Response-to-Intervention Models and Access to Services for All Students

  • Todd A. GloverEmail author


This chapter includes a discussion of five primary components that facilitate students’ access to, and participation in, high-quality instruction within an RTI service delivery framework: (a) comprehensive student assessment via screening, diagnostic measurement, and progress monitoring; (b) standardized data-based decision-making; (c) multi-tiered implementation of student support based on a continuum of needs; (d) the provision of evidence-based instruction/intervention; and (e) multi-stakeholder involvement in coordinated leadership. Key implementation drivers necessary to promote implementation are reviewed. A synopsis is provided of existing research on data-based instructional decisions, the impact of multi-tiered intervention supports, and training supports for school personnel. The chapter concludes by outlining the need for additional research evaluating (a) common decision-making criteria across assessments, (b) interventions for students who do not respond to instruction, and (c) the core components necessary for teacher professional development to support high-fidelity service delivery. Several evidence-based resources are provided to help advance practices in schools.


Response to intervention Data-based decision-making Multi-tiered service delivery Implementation drivers 


  1. Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Jones, F., & Champlin, T. M. (2010). Teaching students with moderate intellectual disabilities to read: An experimental examination of a comprehensive reading intervention. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 3–22.Google Scholar
  3. Ardoin, S. P., Christ, T. J., Morena, L. S., Cormier, D. C., & Klingbeil, D. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 1–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analysis of response-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 507–524.Google Scholar
  6. Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Reading Research Quarterly, 92, 605–619.Google Scholar
  7. Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C § 6311. et seq. (2015).Google Scholar
  8. Fixsen, D. L., & Blase, K. A. (2008). Drivers framework. Chapel Hill, NC: The National Implementation Research Network/Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute/University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
  9. Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 304–331.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. (2008). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study at the national research center on learning disabilities. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 413–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to responsiveness-to-intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2016). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A “systems” approach to instructional adaptation. Theory Into Practice, 55, 225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Wehby, J., Schumacher, R. F., Gersten, R., & Joran, N. C. (2015). Inclusion versus specialized intervention for very-low-performing students: What does access mean in an era of academic challenge? Exceptional Children, 81(2), 134–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 79–92.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., et al. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention in primary grades. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Institute of Educational Sciences.Google Scholar
  17. Glover, T. A. (2010). Key RTI service delivery components: Considerations for research-informed practice. In T. A. Glover & S. Vaughn (Eds.), The promise of response to intervention: Evaluating current science and practice (pp. 7–22). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  18. Glover, T. A. (2017). A data-driven coaching model used to promote students’ response to early reading intervention. Theory Into Practice, 56, 13–20.Google Scholar
  19. Glover, T. A., & Albers, C. A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glover, T. A., & DiPerna, J. C. (2007). Service delivery models for response to intervention: Core components and directions for future research. School Psychology Review, 36, 526–542.Google Scholar
  21. Glover, T. A., & Ihlo, T. (2015). Professional development with coaching in RTI reading: A randomized study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  22. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. (2004).Google Scholar
  23. Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., & Johnson, E. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582–600.Google Scholar
  24. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). Policy decisions in special education: The role of meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Synthesis of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 281–326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Lemons, C. J., Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., Hill, D. R., Mrachko, A. A., Paterra, M. F., … Davis, S. M. (2013). Performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities on early grade curriculum-based measures of word and passage reading fluency. Exceptional Children, 79(4), 408–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425. (2002).Google Scholar
  28. O’Connor, R. E. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parisi, D. M., Ihlo, T., & Glover, T. A. (2014). Screening within a multi-tiered early prevention model: Using assessment to inform instruction and promote students’ response to intervention. In R. J. Kettler, T. A. Glover, C. A. Albers, & K. Feeney-Kettler (Eds.), Universal screening in educational settings: Evidence-based decision making for schools. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  30. PRESS Research Team. (2013). PRESS intervention manual. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Center for Reading Research.Google Scholar
  31. Shapiro, E. (2016). Evaluating the impact of response to intervention in reading at the elementary level across the state of Pennsylvania. In S. R. Jimmerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Tindal, C., McDonald, M., Tedesco, M., Clasgow, A., Almond, P., Crawford, L., & Hollenbeck, K. (2003). Alternate assessments in reading and math: Development and validation for students with significant disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to intervention as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Murray, C. (2007). Monitoring response to intervention for students at-risk for reading difficulties: High and low responders. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 234–243). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vernon-Feagans, L., Kainz, K., Hedrick, A., Ginsberg, M., & Amendum, S. (2013). Live webcam coaching to help early elementary classroom teachers provide effective literacy instruction for struggling readers: The targeted reading intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1175–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations