ERIC EJ786201: Responsiveness to Intervention and the Identification of Specific Learning Disability: A Critique and Alternative Proposal

2006·0.16 MB·English

by  ERIC

Due to errors in citation, this manuscript, which originally appeared in Volume 28, Issue 1,
of the Learning Disability Quarterly (pp. 2-16) is published here in its corrected version.
References to and citations of the earlier publication should be updated to the present version.
RESPONSIVENESS TO INTERVENTION
AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC
LEARNING DISABILITY: A CRITIQUE AND
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL
Kenneth A. Kavale, James A. Holdnack, and Mark P. Mostert
Abstract. Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is being pro-
posed as an alternative model for making decisions about the pres-
ence or absence of specific learning disability. We argue that many
questions about RTI remain unanswered, and that radical changes
in the proposed regulations are not warranted at this time. Since
many fundamental issues related to RTI have not been resolved, a
better strategy may be to more rigorously implement existing iden-
tification criteria (e.g., discrepancy and psychological processing
deficits) in a structured psychometric framework. Suggestions for
how to modify present procedures are provided.
KENNETH A. KAVALE,Ph.D., is professor, Regent University.
JAMES A. HOLDNACK, Ph.D., is senior research director, Harcourt Assessment, Inc.
MARK P. MOSTERT,Ph.D., is professor, Regent University.
Identification of a “specific learning disability” (SLD) problems, however. One was the consequent over iden-
has been a long-standing issue for special education. tification of SLD. Specifically, the SLD population has
The problem centers around the lack of consensus increased by about 150% to the point where it repre-
about the best way to operationalize the formal defini- sents over 50% of the special education population and
tion articulated in the Individuals with Disabilities over 5% of all students in school. These increases are
Education Act (IDEA). To provide assistance, the then unparalleled and unwarranted, especially when viewed
U.S. Office of Education (1977) issued rules and regula- in relation to other high-incidence mild disabilities (i.e.,
tions formalizing discrepancy as the primary criterion mental retardation [MR] and emotional disturbance
for SLD identification (Mercer, Jordan, Alsopp, & [ED]). For example, MacMillan, Siperstein, and Gresham
Mercer, 1996). (1996) suggested that the mild MR numbers have
The use of discrepancy as the primary (and sole) declined significantly primarily because of the misclas-
criterion for SLD identification created a number of sification of students as LD who might previously have
Volume 29, Spring 2006 113
been classified as MR. Additionally, Wong (1996) sug- OSEP-sponsored Learning Disabilities Summit (see
gested that teachers may have overgeneralized the SLD Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002), a majority opin-
concept in an effort to provide special education serv- ion emerged suggesting that, “IQ/achievement discrep-
ices for a greater number of students experiencing ancy is neither necessary nor sufficient for identifying
school difficulties. individuals with SLD” (p. 796). To replace the discrep-
Besides overidentification, another problem is found ancy model, a responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI)
in the very different numbers of students with SLD model was endorsed by several of research and profes-
identified across settings. The significant variability is sional organizations. In the RTI model, SLD would be
seen, for example, across states where prevalence rates redefined as inadequate response to intervention
have been found to range from 2% to 7% (Coutinho, (Vaughn &. Fuchs, 2003). The process would proceed
1995). There is little reason for such different rates, and roughly as follows: (a) students are provided with
it appears that they may primarily reflect a lack of empirically validated instruction, (b) progress is moni-
consistency in the identification procedures used (Lester tored, (c) students who do not respond receive either
& Kelman, 1997). Forness (1985) demonstrated how more intensive or different instruction, (d) progress
policy changes in California led to a 156% gain in SLD continues to be monitored, and (e) failure to respond
with concomitant losses in the MR and ED populations. may qualify a student for special education (see Fuchs,
In contrast, far greater consistency in prevalence rates Moch, Morgan, & Young, 2003). Gresham (2002)
have been found for categories like hearing impairment argued that “children who fail to respond to empirically
and physical/multiple disability (Singer, Palfrey, Butter, validated treatments implemented with integrity might
& Walker, 1989).
be identified as LD” (p. 499). Thus, the RTI seeks to
The overgeneralization of the SLD concept and incon-
replace traditional psychometric methods of identifica-
sistency in applying the discrepancy criterion has led to
tion with a method that helps “close the gap between
a confounding of SLD vs. low achievement (LA). Over
identification and treatment” (Bradley et al., 2002, p.
time, a conventional wisdom has emerged suggesting
798). The emphasis is on “treatment validity” (Fuchs &
that there were few psychometric differences between
Fuchs, 1998), which moves the identification process
students with SLD and students with LA. The idea of
away from diagnosing deficits to examining student
limited SLD-LA differences was based primarily on a
outcomes.
study by Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Shinn, and McGue
The RTI approach to SLD identification was one of
(1982), who found a large number of identical scores
the major outcomes of the LD Summit (Elksnin,
between SLD and LA subjects as well as a high percent-
Gartland, King-Sears, Bryant, Rosenberg, Scanlon, et al.,
age of overlap between scores. In a meta-analysis of the
2001). In the proposed reauthorization of IDEA, dis-
original study data, however, Kavale, Fuchs, and Scruggs
crepancy was no longer required and, in its place, a
(1994) found that “the lower achievement scores of the
process that determines if a child responds to scientific
LD group are of a magnitude that distinguishes them
research-based intervention was added. Additionally,
from their LA counterparts” (pp. 74-75). Algozzine,
the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities
Ysseldyke, and McGue (1995) disagreed, suggesting that
was created to assist in developing and implementing
“because students with LD may be the lowest of a
the RTI process. Thus, RTI may be seen as a radical
school’s low achievers, they necessarily represent a
departure from traditional means of determining spe-
group of people with qualitatively different needs . . .”
cial education eligibility. However, is implementation
(pp. 143-144). What Algozzine et al. failed to consider
of RTI justified? Is RTI the answer to the perceived prob-
were findings showing minimal group differences in
lems with the discrepancy model? Will RTI resolve the
cognitive ability, which mean that, when compared,
perceived problems in SLD identification?
the SLD and LA groups “represent two distinct popula-
tions . . . defined by an ability-achievement distinction Defining SLD
represented in a different achievement distribution but The most fundamental problem facing SLD remains
not in a different ability distribution” (Kavale, 1995, p. definition, not identification. The formal SLD defini-
146). Similarly, Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, Lipsey, and tion continues to be contentious because of its failure to
Roberts (2002) concluded that SLD-LA differences in provide closure on “two critical elements: understand-
reading were substantive and reliable. Thus, although ing – a clear and unobscured sense of LD – and expla-
there were large numbers of students with SLD, ques- nation – a rational exposition of the reasons why a
tions about their “real” identity continued to surface. particular student is LD” (Kavale & Forness, 2000, p.
The problems associated with SLD identification led 240). Although a number of alternative SLD definitions
to questions about the usefulness of discrepancy as the have been proposed, none has been universally
primary identification criterion for SLD. As part of the accepted, meaning there is no single statement describ-
Learning Disability Quarterly 114
ing the SLD condition. The present SLD definition has a valid operational definition (Bergmann, 1961). As a
always been too broad to be wrong and too vague to be category of special education defined in the law, SLD
complete. should represent a particular disability class (Kavale &
One purpose of the RTI model is allegedly to “rede- Forness, 1985a). For linguistic reasons, however, it has
fine” SLD. But, in reality, SLD is only being re-opera- been easier to use the plural term “learning disabilities,”
tionalized. Since the pending reauthorization of IDEA which has eroded the notion of SLD as a discrete and
does not include any change in the formal SLD defini- independent condition different from other more gen-
tion, there is technically no “redefining.” Instead, RTI eralized learning deficiencies.
is best viewed as a new operational definition that will Predictably, the meaning of SLD has also been diluted
supplant the “discrepancy” criterion. by a conventional wisdom suggesting that “there are
The reluctance to change the SLD definition seems many types of learning disability,” thereby extending its
curious in light of 35 years of debate about its merits. boundaries to the point that SLD is no longer a distinct
In a scientific sense, formal definition changes must classification. Thus, in practical terms, SLD has moved
precede and be the foundation for operational clarifica- in a direction that makes it increasingly unrecognizable
tions. Consequently, a rationale for not changing the (Kavale & Forness, 2003). The logical relation shifts
formal definition seems necessary. The fields of MR and from All students with SLD have learning problems to All
ED provide precedence for changing formal definitions. students with learning problems have SLD, which is
Therefore, it seems indefensible not to change the SLD patently not true if SLD is properly viewed as a categor-
definition in the face of profound changes being pro- ical designation (Kavale & Forness, 1985b). No other
posed for practice. If the definition of SLD is not to category in special education has demonstrated similar
change, closer adherence to what is actually stipulated confounding resulting in the very existence of SLD
in the definition seems warranted. being called into question by being referred to by such
One concept clearly articulated in the SLD definition terms as “myth” (McKnight, 1982), “questionable con-
is the presence of “a disorder in one or more of struct” (Klatt, 1991), or “imaginary disease” (Finlan,
the basic psychological processes.” Although a critical 1993).
feature of the SLD concept, process deficits have SLD should reclaim its position as a legitimate cate-
been generally ignored in the identification process gory for students experiencing particular types of learn-
(Torgesen, 1979). At best, the RTI model can only infer ing difficulties. A good place to start is with a new
that a process deficit exists and, without direct assess- formal definition that articulates strict parameters for
ment, there is no way to determine if a student may the condition. Simply tinkering with a new operational
possess SLD as currently conceptualized (Torgesen, definition will not achieve this goal.
2002). With modern theories about the importance of
SLD and Reading Disability (RD)
processing skills replacing the outdated processing
The RTI model appears to have increased the con-
views (e.g., perceptual-motor deficits) that were associ-
founding between SLD and RD by focusing exclusively
ated with the SLD concept when first proposed, it
on reading achievement. The problem is that SLD may
becomes critical to reemphasize process deficits in an
not be solely a reading achievement problem. Although
operational definition of SLD (e.g., Hoskyn & Swanson,
a large proportion of students with SLD manifest diffi-
2000; Swanson & Alexander, 1997).
culties in reading, other academic areas may be defi-
SLD Parameters cient, especially math (Kavale & Nye, 1985-1986). The
A definition delineates the nature and limits of a RTI emphasis on reading raises questions about the
phenomenon, but the present SLD definition does not equivalence of SLD and RD. Are the two concepts equiv-
adequately circumscribe the condition; therefore, its alent?
interpretation for practical purposes (i.e., operational- The early days of SLD witnessed heated debate about
ization) is suspect (Kavale, Forness, & Lorsbach, 1991). the distinction between SLD and RD (e.g., Artley &
For example, “discrepancy” is not specifically articu- Hardin, 1976; Hartman & Hartman, 1973; Lerner,
lated in the SLD definition but has been the primary cri- 1975). In reality, the discussions really involved ques-
terion used for SLD identification. The disconnect tions about territorial responsibilities rather than
between the formal definition and its operational con- conceptual equivalence (Gaskins, 1982). Apparently,
sequences demonstrates the impossibility of the theo- supporters of RTI view SLD and RD as equivalent as
retical being accurately represented in the operational reflected in a willingness to designate students who
and vice versa. Discrepancy alone is too disconnected demonstrate RD as SLD. The problem with this position
from what the formal definition stipulated to meet the is that RD is itself a legitimate concept and, while pres-
criteria of significance and meaningfulness necessary for ent in many students with SLD, it is not what makes
Volume 29, Spring 2006 115
SLD what it is. If SLD and RD are viewed as equivalent, be sacrificed to resolve a long-standing school problem.
then both are not necessary. Logically, the emphasis on The value of discrepancy lies in its ability to docu-
reading suggests that RD would be the only concept ment the unexpected nature of the learning problem.
necessary, but then pragmatic problems arise about how Everything else being equal, there was little reason to
to provide special education services to students with believe that the particular student would experience
RD. The SLD designation provides the only entry to spe- learning difficulties. The discrepancy criterion indicates
cial education, but, in doing so, it loses its integrity and the presence of underachievement but only the possibil-
becomes a special education category of “convenience” ityof a disability. Discrepancy should thus represent the
for students who cannot read (Kavale & Forness, 1998). “first gate to learning disabilities identification” (Speece,
Case, & Molloy, 2003, p. 147). Although the discrep-
SLD and Discrepancy
ancy concept is valid across IQ ranges, SLD should
According to Vaughn and Fuchs (2003), “At the heart
be associated only with significantly below-average
of the controversy about [SLD] identification is the use
achievement levels. For example, Siegel (2003) was
of the IQ-achievement discrepancy” (p. 137). This is
distressed by the fact that a student with an IQ of 130
true only because RTI supporters appear to have exag-
and reading achievement score of 110 would be consid-
gerated the deficiencies presumed to be associated with
ered RD according to the discrepancy model. Such an
discrepancy. For example, one objection suggests that
argument is specious because students should be
the degree of discrepancy does not relate to severity
referred only if they are exhibiting signs of academic
level. This objection is rendered immaterial, however, if
difficulty (i.e., below-average achievement). Gordon,
discrepancy is properly viewed as a threshold concept
Lewandowski, and Keiser (1999) warned against the use
documenting the presence or absence of underachieve-
of the SLD label for “relatively well-functioning” stu-
ment, a necessary but not sufficient criterion for SLD
dents. Few, if any, school districts test all students and
identification. Discrepancy need not be related to sever-
provide special services for a student with only a signif-
ity to be useful in the identification process (Kavale,
icant IQ-achievement discrepancy. Special education
1987).
should be provided when there is significant academic
Another objection suggests that the academic per-
difficulty (i.e., below-average achievement) and the cri-
formance of students with a discrepancy does not differ
teria for particular special education classification are
from that of students without a discrepancy. This objec-
met. If the student described by Siegel was struggling
tion is based on the incorrect assumption that discrep-
educationally, then consideration might be given to
ancy has a bearing on academic performance. Students
other potential diagnoses such as attention deficit dis-
who may or may not demonstrate a discrepancy could
order or mood disorder rather than blindly assuming an
possess the same level of low achievement and thus
RD diagnosis. Conversely, it would be equally absurd to
similar academic performance levels. In a relativesense,
diagnose a child with an IQ of 50 and a reading score
both groups would appear to be “disabled” since both
of 75 as RD and not MR.
exhibit functional impairments in academic develop-
Discrepancy models for SLD identification have also
ment. Keogh (1994) suggested that unexpected low been criticized for presumably not yielding reliable
achievement relative to ability is one of the basic ele- information, but such an argument appears a bit con-
ments defining SLD. The student demonstrating a dis- trived. The properties of various discrepancy models
crepancy is different because that student may be have been thoroughly evaluated, and a consensus has
properly termed as an underachiever and thus possess a emerged that standard-score regression methods are
primary feature of SLD. psychometrically defensible (Shepard, 1980; Wilson &
If a student is not an underachiever, the possibility Cone, 1984). Because students were often required only
exists that he will fall into the category of “slow learner” to meet the discrepancy criterion for SLD classification,
(i.e., students with IQs from 70-85). About 14% of the anybody who did were, in fact, identified with a sound
school population falls in this IQ range, which has statistical procedure that provided reliable information
never been a special education category and probably (Reynolds, 1985). The real problem comes from large-
never should. A slow learner does not demonstrate scale studies showing that sometimes up to 50% of any
unexpected low achievement, but rather an achieve- SLD population may not meet the stipulated discrep-
ment level consonant with her IQ level (Gresham, ancy criterion (e.g., Kavale & Reese, 1992; Norman &
MacMillan, & Bocian, 1996). Although such low Zigmond, 1980; Shepard & Smith, 1983). This raises the
achievement is problematic when there is a desire that question: Why were students who did not meet the
“no child be left behind,” it nevertheless reflects a true discrepancy criterion identified as SLD? If a student does
state of affairs. What should nothappen is a designation not meet a reliable criterion, the resulting classification
of SLD for a slow learner; the SLD concept should not cannot be reliable. In other words, the problem has not
Learning Disability Quarterly 116
been the reliability of the discrepancy criterion but the intellectual ability is necessary in light of findings
lack of rigor with which it is implemented: “public revealing, for example, that one empirically validated
school practices for diagnosing children with LD bear reading instruction method (i.e., systematic phonics) is
little resemblance to what is prescribed in federal and not effective for cognitively limited children IQ (Ehri,
state regulations (i.e., administrative definitions) defin- Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001). Special education has
ing LD” (MacMillan, Gresham, & Bocian, 1998, p. 323). unfortunately come to deemphasize the value of intel-
Arguably, the presence of measurement error in dis- lectual assessments (Morison, White, & Fever, 1996).
crepancy model increases the risk of false negatives as Some of the persisting negative perception of intellec-
well as some false positives. But measurement error only tual assessment stems from the fact that in the past IQ
has an impact when there is rigid adherence to a single tests were developed under the strong influence of the
cut-point without further investigation of competing concept of “g,” the assumption that there is one pri-
diagnostic hypotheses. For instance, if a discrepancy mary cognitive ability (Buckhalt, 2002). For this reason,
criterion of 20 points is used and a student has a 19- attempts to find diagnostic profiles based on scatter,
point discrepancy, that student may still be SLD just as recategorizations, patterns, or factor scores based on the
a student with a 21-point discrepancy should not auto- Wechsler scales were not successful (Kavale & Forness,
matically become SLD. Best practice would dictate that 1984). Over time, however, cognitive ability tests have
scores within a range of discrepancy, for example, moved away from “g,” and there are now well-normed,
between 15 and 25, be evaluated more thoroughly for well-validated, theory-based tests of cognitive processes
other indicators of learning impairment such as family that measure multiple and complex processes or abili-
ties (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2001). The value of IQ tests,
history, impaired phonemic awareness or phonological
therefore, lies in their ability to identify individual dif-
processing, slow or error-filled rapid automatic naming,
ferences in cognitive functioning and the possibility of
poor vocabulary development, or limited working
providing insight to better understand the nature of
memory capacity. Such an evaluation would increase
underlying process deficits (Kaplan, Fein, Kramer, Delis,
diagnostic accuracy and provide a convergence of evi-
& Morris, 1999). In turn, the enhanced understanding
dence for one diagnosis versus competing diagnostic
of cognitive processes will result in better individualized
hypotheses.
interventions (Naglieri, 2003).
Objections to discrepancy models for SLD identifica-
In reality, IQ tests have only modest influence on the
tion have also included the criticism that they do not
special education process, and it is not true that IQ test-
inform instruction. This suggestion appears to miss the
ing is an impediment to obtaining special education
point that the real task is to first achieve a reliable and
services (Fletcher et al., 1998). The 150% increase in stu-
valid classification. Discrepancy is best viewed as an
dents classified as SLD attests to the absurdity of this
identificationcriterion, so there would be little reason to
charge. The use of IQ tests is vilified because it includes
expect it to have any bearing on instructional decisions.
the term “intelligence,” which may create positive or
Creating effective instruction can become the primary
negative impressions about a student. For example, spe-
focus when identification procedures provide confi-
cial education eligibility with an SLD designation is
dence that the student is “truly” SLD. It is unfortunate
viewed as positive and an entitlement whereas eligibil-
that special education has come to deemphasize classi-
ity based on an MR or ED classification is viewed nega-
fication, thus creating a mindset that cares little about
tively and potentially punitive. Some classifications are
whether or not a student is “truly” SLD so long as effec-
associated with significant negative perceptions, and
tive instruction can be provided. Although effective
these perceptions are what make IQ tests appear villain-
instruction is the raison d’etre of special education, the
ous since they provide the basis for the subsequent
system should ensure that special education is provided
labels (MacMillan, Gresham, Bocian, & Lambros, 1998).
only to those who require it. Unchecked advocacy will
The use of IQ tests in documenting discrepancy does
inexorably undermine the integrity of the SLD category
not appear to restrict access to special education. In fact,
(Kavale & Forness, 1998).
if the discrepancy model was implemented more rigor-
SLD and Intelligence ously, the SLD classification rate would probably
For some time, there has been the suggestion that IQ become fairly constant. But the discrepancy model is
is not necessary in defining SLD (Siegel, 1989; not implemented rigorously, as shown by Gottlieb,
Stanovich, 1991). This objection seems unwarranted Alter, Gottlieb, and Wisher (1994), who suggested that
because IQ indeed plays a critical role in SLD identifica- “the discrepancy that should be studied most inten-
tion. First, without IQ, it would be impossible to deter- sively is between the definition of learning disability
mine an expected achievement level, a necessary part of mandated by regulation and the definition employed on
the discrepancy criterion. Second, determination of a day-to-day basis in urban schools” (p. 455). Similarly,
Volume 29, Spring 2006 117
MacMillan et al. (1998) remarked that, “We did not outperform students with SLD (i.e., high ability) on all
anticipate the extent to which the process would yield measures of reading and behavior. An SLD group, by
children certified as LD who failed to meet the discrep- definition, does not function in the low-average to
ancy required by the education code” (p. 322). borderline IQ range. For example, if an IQ cut-off score
This lack of rigor has resulted in two alternative is set too low, there are difficulties in distinguishing
(but inappropriate) discrepancy models: a relative IQ-discrepant from non-discrepant students. For ex-
discrepancy model whereby SLD determination ample, Stuebing et al. (2002) showed a modest differ-
depends on the level of individual student performance ence (ES = .30) in general cognitive ability between IQ-
as compared to other students in a particular school discrepant and low-ability groups primarily because
(Peterson & Shinn, 2002) and an absolute low-achieve- they were not really identifying different groups.
ment model whereby below-average academic perform- The demonization of IQ has led to the suggestion that
ance, irrespective of IQ level, leads to an SLD IQ is unrelated to academic achievement. This is
designation. These alternative discrepancy models exist patently not the case (Nagleri, 2001), and it has been
because the individual school setting (i.e., context) clear for a long time that intelligence tests are more
becomes the primary influence on the way the presence highly correlated with scores on achievement tests than
or absence of a disability is determined. For example, if with grades given by teachers (Donahue, Coombs, &
the average reading ability in a particular classroom is Travers, 1949). For example, Siegel (2003), believing
90, a student with an IQ of 110 and a reading score of that IQ was not related to reading, chose a specific
85 would not appear out of the ordinary in terms of measure of intelligence that had previously been found
reading achievement and may not be identified, but to be notrelated to reading. Not surprisingly, this inves-
a student with an 80 IQ and a 75 reading score may tigation found no relationship between IQ and reading.
appear to have a disability in that context. Siegel had earlier rejected a measure like verbal intelli-
The lack of attention to context and the implementa- gence because of its overlapping variance with reading
tion of alternative discrepancy models means that IQ- even though Konold (1999) showed that the best pre-
achievement differences are often not provided the dictors of reading achievement were the Verbal
opportunity to identify underachievers, a necessary Comprehension and Freedom from Distractibility factor
component of SLD identification (MacMillan & scores from the WISC-III. In yet another study aimed at
Siperstein, 2002). Besides context, perceptions about proving the absence of a relationship between IQ and
disability also play a significant role (Lovitt & Cushing, reading, D’Angiulli and Siegel (2003) used an outdated
1999). The positive connotation associated with SLD version of an IQ test (i.e., WISC-R), suggesting that the
makes it the disability category of choice and provides desire to prove IQ irrelevant for SLD identification far
an easy way for schools to placate parents who are less outweighed the tenets of sound experimental design.
willing to accept an MR or ED classification for their When placed in proper perspective, it is possible to
child. conclude that discrepancy is not problematic and may
be validly included as a factor in making eligibility de-
SLD and Unexpected School Failure
cisions about SLD (Kavale, 2002). When additional
The RTI approach to SLD identification essentially
factors are included in the eligibility decision, the num-
eliminates the notion of SLD as unexpected learning
ber of false negative and false positive diagnoses would
failure in the presence of average or above cognitive
be greatly reduced. Also, eliminating IQ-achievement
ability. Without an assessment of general cognitive abil-
discrepancy would result in a significant number of
ity, the “unexpected” notion would be impossible to
students with SLD not being identified when using only
document. Although underachievement operationally
a relative discrepancy or low achievement model for
defined by discrepancy appears integral to the SLD con-
determining eligibility. Thus, discrepancy remains use-
cept, the field appears to be moving away from the idea
ful as a fundamental element in SLD identification, and
of unexpected learning failure with the mantra that IQ
discussions about its demise are simply unwarranted
is not necessary in the identification of SLD. This sug-
(see Aaron, 1997).
gestion is reinforced by the idea that there is no need
to distinguish between high ability in low-achieving SLD Diagnosis
versus low ability in low-achieving students because of By eliminating IQ testing as part of the special educa-
small differences between high- and low-ability groups tion process, RTI introduces what may be termed an
on measures related to reading and behavior (Vellutino, “outcomes-based” model. Students are initially selected
Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000). But it would be illogical to because of below-average reading achievement and are
assume that students with low ability (meaning they provided with an empirically validated intervention. If
tend to score low on nearly every assessment) would reading ability improves, the “special” intervention is
Learning Disability Quarterly 118
no longer necessary, and the student would return to The “wait to fail” notion also assumes that reading
the standard reading curriculum. If the student does not failure is, at least partially, the result of poor instruction.
respond, then more intensive intervention would be in If poor instruction were a primary variable associated
order. If the student fails to respond to the more inten- with difficulties in learning to read, the possibility exists
sive intervention, then a diagnosis of SLD would even- that whole classrooms, or at least many students in
tually follow and even more intensive remedial services a single classroom, would be referred simultaneously. In
would be required. The nature of these services remains most cases, classroom teachers are aware of students
a moot point but, if the student continues to struggle, experiencing difficulties, and those students are pro-
perhaps the SLD diagnosis would, at some point, be vided with accommodations and supports. This is essen-
transformed into an MR designation with a different set tially the prereferral process, which attempts to provide
of special education services provided. appropriate modifications before formal special edu-
To see the inefficiency of such a system, consider the cation is initiated (Fuchs, Fuchs, Bahr, Fernstrom, &
example of a student who demonstrates an inability to Stecker, 1990).
remain seated during classroom instruction and contin- The RTI model appears to be prereferral writ large
ually interrupts others in addition to demonstrating with greater specification about the types of reading
increasingly poor academic performance. Such a stu- interventions that should occur as well as the measures
dent would soon come to the attention of the classroom to be used to assess reading performance. This is a sig-
teacher and be referred for evaluation with a high prob- nificant positive step because the resources used for
ability of receiving some form of behavioral interven- preventive interventions ultimately benefit allstudents.
tion for the primary symptom. If the student remains
Nevertheless, a number of unanswered questions
unresponsive, a more intensive behavioral intervention
remain. First and foremost, should the student who
may be implemented but may still not significantly
moves through the RTI model, which clearly estab-
reduce the target behavior. Failure to respond to this
lishes increasingly severe RD, now be designated SLD?
more intensive intervention may then lead to a diagno-
Such a change in status does not appear justified, pri-
sis of attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
marily because RD should not be equated with SLD.
and pharmacological intervention. Even then, medica-
Further, on what basis is an SLD classification war-
tion may initially have limited positive effects and may
ranted? At this point, the conceptual leap from RD to
be changed several times with no significant effects.
SLD is too great. Thus, the RTI model appears better
Since there is again a failure to respond, a diagnosis
suited for prevention of RD than SLD classification.
of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) may now be
Besides the theoretical disconnect from the SLD con-
considered, and interventions consistent with ODD
struct, the RTI model presents pragmatic difficulties
behaviors implemented.
about how to proceed. After a child advances through
It is important to note that throughout this scenario
the RTI model and is ultimately found eligible for spe-
the student would continue to experience reading diffi-
cial education, how do we determine what he or she
culties. Yet, these reading problems take a secondary
needs? It seems clear that students who fail to respond
position until the confounding caused by the comor-
during the RTI process probably possess unique needs
bidity among behavioral disorders is unraveled. The
that can only be determined with a comprehensive
co-occurring difficulties suggest that reading problems
evaluation of intellectual/cognitive, academic, and psy-
may simply be part of a larger syndrome. Clearly, it
chosocial functioning. Hale and Fiorello (2001) sug-
would be far more efficient if appropriate assessments to
gested that it is necessary to intervene to assess so the
establish the existence and parameters of particular
RTI model will have the positive effect of directing
problems be done in the first place (Lopez, Forness,
attention toward comprehensive interventions for stu-
MacMillan, Bocian, & Gresham, 1998).
dents who truly need them. Without a comprehensive
Vaughn and Fuchs (2003) suggested that current SLD
evaluation, it would be difficult to design interventions
identification is flawed because it is predicated on a
tailored to unique needs, a fundamental tenet of special
“wait to fail” model. This criticism is based on the
education (Braden & Kratochwill, 1997).
misperception that the RTI model is, in reality, different
from present practice. Early identification, which has SLD and Empirically Validated Interventions
been a major focus for a number of years, suggests that A primary advantage of the RTI model over previous
schools do not wait for failure but attempt to find prereferral efforts is that students experiencing reading
“at-risk” students as early as possible (Jenkins & difficulty are assured of receiving interventions with
O’Connor, 2002). The real question is, “at risk” for some empirical validation. Many of these interventions
what? Usually, the efforts have been directed at RD were reported by the National Reading Panel (2000) but
rather than SLD per se. have not gone unchallenged (Troia, 1999). It is im-
Volume 29, Spring 2006 119
portant to note that the power of specific interventions gates us to question whether you really do welcome
may have been somewhat overstated since, statistically, challenge . . . and to consider your statements with the
the actual effects can only be deemed moderate (see same scientific skepticism that you purportedly advo-
Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & cate” (p. 32). Thus, RTI approaches generally deal with
Shanahan, 2001). Such interventions, therefore, are interventions that have received only modest validation
unlikely to result in a change in classification from, for and have focused on a single deficit in what may be best
example, poor to average reader. Practically, on stan- viewed as a multivariate problem.
dardized reading measures, the obtained effects would
SLD and Responsiveness
indicate that a student in the borderline range (i.e.,
Although many parts of the RTI model are well speci-
standard score = 70) would move, at the end of inter-
fied and rigorous, there appears to be some vagueness
vention, to a standard score of 78, which remains in
about the meaning of a “successful response to instruc-
the borderline range. Does this level of improvement
tion.” Does a student need to show that he is reading at
indicate a significant response? Would above-average
a level consonant with peers? Does a student merely
effects resulting in a standard score of, for example, 83
have to read more regardless of whether she remains sig-
be indicative of a positive response? Given the modest
nificantly behind her peers? What tests should be used
level of response, it seems reasonable to ask how a pre-
to demonstrate improvement? How will measurement
sumed failure to respond to a specific intervention can
error associated with any criterion be addressed? Who
be confidently translated into a specific diagnosis. In
decides when the level of failure warrants formal refer-
a majority of cases, students with LA will probably not
ral? How is no response to instruction differentiated
change status. More important, low achievement is not
from a marginal response to instruction?
a diagnosis, and is best viewed as a symptom common
At this point, there are few established criteria for
to many disability conditions.
making such determinations, indicating a likely reli-
The use of an empirically validated intervention in
ance on somewhat vague “clinical” (i.e., teacher) judg-
the RTI model, although clearly an advantage, also
ments about the level of response. The associated
becomes somewhat disadvantageous because of the nar-
vagueness suggests that extraneous factors such as
row focus on phonological processing, particularly
teacher expectations may unduly influence perceptions
phonemic awareness at the word level. Pressley and
about student performance (Brophy & Good, 1974).
Allington (1999) argued that reading research needs to
Additionally, stereotypes have been shown to bias deci-
consider a variety of conceptualizations about the
sions about special education eligibility (Algozzine &
nature of literacy (e.g., comprehension) that transcend
Ysseldyke, 1980). For example, in a study about judg-
the word reading level. Thus, the focus on phonological
ments under uncertainty, Ysseldyke, Algozzine, and
skills tends to obscure the fact that general language
Richey (1982) concluded that, “We have demonstrated
processes are also major contributors to reading success.
that decision makers not only hold inordinately high
Based upon findings from a meta-analysis investigating
intervention research in SLD, Swanson (1999) con- estimates of the numbers of handicapped students,
cluded that the importance of phonological awareness but that their estimates vary for different kinds of
training may have been overstated. students” (p. 533). With the meaning of a positive
Contributing to this perception is the well-supported response to instruction remaining vague, teacher expec-
double-deficit theory whereby RD is based on deficits in tations and perceptions rather than tangible criteria
phonological processing andrapid naming of letters and may be the primary influence on judgments that define
digits (Wolf & Bowers, 1999). Allor (2002) concluded a student as a non-responder and ultimately SLD.
that phonemic awareness and rapid naming each con- Under such indefinite circumstances, it is difficult to
tributes uniquely to word reading ability. Additionally, argue against the fact that “statistical” (i.e., test) results
Ackerman, Holloway, Youngdahl, and Dykman (2001) provide for more rigorous, consistent, and systematic
found that students with RD also differed on ortho- decisions about an individual student (Meehl, 1954).
graphic tasks, attention, arithmetic achievement, and The use of narrowly focused interventions in the RTI
WISC-III factors. Thus, an emphasis on phonological model cannot account for the fact that these programs
processing may be too narrowly focused and not work for some students but not necessarily all students.
account for all the possible factors contributing to RD. This fact assumes greater importance when improved
In an open letter to Reid Lyon about the NICHD outcomes in reading for students with SLD have also
(National Institute of Child Health and Human been shown to be associated with, for example, instruc-
Development) reading research efforts, Strauss (2001) tion directed at higher-order processing, reading com-
suggested that, “Your narrow definition of reading, your prehension, and written expression (Vaughn, Gersten,
avoidance of important questions on literacy . . . obli- & Chard, 2000). The “one size fits all” intervention
Learning Disability Quarterly 120
approach associated with RTI also fails to take into validated interventions. This appears to be the only
account the well-known heterogeneity of students with proper conclusion, because nonresponsiveness should
SLD (Kavale & Nye, 1991). Therefore, it is virtually not be viewed as a diagnostic criterion. Non-responsive-
impossible to make either a valid diagnosis or an in- ness is an outcome that may or may not be caused by
SLD. Thus, the RTI model cannot stand alone as the pri-
dividualized intervention program without test data
mary means of identifying SLD. Even though multifac-
gleaned from a comprehensive evaluation that eluci-
eted, the RTI model still represents a single criterion
dates individual strengths and weaknesses.
(i.e., non-responsiveness), which was a criticism leveled
RTI and SLD Classification
against discrepancy models. The advantage of discrep-
The RTI model appears to be an appropriate first step ancy over RTI is that it documents the presence or
in the SLD identification process. At the end of the RTI absence of underachievement, which is integral to the
process, a student is known to possess significant read- SLD construct. RTI, on the other hand, can only docu-
ing difficulties that have not responded positively to ment low achievement in reading. If the identified
Figure 1. Example of an operational definition of learning disability by Kavale and Forness (2000).
Level Operational Definition
Underachievement
I
Ability-Achievement Discrepancy
Necessary
II Language Reading Writing Math
III Learning Efficiency
Strategy Rate
Linguistic Social
IV Attention Memory Perception Metacognition
Processing Cognition
Not Not Not
Not Not
V Sensory Cultural Insufficient
MMR EBD
Impairment Differences Instruction
Sufficient
Note.Adapted from Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and don’t say: A critical analysis. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 33,239-256. Used with permission.
Volume 29, Spring 2006 121
Table 1
Comprehensive Framework for LD Determination
Level Component Outcome
I-A Inter-Individual Academic Document specific academic skill
Ability Analysis or knowledge deficits
I-B Evaluation of Exclusionary Identify alternative explanation
Factors for learning difficulties
II-A Inter-Individual Cognitive Document specific cognitive
Ability Analysis deficits
II-B Reevaluation of Exclusionary Identify alternative explanation
Factors for cognitive difficulties
III Integrated Ability Analysis – Document that identified
Evaluation of academic deficits are empirically
Underachievement or logically related
IV Evaluation of Interference Document the degree to which
with Functioning identified deficits interfere with
functioning
Related Considerations Identify other limitations in
areas of social skills, motor abilities,
vision and hearing abilities
Eligibility Recommendation Determine eligibility for SLD
classification
Note.Adapted from Flanagan, D. P., Oritz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., & Mascolo, J. T. (2002). The achievement test desk reference (ATDR):Comprehensive
assessment and learning disabilities.Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Used with permission.
underachievement is properly viewed as a necessary but hierarchical model defined the identification process as
not sufficient criterion for SLD classification, the diag- follows: (a) underachievement defined by an ability-
nostic process could proceed to validate other stipulated achievement discrepancy; (b) significant deficits in
criteria in an effort to gain confidence about the final basic skill areas (i.e., reading, writing, language, or
SLD designation (Kavale & Forness, 1995). math); (c) deficits in learning efficiency based on
Kavale and Forness (2000) offered such a scheme assessments of strategy use and learning rate; (d) psy-
that combined components from federal regulations chological process deficits that include (but are not lim-
into an operational definition that attempted to cap- ited to) linguistic processing, attention, memory,
ture the complex and multivariate nature of SLD. The perception, metacognition, and social cognition; and
components included (a) a severe discrepancy between (e) exclusion of students whose learning failure is not
ability and achievement; (b) learning difficulties in lan- unexpected because it is primarily the result of MR, ED,
guage, reading, writing, or mathematics that require sensory impairment, or inadequate instruction. A
special education; (c) psychological processing deficits schematic representation of the operational definition
that are associated with academic learning problems; is shown in Figure 1. Each level represents a necessary
and (d) exclusionary criteria indicating factors that but not sufficient condition, and SLD identification is
make the learning failure not unexpected. A five-level achieved only when allfive criteria are met.
Learning Disability Quarterly 122