Running head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

Response to Intervention: A Critical Review

Amy Donovan
November 6, 2013
EDPS 651 S02

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

2

Response to Intervention (RTI) was developed in response to the 2004 reauthorization of

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the United States, calling for an
alternate approach to the IQ-Achievement discrepancy model in the identification of at-risk
learners (Lyon et al., 2001). Until recently, the discrepancy model, requiring the presence of a
gap or discrepancy between cognitive and academic achievement test scores had been the
approach of choice in the determination of learning disabilities (Klassen, 2003; Lyon et al., 2001;
McIntosh et al., 2011). However, this has not been without controversy (Lyon et al., 2001).
Problems related to psychometrics and conceptualization of the discrepancy model as a means of
identification has left many to question its validity, calling for a new approach (Kavale, 2005;
Lyon et al., 2001).While a federally mandated RTI approach originated in the United States,
these changes were felt in Canada as Canadian definitions and research in the area of learning
disabilities has historically followed suit with our neighbours to the south (Klassen, 2002). As
such, all Canadian provinces now recognize the importance of prevention and many subscribe to
models of service delivery and identification that are based on an RTI model (McIntosh et al.,
2011). However, the following question remains: Is this the most effective model of service
delivery and identification?
What follows is a brief overview of the current research related to RTI: definitions,
strengths, limitations and challenges. The controversy surrounding the use of RTI, particularly in
the identification of learning disabilities is also discussed in an attempt to answer the question
posed above.

Response to Intervention

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

3

RTI is a preventative model of support, aimed at identifying struggling learners and

responding to their needs through the provision of timely, research-based interventions and
progress monitoring (McIntosh et al., 2011; O'Conner et al., 2013). A tiered model of service
delivery, RTI is based on student need (McIntosh et al., 2011). Tier 1, considered universal core
programming, consists of quality, whole-group instruction and universal screening (Callinan,
Cunningham & Theiler, 2012; McKenzie, 2010; O'Donnell & Miller, 2011). Screening measures
student performance up against predetermined criteria and reveals the degree to which schoolwide instruction has been effective in meeting student needs preventatively (McIntosh et al.,
2011).Typically, 80% of students will be successful when provided with the quality first-time
teaching provided at this level (McIntosh et al., 2011). It is suggested that this rigorous, researchbased instruction evens the playing field for students by removing 'opportunity to learn' as a
potential reason for underperformance (O'Conner et al., 2013; McIntosh et al., 2011).Students
who do not respond to Tier 1 instruction will be provided with Tier 2 supports, including
standard procedures for intervention focused on the development of skills, typically occurring as
small group or individualized instruction (McKenzie, 2010). Progress is monitored frequently at
this level to determine the success of the supports provided (McIntosh et al., 2011). Gradually,
supports may be withdrawn from students who experience success within Tier 2. However, for
those who continue to struggle, the targeted supports provided within Tier 3 may be required
(McIntosh et al., 2011).
Ultimately, RTI examines student performance in relation to 'responsiveness' (McKenzie,
2010). The question for teachers being: Did the student respond to instruction? Was the student
able to meet the predetermined criteria for success? Advocates of RTI assert that the
determination of student performance via 'responsiveness' or 'non-responsiveness' will render IQ

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

4

tests unnecessary in establishing specific learning disabilities (McKenzie, 2010). The assumption
being that students who are 'non-responsive' to the instruction and interventions provided within
the tiered model have a deficit (McKenzie, 2010). Thus, 'non-responsive' may indicate the
presence of a learning disability. To use reading as an example, it is suggested that repeated and
increasingly individualized intervention will differentiate between those who are, for instance,
not reading due to environmental issues and those who aren't reading due to a disability
(Callinan, Cunningham & Theiler, 2012). Muraski & Hughs suggest, "The identification process
shifts the focus from an assumption that something is wrong with the individual child to an
examination of the fit between the child and the environment" (Muraski & Hughs, 2009).
What does the research say?
Research in support of an RTI model points to the direct link it provides between
assessment and intervention and its ability to address the misrepresentation of cultural and
linguistic minorities identified as learning disabled (O'Conner et al., 2013; O'Donnell & Miller,
2011).However, the most significant research in support of RTI is in the area of literacy
development (McIntosh et al., 2011). O'Conner et al. report several trends which indicate a
decrease in the incidence of learning disabilities in second or third grade within schools who
have a focused RTI approach to reading (O'Conner et al., 2013). Additionally, they suggest that
the implementation of RTI with a focus on literacy resulted in a reduction of special education
referrals and increased reliability for those students who were referred (O'Conner et al., 2013). A
study by McIntosh et al. found that the implementation of a comprehensive RTI approach within
a British Columbia school district resulted in 90% of students achieving proficiency in reading
by the end of grade 3 (McIntosh et al., 2011).

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

5

Also of interest is the recent brain research demonstrating the potential of the RTI
approach for 'rewiring' the brain of those children who struggle with reading (McIntosh et al.,
2011). This approach is associated with the enduring "normalization of brain activity such that
post intervention brain activity resembles brain circuitry of typical readers" even following the
withdrawal of intervention (McIntosh et al., 2011). Moreover, these results for children ranging
in age from 7 to 17, demonstrate that the responsivity of the brain to intervention is not limited to
elementary aged children which points to RTI's potential effectiveness beyond the elementary
years (McIntosh et al., 2011).
Limitations of RTI
Despite the positive picture painted by this research, there are concerns and unanswered
questions regarding RTI and its effectiveness as a model of service delivery (Fisher & Frey,
2011; McIntosh et al., 2011; Muraski & Hughs, 2009; O'Conner et al., 2013; O'Donnell & Miller
). As Fisher & Frey point out, much of the research in the area of RTI has come from large
research centers with resources available to support implementation; resources that rarely exist
in individual school settings (Fisher & Frey, 2011). Studies that are available from school
settings tend to be fragmented and narrow, not necessarily generalizable due to a variety of
contextual circumstances including but not limited to staff buy-in, commitment to
implementation, teacher preparation, and resource availability ( Fisher & Frey, 2011; McIntosh et
al., 2011; Muraski & Hughs, 2009; O'Conner et al., 2013; O'Donnell & Miller). Additionally, the
focus of research has centered largely on the elementary level (K-3), leaving much guesswork
regarding RTI's implementation at both the middle and high school levels where challenges
differ in terms of scheduling complexities and volume of staff (Fisher & Frey, 2011; McIntosh et
al., 2011; O'Conner et al., 2013; O'Donnell & Miller, 2011). Moreover, while the success of RTI

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

6

in the area of literacy is well documented, less empirical evidence exists for other curricular
areas, particularly mathematics and written language (McIntosh et al., 2011; O'Donnell & Miller,
2011).
Also of concern is the lack of consensus that exists regarding key points of
implementation. For example, inconsistencies include disagreement related to the point at which
special education eligibility should be determined, the most effective length of time for
interventions, appropriate choice of assessment instruments and most suitable criteria to
determine student responsiveness to intervention (McIntosh et al., 2011; McKenzie, 2010;
Muraski & Hughs, 2009;). This lack of consensus and common criteria has resulted in
inconsistencies related to implementation and contribute to the wide variation in the success of
RTI (McIntosh et al., 2011; O' Donnell & Miller, 2011).
What is consistent is the point that effective implementation of RTI requires highly
skilled and effective teachers, an ability to address a variety of needs by designing researchbased lessons and engaging in on-going data collection and progress monitoring (Callinan,
Cunningham & Theiler, 2012; Fisher & Frey, 2011; Muraski & Hughs, 2009; O'Donnell &
Miller, 2011). Unfortunately, inadequate teacher training is frequently cited as a barrier to
effective implementation of RTI (Callinan, Cunningham & Theiler, 2012; Fisher & Frey, 2011;
O'Donnell & Miller, 2011).Teacher collaboration, peer coaching and professional development
for teaching staff in the area of scientifically-based instructional techniques and effective
interpretation of data is key (Fisher & Frey, 2011; O'Conner et al., 2013; Muraski & Hughs,
2009). Muraski & Hughs go as far as to suggest that co-teaching is ideal, offering benefits for
both teachers and students within the RTI model (Muraski & Hughs, 2009).
IQ-Achievement Discrepancy

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

7

In addition to the unanswered questions regarding the effectiveness of RTI as a model of

service delivery, there is controversy surrounding its' potential as an alternative to the IQdiscrepancy model (McKenzie, 2010; O'Conner et al., 2013; O'Donnell & Miller, 2011).
O'Conner et. al suggest that "RTI is a system for identifying struggling readers early in school,
providing immediate, short-term intervention without the delays of formal evaluation for
determining special education eligibility" (O'Conner et al., 2013). While the challenges of
formalized assessment are well documented, there is significant hesitation on the part of many
professionals to abandon formal assessment altogether ( McKenzie, 2010; O'Donnell & Miller,
2011 ). This hesitation is reflected in the suggestion that formal assessment be included within
the RTI approach as a potential compromise (Callinan, Cunningham & Theiler, 2012). " As
Callinan, Cunningham & Theiler suggest, "RTI may be an effective way of allocating resources
in the classroom but the debate surrounding the form of assessment that should accompany RTI
speaks volumes about its effectiveness as an identification tool in and of itself" (Callinan,
Cunningham & Theiler, 2012). Certainly, there is an uneasiness amongst many professionals that
the RTI model will simply prolong the identification process as students are shuffled through a
series of ineffective interventions before potential learning disabilities will be investigated
(McKenzie, 2010). Furthermore, RTI has been criticised for its inability to accurately assess dual
exceptionality, specifically those students who may be identified as gifted-LD, as their
disability may be masked by acceptable performance on curriculum based measures (McKenzie,
2010).

An Alternative?

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

8

With the discrepancy and RTI models hotly debated, the question remains as to the most
effective model for identifying learning disabilities. An alternative has been suggested involving
testing for cognitive processing deficits that underlie learning difficulties (Callinan, Cunningham
& Theiler, 2012). As Callinan, Cunningham & Theiler point out, the assessment of cognitive
processing deficits that are correlated with learning disabilities, such as phonological processing,
rapid automated naming & working memory, may provide an alternative by identifying variables
typically known to be associated with learning disabilities (Callinan, Cunningham & Theiler,
2012). Furthermore, they suggest that identification on this basis might improve the success of
interventions as students could be grouped according to cognitive processing deficit (Callinan,
Cunningham & Theiler, 2012).
Conclusion
There is probably no professional field more guilty of pendulum swings than that of education.
The RTI - IQ/Discrepancy debate appears to fall into this category. It is the opinion of the author
that swinging too far to the left or right is never a wise decision. Similarly, there is no single
model or approach that is effective one hundred percent of the time or that meets the needs of
everyone, particularly all children. When we consider the complexity involved in learning, a one
size fits all approach does not appear to be adequate. There may be children who are identified
early, require minimal intervention, and experience success within the RTI model. Likewise,
there may be children for whom RTI does not meet their needs and the data that a formal
assessment can provide will make the all difference. It appears that a model combining RTI and
the use of formal assessments, including discrepancy data, would be useful. As McKenzie points
out, teachers should have the opportunity to refer students for psychoeducational assessments at
any time within RTI (McKenzie, 2010). However, there are multiple challenges and

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

9

complexities associated with this combined approach as it does not prescribe a specific set of
procedures or formulas to follow in order to identify and support struggling learners. This lack of
unified approach results in fragmentation. In Canada, the decentralized nature of education
makes this flexibility possible. As McIntosh suggests, the "Lack of a federally mandated
approach allows for regional variation; districts can be innovative, which allows for effective
methodologies for RTI in the Canadian context" (McIntosh et al., 2011).
To return to the question asked in the introduction: Is RTI the most effective model of
service delivery and identification? At this present time, the answer is no. However, it does hold
promise if schools can be flexible and innovative in their approach, combining the best of what
has be proven effective for both service delivery and identification....not an easy task. For now,
we can only wait .

REFERENCES
Callinan, S., Cunningham, E., & Theiler, S. (2012). Revisiting Discrepancy Theory in Learning
Disabilities: What Went Wrong & Why We Should Go Back. Australian Journal of
Guidance & Counselling, 23(1), 1-17. doi:10.1017/jgc.2012.22
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2011). Implementing RTI in a High School: A Case Study. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 46, 99-114. doi: 10.1177/0022219411407923

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

10

Fuchs, D., Mock., D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention:
Definitions, Evidence & Implications for the Learning Disabilities Construct. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157-171.doi: 10.1111/1540-5826.00072
Kavale, K.A. (2005). Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities: Is Responsiveness to
Intervention

the Answer? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 553-562. doi:

10.1177/00222194050380061201
Klassen, R. (2002). The Changing Landscape of Learning Disabilities in Canada: Definitions and
Practice from 1989-2000. School Psychology International 23(2). doi:
10.1177/0143034302023002915
Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., ... &
Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. Rethinking special education for a
new

century, 259-287.

O'Connor, E.A., Briggs, C., & Forbes, S. (2013). Response to Intervention: Following Three
Reading Recovery Children on Their Individual Paths to Becoming Literate. Early
Education & Development, 24, 79-97. doi:10.1080/10409289.2011.611450
O'Connor, R.E., Bocian, K.M., Beach, K.D., Sanchez, V., & Flynn, L.J. (2013). Special
Education in a 4-Year Response to Intervention Environment: Characteristics of Students
with Learning Disability and Grade of Identification. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 28(3), 98-112.
O'Donnell, P.S. & Miller, D.N. (2011). Identifying Students with Specific Learning Disabilities:
School Psychologists' Acceptability of the Discrepancy Model Versus Response to

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

11

Intervention. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(83), 83-93. doi:

10.1177/1044207310395724
McIntosh, K., MacKay, L.D., Andreou, T., Brown, J.A., Mathews, S., Gietz, C., & Bennett, J.L.
(2011). Response to Intervention in Canada: Definitions, the Evidence Base, and Future
Directions. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 28(18), 19-43. doi:
10.1177/0829573511400857
McKenzie, R.G. (2010). The Insufficiency of Response to Intervention in Identifying Gifted
Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(3),
161-168.
Muraski, W.W., & Hughs, C.E. (2009). Response to Intervention, Collaboration, and Co
Teaching: A Logical Combination for Successful Systematic Change. Preventing School
Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(4), 267-277. doi:
10.3200/PSFL.53.4.267-277
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining Learning Disabilities as Inadequate Response to
Instruction: The Promise and Potential Problems. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 18(3), 137-146.