Abstract
With many elementary schools across the nation implementing assorted response-to-intervention (RTI) models, this chapter emphasizes the value of a unified RTI model. This unified RTI model is based on the IDEAL model of problem solving in which school personnel (a) identify the problem, (b) define the problem, (c) explore alternative solutions to the problem, (d) apply a solution, and (e) look at the effects of the application. RTI is the process of providing quality instruction, implementing interventions matched to student need, and using student response data to make instructional and important educational decision. During the past few years, many states are adopting the term multi-tiered system of support (MTSS), as this framework focuses on providing instruction and intervention, rather than using data to identity disabilities. This chapter examines current practice and research using the steps in the IDEAL model and uses this as the basis for recommending MTSS practices that would construct a unified model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.
Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J. (1982). Classification decisions in learning disabilities. Educational and Psychological Research, 2, 117–129.
Ardoin, S. P., Witt, J. C., Connell, J. E., & Koenig, J. L. (2005). Application of a three-tiered response to intervention model for instructional planning. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 362–380.
Bransford, J., & Stein, B. (1984). The ideal problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning and creativity. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2012). Response to intervention implementation in elementary andsecondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Burns, M. K., & Symington, T. (2002). A meta-analysis of pre-referral intervention teams: Student and systemic outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 437–447.
Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2006). Using response to intervention to assess learning disabilities: Introduction to the special series. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 3–5.
Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Comparison of existing responsiveness-to-intervention models to identify and answer implementation questions. The California School Psychologist, 10, 9–20.
Burns, M. K., Vanderwood, M., & Ruby, S. (2005). Evaluating the readiness of prereferral intervention teams for use in a problem-solving model: Review of three levels of research. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 89–105.
Burns, M. K., Ganuza, Z., & London, R. (2009). Brief experimental analysis of written letter formation: A case demonstration. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 20–34.
Burns, M. K., Karich, A., Maki, K., Anderson, A., Pulles, S. M., Ittner, A., McComas, J. J., & Helman, L. (in press). Identifying classwide problems in reading with screening data. Journal of Evidence Based Practices for Schools.
Christ, T. J., Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Conceptual confusion within response-to-intervention vernacular: Clarifying meaningful differences. Communiqué, 34(3).
Crone, D. A., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Building positive behavior support systems in schools: Functional behavioral assessment. New York: Guilford.
Demaray, M. K., & Elliot, S. N. (2001). Perceived social support by children with characteristics of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 68–90.
Deno, S. L. (2002). Problem solving as best practices. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 37–56). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Lyon, G. R., Foorman, B. R., Stuebing, K. K., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1998). Intelligence testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 186–203.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204–219.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.
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 reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Gickling, E. E., & Havertape, S. (1981). Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA). Minneapolis: School Psychology Inservice Training Network.
Gresham, F. M., & project REACH. (2005). Response to intervention: An alternative means of identifying students as emotionally disturbed. Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 328–344.
Gresham, F. M., Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D. III, Fletcher, J., Burns, M., Crist, T., Prasse, D., Vanderwood, M., & Shinn, M. (2004). Comprehensive evaluation of learning disabilities: A response-to-intervention perspective. Communiqué, 33(4).
Hall, M., & Burns, M. K. (2014). Meta-analysis of small-group reading interventions. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Howell, K., & Nolet, V. (1999). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.
Ikeda, M. J., Tilly, W. D. III., Stumme, J., & Volmer, L. (1996). Agency-wide implementation of problem-solving consultation: Foundations, current implementation, and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 228–243.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). Pub. L. 108–446.
Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solving model: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 113–142). New York: Guilford Press.
Kavale, K. A., Kauffman, J. M., Bachmeier, R. J., & LeFever, G. B. (2008). Response-to-intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 135–150.
Kettler, R. J., Glover, T. A., Albers, C. A., & Feeney-Kettler, K. A. (2014). An introduction to universal screening in educational settings. In R. J. Kettler, T. A. Glover, C. A. Albers, & K. A. Feeney-Kettler (Eds.), Universal screening in educational settings: Evidence-based decision making for schools (pp. 3–17). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kovaleski, J. R., Tucker, J. A., & Stevens, L. J. (1996). Bridging special and regular education: The Pennsylvania initiative. Educational Leadership, 53, 44–47.
Kovaleski, J. R., Shapiro, E. S., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2013). The RTI approach to evaluating learning disabilities. New York: Guilford.
Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 187–200.
McDermott, K. A. (2011). High-stakes reform: The politics of educational accountability. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
McGlinchey, M. T., & Hixson, M. D. (2004). Using curriculum-based measurement to predict performance standards on state assessments in reading. School Psychology Review, 33, 193–203.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria: author.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Petursdottir, A. L. (2006). Brief experimental analysis of early reading interventions. Doctoral Dissertation.
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Shapiro, E. S. (2000). School psychology from an instructional perspective: Solving big, not little problems. School Psychology Review, 29, 560–572.
Shapiro, E. S. (2010). New thinking in response to intervention: A comparison of computer-adaptive tests and curriculum-based measurement within RTI. Wisconsin Rapids: Renaissance Learning.
Stage, S. A., & Jacobsen, M. D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 30, 407–419.
Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., Horner, R. H., & Walker, H. M. (2000). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wise discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 94–101.
Tilly III, W. D. (2002). Best practices in school psychology as a problem-solving enterprise. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 21–36). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2005). Using curriculum-based assessment and curriculum-based measurement to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 15–29.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Tilly, W. (2010). Keeping RtI on track: How to identify, repair, and prevent mistakes that derail implementation. Horsham: LRP Publishing.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Naquin, G. (2003). Development and validation of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Review, 32, 204–227.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S., Chen, R., Pratt, A., & Denkla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficulty-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experimental deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
Walker, H. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Structuring school-based interventions to achieve integrated primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention goals for safe and effective schools. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 1–25). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Ysseldyke, J., Burns, M., Dawson, P., Kelley, B., Morrison, D., Ortiz, S., Rosenfield, S., & Telzrow, C. (2006). School psychology: A blueprint for training in practice III. Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Burns, M., Jimerson, S., VanDerHeyden, A., Deno, S. (2016). Toward a Unified Response-to-Intervention Model: Multi-Tiered Systems of Support. In: Jimerson, S., Burns, M., VanDerHeyden, A. (eds) Handbook of Response to Intervention. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_41
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_41
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-7567-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-7568-3
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)