This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Mastropieri, M. A. Articles by Scruggs, T. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mastropieri, M. A. Articles by Scruggs, T. E. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Feasibility and Consequences of Response to Intervention

Examination of the Issues and Scientific Evidence as a Model for the Identification of Individuals with Learning Disabilities

George Mason University, mmastrop{at}gmu.edu

Thomas E. Scruggs

Graduate School of Education, George Mason University

This paper provides a response to the thoughtful paper presented by Gerber in this issue and at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium in Kansas City with guidance from five major questions posed by the organizers of the symposium. Gerber's paper provides interesting perspectives regarding the alternative approach to identification of learning disabilities (LD) or the "response to intervention" (RTI). Gerber raises questions and concerns about the theoretical and practical aspects of a response-to-intervention model on either a small- or large-scale basis. Guiding questions for this response include an examination of (a) changing roles of teachers and diagnosticians; (b) responsibility for fidelity of treatment implementation; (c) applications in secondary settings; (d) consistency of implementation from local to state to national levels; and (e) differentiation of LD from other disabilities. An alternative to both RTI and present procedures is proposed. Conclusions are discussed with respect to existing researchbased evidence.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 38, No. 6, 525-531 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/00222194050380060801


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. L. Grigorenko Dynamic Assessment and Response to Intervention: Two Sides of One Coin J Learn Disabil, March 1, 2009; 42(2): 111 - 132. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Berkeley, W. N. Bender, L. Gregg Peaster, and L. Saunders Implementation of Response to Intervention: A Snapshot of Progress J Learn Disabil, January 1, 2009; 42(1): 85 - 95. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Ryan Learning Disabilities in Australian Universities: Hidden, Ignored, and Unwelcome J Learn Disabil, October 1, 2007; 40(5): 436 - 442. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. E. Scruggs and M. A. Mastropieri Response to "Competing Views: A Dialogue on Response to Intervention" Assessment for Effective Intervention, January 1, 2006; 32(1): 62 - 64. [Abstract] [PDF]