions, with emphasis
on weak components - 10-20 weeks of intervention
- Not individualized, may not deal with behavior
- Early identification-early intervention
33Tier II cont. Academics
- Direct instruction, explicit teaching
- I do it We do it together You do it with
feedback You do it to automaticity - Focus on skills in weak areas, alphabetic
principle, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension - All components included and taught explicitly
- Progress monitoring weekly, graphed, formative
evaluation - 20 weeks of explicit instruction
- Decisions based on level and rate of learning in
relation to benchmarks
34Tier II cont. Behavior
- Eggie Classroom disruptive behaviors and
aggression continue at unacceptable levels - Targeted individualized interventions
- Formal behavior observations using a structured
protocol - IL (location), Noisy, Attending, PN (physically
negative) plus other aggression - Time sampling plus event recording
- Peer comparisons
35Tier II Behavior cont
- Behavioral Intervention
- Precise Definition-Observable Behavior
- 2. Valid/Reliable Measure in the Natural Setting
- 3. Validate the Existence of the Problem
Estimate the Severity (Age Norms/Peer
Comparisons) - 4. Intervention Goals in Terms of the Target
Behavior - 5. Analysis of Antecedent (including prior
knowledge), Situational, and Consequent
Conditions
36Tier II Behavior cont
- Behavioral Intervention, cont.
- 6. Intervention Plan Based on Principles of
Behavior Change or Instructional Design - 7. Systematic Implementation, Treatment
Integrity, Frequent Monitoring of Progress - 8. Formative evaluation-revisions as needed
- 9. Evaluate effects after 20 weeks
- 10. Systematic Plan for Maintenance and
Generalization of Behavior Change
37Effects of Tier I and Tier II
- Potentially identifies more students in general
education with reading problems through universal
screening - Reduces number of students with very poor reading
and increases number of students meeting
benchmarks, but - Non or insufficient response rate of 3-5
- Generalizations of improved performance to
classroom without pull out support - What Next?
38Limitations of Tier II in LD Identification
- Small group interventions, NOT individualized
- Does not meet requirements for a full and
individual evaluation - Academic focus, probably ignores behavior
- Multi-factored assessment required
- Exclusion factors must be assessed
39(No Transcript)
40 Foundations for Policy Changes What Does Work?
ABA, DI, CBM
- Treatment Effect Size
- Applied Behavior Analysis. 1.00
- CBMGraphingFormative
- Evaluation .70
- CBMGraphingFormative
- EvaluationReinforcement 1.00
- Comprehension Strategies gt1.00
- Many other effective instructional and behavior
change principles
41PS-RTI Challenges
- Fidelity of Treatment, steps and decision making
- Paradigm Shift Change thinking and priorities
about services - Continuing education needs of practitioners
- No bright lines to separate eligible from
non-eligible students
42Prevention-Early Intervention
- LEA can use 15 of federal IDEA funds to support
prevention and early identification-treatment - Purpose minimize over-identification and
unnecessary sp ed referrals - Provide academic and behavioral supports
- Supports professional development and provision
of interventions including early literacy
instruction - Scientifically-based
- Golden opportunity for schools!!
43SEA/LEA Choices RELD Identification
- IF Tier I and Tier II are done well and are
insufficient THEN WHAT??? - Four Options Implications and Value
- Cognitive assessment, processes, pattern of
strengths and weaknesses?? - IQ-achievement discrepancy?? Revised?
- Intense, individualized problem solving
- Nothing-child is eligible based on Tier II
results
44What Is A Specific Learning Disability?
- Many plausible answers
- Social and political reality in need of a
foundation in theory and research - Definition (psychological processes) ignored for
30 years in federal regulations on identification
of LD. Why? - Research for 30 years on LD identification and
student characteristics - State policies and practices
45LD Is Relative to Context and Expectations
- Large differences in achievement levels depending
on context and expectations - Key feature LD is very low achievement compared
to peers that, associated with other behaviors,
provokes referral - Many persons with low ach not referred,
especially girls with reading problems - LD is real in the sense of low relative
achievement, often complicated by mildly
disruptive classroom behavior, that places
children and youth on a negative educational
trajectory
46Origins of IQ-Achievement Discrepancy
- 1975 Congress passed mandatory special education
legislation, LD included - Processing definition adopted
- Processing measures and interventions repudiated
in research published in early to mid 1970s - Huge concerns about over-identification and
consistency prevalence estimates varied from 2
to 32 - Congress mandated the development of LD
classification criteria OR 2 cap imposed - Deadline of December 31, 1977
47Origins of IQ-Achievement Discrepancy continued
- Enormous disagreement in the field in 1975-1977,
gt1000 letters to BEH - No consensus on LD identification
- Rutter Yule studies-2 groups of poor readers
- Severe discrepancy between achievement and
intellectual ability - Best alternative to a very difficult problem
- Marker for LD, but never thought to be the
essence of LD - Problems recognized immediately (Danielson
Bauer, 1978)
48Implementation of Severe Discrepancy Overall
Trends
- Increasingly adopted by states in 1970s and 1980s
- Little consistency regarding method to determine
- Little consistency regarding magnitude of
discrepancy - Considerable evidence of frequent nullification
49Implementation of Severe Discrepancy State
Policies and Practices
- Reschly Hosp (2004)
- 48 of 50 states (exceptions-IA and LA)
- Standard score or SD differences 10 states
- Regression methods or some variation 20 states
- Idiosyncratic, uninterpretable methods or no
stated method in 18 states
50Implementation of Severe Discrepancy State
Policies and Practices
- Criterion for severe discrepancy (how large?)
(Reschly Hosp, 2004) - 30 of 48 states provide guidance to LEAs
- Determined the magnitude of the required
discrepancy if the IQ100 - States vary from 15 to 30 points (still verifying
some states) - No statistically significant relationship between
magnitude of discrepancy and LD prevalence
51Control of PrevalenceKY 2.85 to RI 9.43
www.ideadata.org Table AA13
Mean5.8, SD1.19
52Discrepancy Method Criticized
- IQ-Achievement Discrepancy
- Unreliable-especially stability over short time
intervals and different pairs of tests - Questionable Validity
- Expensive
- CAUSES HARM THROUGH DELAYING TREATMENT TO AGE
9-11
53Ability-Achievement Discrepancy What Next?
- Strong proponents exist (Kavale, Scruggs and
Mastropieri) - Essential marker of LD, necessary but not
sufficient - Implementation fidelity is the main problem
- Revise to overcome weaknesses
- Better than nothing, a flawed bright line is
better than no line
54Ability-Achievement Discrepancy Conclusions
- Rejected by LD Summit Researchers
- Must overcome research indicating
- Questionable validity and reliability
- Wide variations in how applied
- Enormous variations in prevalence
- Harmful, wait to fail effects in early grades
when intervention is most likely to be effective - Absence of prevention or early identification-earl
y intervention effects
55Processing Basis for LD Identification
- Terminology
- Basic psychological processes related to learning
- Neuropsychological intact and non-intact areas,
or strengths and weaknesses - Learning Styles
- Information processing modality (visual-auditory)
- Cognitive processing (simultaneous-successive-
plus others)
56Origins of Processing in LD Identification
- Original definition, Kirk et al.,
- Adopted in Federal legislation in 1967 and in EHA
in 1975, 1977 IDEA 2004 - Dominant definition in states
- Conforms to essence of LD according to many LD
experts - Theory driven
- Claims of positive benefits always precede
research examining the claims
57Applications of Processing Constructs in LD
Identification and Treatment
- LD Identification A child with LD displays a
pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses
that account for the inefficient learning and
poor achievement - LD Intervention-Process Training Interventions
are designed to improve cognitive weaknesses,
with the assumption that improved achievement
will follow. - LD Intervention-Aptitude by Treatment
Interaction Instructional content and
methodology matched to cognitive (neurological)
strengths
58Applications of Processing Constructs in LD
Identification
- LD Identification
- Focus on pattern of strengths and weaknesses
- Assumption that LD is caused by or is related
to cognitive weaknesses that interfere with
efficient learning - Clinical insight integrate test scores with
clinical observations and other data sources to
offer insightful answers to referral questions. - Greater profile variability seen as indicator of
LD
59Processing Constructs in LD Identification State
Policies and Practices
- Most states use Federal LD definition (82)
- Most states ignore processing disorder in
classification criteria (37/50 or 74) - The 13 states do NOT provide explicit guidelines
or criteria to guide identification of processing
deficit - Unrelated to LD prevalence
- Trend toward diminishing state specification of
processing disorder in LD classification,
1980-2005
60Processing in LD Identification Research Results
- No unique pattern associated with LD
- High base rates for processing strengths and
weaknesses - Test scatter is normal and more tests, more
scatter - Nearly all (if not all) children with low
achievement with have processing deficits (as
will normal children) - Profile reliability is questionable
61Processing in LD Identification Research Results
- Poor consistency due to high subjectivity in
profile interpretation - No evidence that greater stress on cognitive
processing will control LD prevalence (more
likely to exacerbate over identification) - Always new processes related to new theories
with promise of improved results with new
processes - Intense debates between authors of new tests
and processes vs researchers appeared in 1970s,
1980s, 1990s, and 2000s
62Cognitive Processing in LD Interventions Process
Training Research 1970-2005
- Many processes, many claims, little research
- Rare positive results
- Even rarer demonstration of near transfer of
gains No evidence of far transfer - No evidence of achievement gains related to
alleged processing gains - No studies that meet standards for scientifically
based research - Claims of advocates virtually never confirmed in
research by others
63Use of Processing in Aptitude by Treatment
Interaction Matching
- Match Up Teaching Methodology to Aptitudes
Avoid Dead Tissue (Reynolds, 1992) - Many Applications in School Psychology and
Special Education (e.g..., Neuropsychology,
Learning Styles, Multicultural Teaching
Methodology, Simultaneous vs Sequential,
Information Processing Modality, Right Hemisphere
-- Left Hemisphere, visual vs Auditory Learners)
64Aptitude by Treatment Matching???
- Treatment/Intervention aEffect Size
- Modality Matched Instr. (Aud.) .03
- Modality Matched Instr. (Vis.) .04
- Simultaneous/Successive .??
- Right Brain/Left Brain .??
- Cultural Leaning Style .??
- NOTHING FOR KIDS
- FEEL GOOD ASSESSMENT
-
65Results of ATI Research
- King of England describing his Danish
brother-in-law There is nothing there. - Cronbach, (1975). Once we attend to
interactions, we enter a hall of mirrors that
extends to infinity. (p. 119) - Kavale (1999) No supportive data, but cannot kill
Phoenix-like processing claims - Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2003), There is no
empirical support for the use of modality-matched
instruction or learning styles as a means to
enhance outcomes for students with LD. (p. 142).
66Digression Neuropsychology and Neuroscience
- Distinguish between neuropsychology and
neuroscience - Neuropsychology is dependent on psychometric
profiles - Difference scores are less reliable
- Scatter is normal
- Base rates for profile variations
- Flat profiles are atypical
- Nearly all have profile variations
67Neuroscience Findings
- Instruction in decoding changes brain functioning
on fMRI - Neuroscience findings generally refute
traditional neuropsychology with learning
problems - Neurological functioning more dynamic, less
static - Little practical application of fMRI to current
school psychology practice - No unique LD markers!!
68Neuroscience
- Instruction in decoding changes brain functioning
on fMRI - Neurological functioning more dynamic, less
static - Little practical application of fMRI to current
school psychology practice - No unique LD markers!!
69Digression fMRI Studies
- Science article fMRIs of boys and girls engaged
in decoding-Girls used both hemispheres, boys one - Implications??
- Do fMRI to find real LD?
- Abandon IQ and go to fMRIs
- Trade the hatchback for an 18 wheeler
- Cost issues 3m per machine, plus maintenance
70Strengths of Cognitive Processing as a Key Factor
in LD
- Consistent with traditional (widely ignored)
unvalidated LD definition - Consistent with advocates feelings about
essence of LD - Preserves traditional clinical practice for many
professionals
71Problems with Cognitive Processing and LD
Identification and Intervention
- Absence of empirical evidence to support claims
- Clinical interpretationnot testable
- Identification? Must overcome the base rates for
profile variations - Treatment? Must show that processes can be
trained AND that changes in processes produce
better achievement - Treatment? Must should statistically and
practically significant ATI - Flawed assumptions refuted to date in research
72Problem Solving and RtI
- Improves behavior and achievement outcomes in
general, remedial, and special education - Links diagnosis with treatment
- Facilitates application of scientifically-based
interventions - Self-correcting methodology
- Accountability enhanced