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.
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 research-based evidence.
Mastropieri
Margo A
MA
George Mason University, Graduate School of Education, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444, USA. mmastrop@gmu.edu
Scruggs
Thomas E
TE
D002648:Child; D003657:Decision Making; D004185:Disability Evaluation; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D006801:Humans; D007859:Learning Disabilities / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000628:therapy*; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods*; D012586:Science; D016896:Treatment Outcome