Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Learning Disabilities
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kavale, K. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kavale, K. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Identifying Specific Learning Disability

Is Responsiveness to Intervention the Answer?

Kenneth A. Kavale

Regent University, kkavale{at}regent.edu

Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is being proposed as an alternative model for making decisions about the presence or absence of specific learning disability. I argue that there are many questions about RTI that remain unanswered, and radical changes in proposed regulations are not warranted at this time. Many fundamental issues related to RTI are unresolved, and a better strategy may be to more rigorously implement existing identification criteria (e.g., discrepancy and psychological processing deficits) in a structured psychometric framework. Suggestions on how to modify present procedures are provided.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 38, No. 6, 553-562 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/00222194050380061201
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Learn DisabilHome page
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]

Home page
 J Learn DisabilHome page
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]

Home page
 J Learn DisabilHome page
P.G. Aaron, R. M. Joshi, R. Gooden, and K. E. Bentum
Diagnosis and Treatment of Reading Disabilities Based on the Component Model of Reading: An Alternative to the Discrepancy Model of LD
J Learn Disabil, February 1, 2008; 41(1): 67 - 84.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Assessment for Effective InterventionHome page
G. M. Batsche, K. A. Kavale, and J. F. Kovaleski
Competing Views: A Dialogue on Response to Intervention
Assessment for Effective Intervention, January 1, 2006; 32(1): 6 - 19.
[Abstract] [PDF]