Nandini,

I think I can be of service to you best if I point you to the RTI-based SLD Identification Toolkit that can be found at: rtinetwork.org. 

Lot of resources there.

Good luck

Frank

What you are looking for is failure to respond to intense levels of evidence-base, empirically supported interventions. For example, if a student has received a repeated reading intervention with multiple components (repeated reading with reinforcement, error correction, choral reading, goal setting, etc.) and the frequency, intensity, and duration of an effective level of intervention exceeds what can be supported in a general education environment, the student may need an individualized education plan. However, RTI is inherently a non-categorical model, meaning it is meant to match service intensity to educational need (i.e. Hartland model used in Iowa), not to diagnose. RTI data is useful for DSM or IDEIA taxonomies when used as one facet of a multimodal assessment, where evidence from interventions is convergent with other measures that indicate learning problems (e.g. cognitive and achievement standardized tests). Additionally, intervention data is only valid if you can assure the interventions were delivered with high levels of fidelity. Moreover, intervention data needs to indicate failure to show growth that is consistent with typical learning rates. There is quite a bit that needs to be considered, like local norms vs national norms. Hope this helps as a start. 

Dear Frank Stanko &Thomas Gross

Thank you for your inputs.  Frank, sharing of the website rtinetwork.com is quite helpful!

To the points raised by Thomas, it is heartening to know that RTI data is only  one among the different measures used to indicate learning problems. But I have some queries.

1) when you try out an intervention program on a particular student, at which point you decide /what is the criteria to decide FAILURE TO RESPOND or  the level of intervention exceeds what can be supported in a general education environment?  Does it mean that when  the frequency and duration of that standardized program, does not work for an improvement in the child, it can be considered a failure?

2) Please throw some more light on national and local norms with respect to typical learning rates in the context of intervention.

Regards

Nandini

Hello Nandini,

Typically what is part of "best practice" for evaluating failure to respond is, following baseline data on some aspect of learning, let's say words correct per minute for reading, the student is provided a specific intervention and the number of words read used to determine if the intervention is successful.  Charting is typically used and a trend line determined from the regular assessment of the area of focus. In my experience, this was typically done every two weeks but was adapted accordingly.  The positive change as well as a prediction of when the student would achieve the grade-expected level of competency are presented to an educational team working with the student and changes made to the intervention when the team feels it is not effective.

Hope this helps.

Frank 

Nandini,  I would concur with the responses of Frank and Thomas and certainly the website is helpful.  However, having been "at the front" in schools, RTI  has become more of a procedural and process activity and the fidelity of interventions is often poor.  Most school districts will identify at-risk students, but the interventions may have to be carried out for a fixed time period.  If the first "intervention" fails, a second is usually required.  This process can  take up to 6 months and only then will there be a referral for a comprehensive evaluation.  With the current guidelines, that means that many children with clearly at-risk profiles might not get an IEP within the school year they are identified.

Tom points out a big issue with the use of intervention data to make categorical determinations. Interventions are often ramped up in intensity based on poor response, not due to child fail to learn, but poor implementation. One solution that i have used is to place indicators of intervention implementation within the permanent products generated form the intervention, and i have made agreements with teachers that if they have a certain level of fidelity, then i'll enter and graph their data for them. Additionally, how pre-referral teams are run, data is used, and length of intervention required to show poor response can vary from state to state, district to district, and even school to school within districts. Additionally, a good RTI system starts with good Tier1 (primary) implementation. This means that in-class instruction and the grade-level curriculum are at adequate enough quality that 80% of students will learn skills within an expected range. This leads me to the idea of using micro-norming and lack of exposure. If a student is low-average on a standardized test, but the top of his grade on benchmarking assessments, then it may be an issue of poor quality curriculum or instruction. One of the first thing to rule out is lack or exposure. In this scenario the child may present deficits, but it may not be due to internal causes. Things to keep in mind: Instruction (has the kids had the opportunity to learn the skills?), Curriculum (does the school's curriculum provide opportunities to learn the skills?), Environment (are there issues with classroom management or other things that may limit access to instruction?), and Learner (what student-centric issues may inhibit learning certain skills?). 

I hate to flood you with info, but here are a few sources to help with understanding RTI:

Ardoin, S., Witt, J., Connell, J. & Koenig, J. (2005). Instructional planning, decision making, and the identification of children in need of service. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 362-380.

Ball, C. R., & Trammell, B. A. (2011). Response‐to‐intervention in high‐risk preschools: Critical issues for implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 48(5), 502-512. doi:10.1002/pits.20572

Greenwood, C. R., & Kim, J. (2012). Response to intervention (RTI) services: An ecobehavioral perspective. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 22(1-2), 79-105.

Watson, S. R., Gable, R. A., & Greenwood, C. R. (2011). Combining ecobehavioral assessment, functional assessment, and response to intervention to promote more effective classroom instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 334-344. doi:10.1177/0741932510362219

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Barnett, D. W. (2005). The Emergence and Possible Futures of Response to Intervention. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(4), 339-361.

Johnson, K. N., Kaase, K. J., Medley, M. B., Cates, G. L., & Doggett, R. (2011). The essential elements matrices: Response to intervention as a set of interrelated elements. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 12(1), 5-14.

Lembke, E. S., Hampton, D., & Beyers, S. J. (2012). Response to intervention in mathematics: Critical elements. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 257-272. doi:10.1002/pits.21596

Margolis, H. (2012). Response to intervention: RTI’s Linchpins. Reading Psychology, 33(1-2), 8-10. doi:10.1080/02702711.2011.630600

Codding, R.S., Hilt-Panahon, A., Panahon, C.J. & Benson. (2009). Addressing mathematics computation problems: A review of simple and moderate intensity interventions. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 279-312.

I also attached an example of a Re-reading intervention with imbedded fidelity monitoring, its not perfect, but at lest its a start.

If you want, i can show you some deidentified examples of using RTI/Curriculum based assessment to make disability determinations; however, i am not comfortable sharing those on the internet. if you are interested let me know and we can back channel.

Dear Frank, Tom & Thomas,

Thank you for the resources provided. My apologies for the delay in replying.

Frank, I have been to the Rt I site and have found the evaluation criteria,  quite comprehensive.

Regarding the point that Tom has brought in,  as I understand the interventionist (using  Tier 2 and 3 interventions) should ideally use multiple screenings at the beginning of school year or include a second level screening by mid year (after 6 months) and look out for progress made.  Depending upon this he should make a decision regarding whether the child should be in Tier 2 or 3 intervention.

So when multiple screenings are used( Achievement test score, multi-disciplinary assessment, diagnostic testing)  for low -achieving subjects(teacher spotted), children, won't that be sufficient to make a diagnosis?(provided adequate school related inputs are given).

About  what Thomas had suggested, in Tier 1 instruction- as I understand the basic thing is proper instruction in school. What is misleading is the term " targeted instruction". In India, we don't generally have a system of targeted intervention for children who have difficulty to cope, at school level(Tier 1). Either parents give extra tuition, or extended practice drills to help the child. In this context  can a normal school exposure (with the points you referred instruction, curriculum, environment etc)  be treated  as satisfying this requirement of targeted instruction?

Thank you for all those references. However I am not able to download your attachment.  Would like to have a look at how RtI model is used for disability determination.