Advertisement

Response to Intervention (RtI) and the Impact on School Psychologist Roles: Perceptions and Acceptance of Systems Change

  • Kathleen AspirantiEmail author
  • Angela Hilton-Prillhart
  • Alanna Bebech
  • Mark E. Dula
Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

This study examined school psychologists’ perceptions and acceptability of a state-mandated response to intervention (RtI) model. The purpose of this study was to examine the role school psychologists play in the RtI process as well as investigate factors influencing school psychologists’ involvement in RtI. A survey was disseminated through snowball sampling to school psychologists to identify the impact of RtI on school psychologists’ roles as well as district preparedness. A principal component analysis identified four clear survey components. Results from survey participants (n = 80) showed that most school psychologists felt prepared to implement RtI, but did not believe their school would be able to implement RtI with fidelity. Additionally, school psychologists working in schools already using RtI procedures felt more comfortable and confident with RtI than schools not already using RtI. The current study suggests that mandatory state-wide RtI implementation can be beneficial, but more training for teachers and administrators is needed.

Keywords

Response to intervention RtI School psychologist Perception Survey 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained for all participants included in the study.

References

  1. Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1997). Toward a scale-up model for replicating new approaches to schooling. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 8, 197–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, B. L. (1993). The stages of systemic change. Educational Leadership, 51, 14–14.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, A. C., & Harlacher, J. E. (2008). Clearing the confusion: response-to-intervention as a set of principles. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartle, H. (2009). Implementation of the response to intervention model: perceptions of change, challenges, supports, and role shifts (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Dissertation Abstracts International database. (UMI No. 3360952).Google Scholar
  5. Batsche, G., & Elliott, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., … Tilly, D. W. (2005). Response to intervention: policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.Google Scholar
  6. Bullock, T. M. (2012). Examining factors that predict school psychologists’ perceptions of the response to intervention process. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia.Google Scholar
  7. Canter, A. (2006). The role of the school psychologist in the RTI process. National Association of School Psychologists, X, 40(2), 1–7.Google Scholar
  8. Charvat, J. L. (2005). NASP study: how many school psychologists are there? NASP Communique, 33(6). Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/cq336numsp.aspx. Accessed 17 Apr 2018
  9. Cochrane, W. S., & Laux, J. M. (2008). A survey investigating school psychologists’ measurement of treatment integrity in school-based interventions and their beliefs about its importance. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 499–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craighead, W. E., Kazdin, A. E., & Mahoney, M. J. (1981). Behavior modification: Principles, issues, and applications (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  11. DuFour, R., DuFour, R. B., Eaker, R. E., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: how professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  12. Ervin, R. A., Schaughency, E., Goodman, S. D., McGlichey, M. T., & Matthews, A. (2006). Merging research and practice agendas to address reading and behavior school-wide. School Psychology Review, 35, 198–223.Google Scholar
  13. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2017). Critique of the national evaluation of response to intervention: a case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children, 83, 255–268.Google Scholar
  14. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hollenbeck, K. N. (2007). Extending responsiveness to intervention to mathematics at first and third grades. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fullan, M. (2007). Change theory as a force for school improvement. In Intelligent leadership (pp. 27–39). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Glover, T. A., & DiPerna, J. C. (2007). Service deliver for response to intervention: core components and directions for future research. School Psychology Review, 36, 526–540.Google Scholar
  17. Hawkins, R. O., Kroeger, S. D., Musti-Rao, S., Barnett, D. W., & Ward, J. E. (2008). Preservice training in response to intervention: learning by doing an interdisciplinary field experience. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 745–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heckathorn, D. D. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems, 44, 174–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holzman, M. (1993). What is systemic change? Educational Leadership, 51(1), 18.Google Scholar
  20. Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2003). Referral rates for intervention or assessment: a meta-analysis of racial differences. The Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Joseph, R., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2010). The systemic change process in education: a conceptual framework. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1, 97–117.Google Scholar
  22. Kozleski, E. B., & Huber, J. J. (2010). Systemic change for RtI: key shifts for practice. Theory Into Practice, 49, 258–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lau, M. Y., Sieler, J. D., Muyskens, P., Canter, A., VanKeuren, B., & Marston, D. (2006). Perspectives on the use of the problem-solving model from the viewpoint of a school psychologist, administrator, and teacher from a large midwest urban school district. Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 117–127.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Little, S. (2013). School psychologists’ perceptions of stakeholder engagement in response to intervention. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 6, 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Machek, G., & Nelson, J. (2010). School psychologists’ perceptions regarding the practice of identifying reading disabilities: cognitive assessment and response to intervention considerations. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 230–245.Google Scholar
  26. Nellis, L. M. (2012). Maximizing the effectiveness of building teams in response to intervention implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2006). Assuring the form has substance: Treatment plan implementation as the foundation of assessing response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 32–39.Google Scholar
  28. Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2009). Moving from good ideas in educational systems change to sustainable program implementation: coming to terms with some of the realities. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nunn, G. D., & Jantz, P. B. (2009). Factors within response to intervention implementation training associated with teacher efficacy beliefs. Education, 129, 599–607.Google Scholar
  30. O’Connor, E. P., & Freeman, E. W. (2012). District level considerations in supporting and sustaining RtI implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Donnell, P., & Miller, D. (2011). Identifying students with specific learning disabilities: school psychologists’ acceptability of the discrepancy model versus response to intervention. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(2), 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Donoghue, T., & Punch, K. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative educational research in action: doing and reflecting. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  33. Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Clemens, N. H. (2012). Defensible progress monitoring data for medium- and high-stakes decisions. Journal of Special Education, 43, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sansosti, F. J., Goss, S., & Noltemeyer, A. (2011). Perspectives of special education directors on response to intervention in secondary schools. Contemporary School Psychology, 15(1), 9–20.Google Scholar
  35. Stuart, S., Rinaldi, C., & Higgins-Averill, O. (2011). Agents of change: voices of teachers on response to intervention. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 7(2), 53–73.Google Scholar
  36. Sullivan, A., & Long, L. (2010). Examining the changing landscape of school psychology practice: a survey of school based practitioners regarding response to intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 1059–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tennessee Department of Education (2015). Response to instruction and intervention framework: RtI manual. Retrieved from http://tncore.org/sites/www/Uploads/RTI_templates/RTI_Manual_revision_1_15%20final.pdf. Accessed 17 Apr 2018
  38. Unruh, S., & McKellar, N. (2013). Evolution, not revolution: school psychologist’s changing practices in determining specific learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zirkel, P. A. (2012). The legal dimension of RTI: part I. The basic building blocks. Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org. Accessed 17 Apr 2018
  41. Zirkel, P. A., & Thomas, L. (2010). State laws and guidelines for implementing RTI. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(1), 60–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© California Association of School Psychologists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathleen Aspiranti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Angela Hilton-Prillhart
    • 2
  • Alanna Bebech
    • 1
  • Mark E. Dula
    • 2
  1. 1.Special Education and School PsychologyYoungstown State UniversityYoungstownUSA
  2. 2.Milligan CollegeMilligan CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations