Advertisement

Elementary teacher’s knowledge of response to intervention implementation: a preliminary factor analysis

  • Stephanie Al OtaibaEmail author
  • Kristi Baker
  • Patrick Lan
  • Jill Allor
  • Brenna Rivas
  • Paul Yovanoff
  • Akihito Kamata
Article

Abstract

In the USA, many states have adopted response to intervention or multi-tiered systems of supports to provide early intervention. However, there is considerable variability in how states and schools implement RTI. Teachers are responsible for using student data from RTI to inform instructional decisions for students with or at risk for dyslexia, so it is necessary to understand the knowledge they have about the structure of RTI in their individual schools. This study reviews the results of an exploratory factor analysis of a survey aimed at measuring teachers’ knowledge about RTI implementation and their understanding of RTI implementation within their school. The 52-item survey was administered online to 139 general and special education teachers. The three final factors from this factor analytic work were (1) Teacher Knowledge about Tier 1 Implementation, (2) Teacher Knowledge about Leadership and School Systems, and (3) Teacher Knowledge about Data-Based Decision Making. Factor determinacy scores demonstrated that the survey had high internal consistency. On average, teachers’ survey scores were higher on the first two factors and slightly lower on the third factor. Implications of the findings for teachers of students with learning disabilities, including dyslexia, and directions for future research were discussed.

Keywords

Factor analysis Multi-tiered systems of support Response to intervention Teacher knowledge survey 

Notes

References

  1. Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading. NCEE 2016-4000. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, S. K., & Burchard, M. S. (2011). Quality and utility of the multi-tiered instruction self- efficacy scale. Research & Practice in Assessment, 6, 22–42.Google Scholar
  3. Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 3(2), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.Google Scholar
  5. Binks-Cantrell, E., Joshi, R. M., & Washburn, E. K. (2012). Validation of an instrument for assessing teacher knowledge of basic language constructs of literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 62(3), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17(3), 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bos, C. S., Mather, N., Narr, R. F., & Babur, N. (1999). Interactive, collaborative professional development in early literacy instruction: Supporting the balancing act. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(4), 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlisle, J. F., Kelcey, B., Rowan, B., & Phelps, G. (2011). Teachers’ knowledge about early reading: Effects on students’ gains in reading achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(4), 289–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cattell, R. B., & Jaspers, J. (1967). A general plasmode (no. 30-10-5-2) for factor analytic exercises and research. Multivariate behavioral research monographs.Google Scholar
  12. Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1), 139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edmonds, M., Roberts, G., & Vaughn, S. (2003). Evaluation of the Hawaii Reading Excellence Act Program, 2002–2004. Unpublished interview protocol. Austin, TX: Evaluation Research Services.Google Scholar
  14. Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. l. No. 114–95 § 114 stat. 1177 (2015).Google Scholar
  15. Foorman, B. R., & Moats, L. C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based practices in early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25(1), 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2017). Critique of the national evaluation of response to intervention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W.D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.
  19. Gersten, R., Jayanthi, M., & Dimino, J. (2017). Too much, too soon? Unanswered questions from national response to intervention evaluation. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 244–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glorfeld, L. W. (1995). An improvement on Horn’s parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(3), 377–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 34 CFR 300.307 (2004).Google Scholar
  24. Jenkins, J. R., Schiller, E., Blackorby, J., Kalb Thayer, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2013). Response to intervention in reading: Architecture and practices. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 36(1), 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 294–294.Google Scholar
  26. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lawley, D. N., & Maxwell, A. E. (1963). Factor analysis as a statistical model. London: Butterworths Mathematical Texts.Google Scholar
  28. Linn, R. L. (1968). A Monte Carlo approach to the number of factors problem. Psychometrika, 33(1), 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox, S., Potter, N. S., & Gray, A. L. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., Cox, S., Sidman, S., Covill, A. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (2002). Reading teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature and English phonology. Annals of Dyslexia, 52(1), 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Means, B., Padilla, C., DeBarger, A., & Bakia, M. (2009). Implementing data-informed decision making in schools: Teacher access, supports and use. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  32. Mellard, D., McKnight, M., & Jordan, J. (2010). RtI tier structures and instructional intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mellard, D. F., McKnight, M., & Woods, K. (2009). Response to intervention screening and progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44(1), 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muliak, S. A. (1972). The foundations of factor analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  37. Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998). Mplus [computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  38. National Reading Panel (U.S.), & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (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 instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
  39. Oregon Reading First: Pilot surveys. (2003). Unpublished survey instruments. Austin, TX: Evaluation Research Services.Google Scholar
  40. Phelps, G., & Schilling, S. (2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching reading. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Piasta, S. B., Connor, C. M., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(3), 224–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2012). A first course in structural equation modeling. Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2003). Teachers’ acquisition of knowledge about English word structure. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 72–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading and spelling skills in children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 332–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spear-Swerling, L., & Cheesman, E. (2012). Teachers’ knowledge base for implementing response-to-intervention models in reading. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1691–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tatham, R. L., Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Titman, S. and R. Wessels, 1(1988), 1–19.Google Scholar
  48. Texas Reading First Baseline Surveys. (2004). Unpublished survey instruments. Houston, TX: Center for Academic and Reading Skills at the University of Texas Health Science Center.Google Scholar
  49. Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines.Google Scholar
  50. Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Using an RTI model to guide early reading instruction: Effects on identification rates for students with learning disabilities. (FCRR Technical Report # 7). Retrieved from http://www.fcrr.org/science/pdf/torgesen/Response_intervention_Florida.pdf.
  51. Tourangeau, K., Lê, T., Nord, C., & Sorongon, A. G. (2009). Early childhood longitudinal study, kindergarten class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K), eighth-grade methodology report (NCES 2009–003). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  52. Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vujnovic, R. K., Fabiano, G. A., Morris, K. L., Norman, K., Hallmark, C., & Hartley, C. (2014). Examining school psychologists’ and teachers’ application of approaches within a response to intervention framework. Exceptionality, 22(3), 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Washington (RTI) 2 and HB 2136 Survey of RTI knowledge, values and use for building administrators. (2011). Unpublished survey instruments. Evaluation Research Services: Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  55. Wilcox, K. A., Murakami-Ramalho, E., & Urick, A. (2013). Just-in-time pedagogy: Teachers’ perspectives on the response to intervention framework. Journal of Research in Reading, 36(1), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zirkel, P. A., & Thomas, L. B. (2010). State laws for RTI: An updated snapshot. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(3), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Dyslexia Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie Al Otaiba
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kristi Baker
    • 2
  • Patrick Lan
    • 1
  • Jill Allor
    • 1
  • Brenna Rivas
    • 1
  • Paul Yovanoff
    • 1
  • Akihito Kamata
    • 3
  1. 1.Southern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA
  2. 2.Southern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA
  3. 3.Southern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations