Is Response-to-Intervention Good Policy for Specific Learning Disability?

The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) established new provisions for specific learning disability (SLD) identification, including: (a) no longer requiring consideration of IQ-achievement discrepancy, and (b) permitting response-to-intervention (RTI) as part of SLD evaluation procedures. We discuss several policy implications of these new regulations by considering the original construct of SLD, the still “experimental” status and implementation of RTI, the closer alignment of RTI objectives with No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) than former IDEA regulations, and the shift in focus from serving as a special education identification procedure to a general education instructional procedure. We conclude by proposing several recommendations for the appropriate inclusion of both RTI and psychometric evaluation within the continuum of SLD identification procedures

A Time to Define: Making the Specific Learning Disability Definition Prescribe Specific Learning Disability

Unlike other special education categories defined in U.S. law (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), the definition of specific learning disability (SLD) has not changed since first proposed in 1968. Thus, although the operational definition of SLD has responded to new knowledge and understanding about the construct, the formal definition has remained static for 40 years, creating a schism between theory and practice. Using concepts gleaned from the scientific study of formal and operational definitions as well as the history of another special education category (i.e., mental retardation), in this article we demonstrate why change in the SLD definition is necessary. Finally, we propose a change in the SLD definition in federal regulations to redress the disconnect between theory and practice and restore integrity to the SLD field

Implementation of idea: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) was reauthorized by the U.S. Congress in 2004, yet ongoing regulatory efforts are required to determine its operationalization and implementation. Of particular concern to school psychologists and others involved in the educational process are the guidelines for identification of children with specific learning disabilities (SLD). Two seemingly opposite camps have been arguing for either a response-tointervention (RTI) approach for SLD identification or a methodology that includes comprehensive evaluations for SLD identification and intervention purposes. In this article, the authors propose a resolution to these critical issues by emphasizing a multitiered approach to serving children with learning problems-one that begins with RTI, but then provides for comprehensive evaluation of cognitive processes if RTI methods are not successful in ameliorating the child's learning difficulties. If a child fails to respond to intervention and demonstrates a deficit in the basic psychological processes following comprehensive evaluation, both the definitional criteria for SLD and the method for determining SLD eligibility will be addressed. This methodology incorporates the best aspects of both the RTI and comprehensive evaluation perspectives to forge a balanced practice model that ensures diagnostic accuracy and optimizes educational outcomes for children with SLD. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. As this article is being written, events are unfolding that could profoundly shape the future of school psychology. Passed by Congress in 2004, the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) includes language that must be operationalized to reflect the intent of the law. Implementation will be equally challenging because this language must be examined within the context of sound school psychology and special education science and practice. Seemingly opposing factions have called for either a response-to-intervention (RTI) approach or one that includes comprehensive evaluation of basic psychological processes prior to classification of children with specific learning disabilities (SLD). These apparently disparate approaches should not necessarily lead to a politicized professional schism. Instead, both positions should be scrutinized for their individual merits and limitations, with the result being a model that incorporates the best tenets of both perspectives in a balanced practice model that maximizes SLD diagnostic accuracy and optimizes educational outcomes for this heterogeneous and enigmatic population. Both the RTI and comprehensive assessment positions help address long-standing problems surrounding accurate identification of children with SLD. Whether the approach is a standard protocol or a more flexible problem-solving model (see Although consensus over the SLD definition has not wavered, the law has been inconsistently applied, largely because of an overreliance on an ability-achievement discrepancy approach that has been poorly operationalized and implemented across states, districts, schools, and individuals Rather than focus on position differences that foster divisiveness and derision, it makes sense to incorporate RTI and cognitive assessment methods in a model that ensures children identified meet SLD definitional and eligibility requirements. To accomplish this end, we present arguments for and against both positions, concluding with a balanced practice model that incorporates the best tenets of both. This position suggests that RTI is critical for prevention of overidentification of SLD, and that gathering RTI and cognitive assessment data are essential not only for SLD identification but also for developing targeted individualized interventions for affected children. Valuing RTI Principles and Practices The ideas, concepts, and practices advocated by RTI proponents are not new, but their rise to prominence suggests that practices such as RTI and functional behavior analysis have widespread political and empirical support. Grounded in behavioral and single-subject experimental psychology, these methods require data-based decision-making derived from observable and measurable outcomes, not unseen etiologies. Not only are these methods successful at addressing a wide array of problem behaviors that children experience, but they also are seen as beneficial by both consumers and consultants Hale et al. Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits performance in curricular domains over time (e.g., Deno, Fuchs, Marston, & Shinn, 2001; 1) Students are provided with 'generally effective' instruction by their classroom teacher; 2) Their progress is monitored; 3) Those who do not respond get something else, or something more, from their teacher or someone else; 4) Again, their progress is monitored; and 5) Those who still do not respond either qualify for special education or for special education evaluation. (p. 159). The implicit assumption is that individualized adaptations will benefit most children experiencing academic difficulty, and insufficient growth must indicate an "inherent" deficit or disability . The Fuchs et al. RTI and Cognitive Assessment 755 Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits RTI Limitations and Consequences Although RTI approaches and research efforts are laudable, we believe several issues require further empirical examination before widespread adoption, especially for SLD classification purposes. For example, is RTI a standard protocol or flexible problem-solving approach? For the standardized approach, how will curricula and methods be standardized across classrooms and at what cost? When will research demonstrate that RTI can meet IDEA 2004 requirements for use of multiple assessment tools that are nondiscriminatory, reliable, and valid? Will teachers and/or other professionals be primarily responsible for implementing and funding RTI? How does standardized RTI provide instruction tailored to unique student learning needs, and if modified, will standardized modifications be documented and empirically validated? How will individualized problem-solving RTI affect measurement of instructional benchmarks or learning slopes necessary for determining RTI? How will the external validity of problem-solving RTI be demonstrated, and for how many different types of cases? How will treatment integrity and effectiveness be measured and documented, especially if different settings use different practices? When will parent notification or permission be obtained and procedural safeguards enacted or denied? Is RTI fair for culturally and linguistically diverse populations, and will it differentiate children with SLD from low achievement, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), emotional disturbance, mental retardation, and other disorders? Finally, how does RTI inform intervention for children who do not respond to intervention and are classified as SLD? At a 2003 NRCLD symposium, Mastropieri Although NRCLD projects are under way to address these issues, we feel the real problem with RTI lies not in the procedures offered but rather the substantial leap of faith necessary to identify children with SLD because they did not respond. The RTI position, which confuses measurement of the construct with the construct itself, suffers from the same circular reasoning that "intelligence" is "what IQ tests measure" Comprehensive Evaluation of Cognitive Processes for SLD In the early days of the SLD field, pioneers such as Kirk, Kephart, Frostig, and Cruickshank constructed instruments and conducted research that failed to establish adequate construct or treatment validity. Reviewing these negative findings, Cronbach (1975) rejected cognitive-intervention relationships (i.e., aptitude-treatment interactions; ATI) in favor of an experimental approach, a position still held by many who support RTI today (e.g., Reschly, 2005). Their conclusion, accepting the null hypothesis about the relevance of cognitive processes and existence of ATIs, could be considered premature given the state of knowledge, measures, and practice at that time (e.g., The presence of processing competencies and deficits, along with unexpected learning failure, represents the essence of SLD (Kavale, Kaufman, Naglieri, & Hale, 2005). There are numerous well-validated cognitive measures (see RTI and Cognitive Assessment 757 Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits For example, using the CAS (Naglieri & Das, 1997) and the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) theory, Naglieri and colleagues demonstrated strong relationships between Hale et al. Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits processing measures and academic domains. They have shown that Successive processing scores identify processing deficits related to reading failure and that Planning measures can guide academic interventions for children with executive disorders Limitations of Traditional Standardized Cognitive Assessment If reliable and valid measures of psychological processes are available, then why do some RTI advocates admonish against their use in SLD evaluations? One explanation is that many of the measures detailed by The ability-achievement discrepancy approach does not discriminate between children with SLD and those who are low achieving (e.g., RTI and Cognitive Assessment 759 Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits achievement could serve as a model for SLD identification (e.g., Using RTI AND Comprehensive Evaluation It is clear that system-level changes will be required to make SLD identification more rigorous and systematic, but we must make sure provisions benefit children with and without disabilities Our model consists of a three-tier SLD identification process that includes a standardized RTI protocol at Tier 1, a problem-solving RTI model at Tier 2, and a comprehensive evaluation model at Tier 3. At Tier 1, the standard protocol would be carried out by classroom teachers using repeatable standardized CBM probes to evaluate student progress in relationship to instructional benchmarks and learning curves. In this way, a child who is a nonresponder will have been exposed to a standardized, scientific, research-based instructional format and compared to other children using measures of known technical quality. If an intervention team concludes that the child is a nonresponder at Tier 1, an individualized problem-solving approach would be undertaken at Tier 2, allowing the teacher and other support staff (e.g., school psychologist) to operationally define the problem, analyze the problem determinants, brainstorm and implement individualized interventions, and then develop a relevant measurement system to evaluate results. Depending on the child and environment, Tier 2 interventions could happen in the general education classroom, in small groups, or individually. This approach would require flexible problem solving and a singlesubject experimental design, and ensure that the previously unmodified Tier 1 environment includes accommodations designed to meet the child's individual needs. While Tier 1 would ensure external validity, internal validity would be paramount at Tier 2. If the child is unresponsive at Tiers 1 and 2 (or even after Tier 1 if response was very poor), a comprehensive multidisciplinary team evaluation would be undertaken at Tier 3 and include a standardized evaluation of the basic psychological processes. If this Tier 3 evaluation reveals the child has cognitive processing and achievement deficits in the context of processing integrities, we can be assured that the child meets the definition of SLD and begin to develop targeted instructional strategies that may be unique to the individual and situation; however, these individualized interventions also would require ongoing, intensive progress monitoring to ensure that the cognitive assessment findings do indeed have ecological and treatment validity. This three-tier model is similar to the ones advocated by some RTI proponents (e.g., The following case study highlights the need to incorporate both cognitive and behavioral assessment methods in a multitier approach for serving children with special needs. Although the initial intervention was not successful, a comprehensive evaluation proved essential for understanding the nature of Jon's problem and developing effective interventions for him. Luckily for Jon, using both cognitive and behavioral methods and measures has resulted in steady improvement in his learning and behavior. Case Study The case study that follows summarizes the methods previously used by the first author. The case is presented to illustrate our view that comprehensive assessment is not necessarily the first step but rather part of a larger problem-solving model for children with learning problems. The case of Jon begins with relevant background information, a description of initial intervention attempts, the results of a comprehensive evaluation completed after he did not respond, and finally, the implementation of interventions designed to meet his needs. Backgroun