Field Studies of RTI Programsby Charles Hughes, Ph. D., and Douglas D. Dexter, Ph. D., Penn State University. Additional Articles. Additional Resources. In this article we present a review of published studies on the effectiveness of different RTI models. These studies, often referred to as field studies, are examinations of the impact of multi- tier and multi- component RTI models. On the surface, it is understandable that one might ask the following question: . However, many educational approaches or innovations that seem to make sense don't always work in practice (see Ellis, 2. Van. Der. Heyden, Witt, and Gilbertson (2. The research conducted to date with few exceptions. In theory, if the components are effective, then the overall process would be expected to produce results; however, the question of whether the overall process is effective must also be addressed. Search Procedures. We used a four- step procedure to identify RTI field studies for inclusion in this review. RTI Programs Maximize Student Achievement! Research-based materials form a cornerstone of RTI. EPS Literacy and Intervention, a leader in reading intervention for. IES PRACTICE GUIDE NCEE 2009-4060 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention. Developing, Delivering, & Teaching Evidence-Based Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Services Rebecca J. Macy Dania Ermentrout. First, we established a priori criteria for inclusion. To be included in this review, the study must havebeen published in a peer- reviewed journal, edited review journal, or edited textbook. RTI model for students experiencing academic or behavioral difficulties. Hence, we excluded those studies that simply compared interventions that conceivably could be used in one or more tiers of an RTI model (e. Torgesen et al., 2. Vellutino et al., 1. These studies are reviewed in subsequent sections of this Web site that investigate the components of RTI (i. Tier 2 and higher). Hence, we excluded published articles that described programs but did not include information about how the study of the program was conducted (e. NSERC – Professors – Research Tools and Instruments and Infrastructure Programs – Research Tools and Instruments and Infrastructure Programs Overview. Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations (OEREP) Office of Management Services (OMS) Center for Delivery, Organization, and. An independent, not-for-profit corporation which performs basic and applied research, provides technical support, and conducts analyses in the behavioral and social. Ikeda, Tilly, Stumme, Volmer, & Allison, 1. Orosco & Klingner, 2. Second, we generated a list of search terms. We used search terms selected for a previous meta- analysis of RTI models (i. Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2. We also used descriptors of well- known RTI models (e. Heartland model; Minneapolis problem- solving model). We used the following descriptors: response* to intervention, response* to instruction, RTI, tiers, tiered intervention, data- based decision making, Heartland model, Minneapolis problem- solving model, Ohio intervention- based assessment, Pennsylvania instructional support team, responders, nonresponders, disab* identification, special education identification, problem solving, and intervention- based assessment. Our search of the Psyc. INFO and ERIC databases and searches via Google Scholar and Pro. Quest identified 1. Third, we searched the reference lists of each included study, as well as a previous meta- analysis of RTI (i. Burns et al., 2. 00. RTI programs (i. e., Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2. This procedure yielded three additional studies. Fourth, we hand- searched five journals from January 1. January 2. 00. 8 for studies that may not have been entered into the research databases or available via search engine or content aggregator. These journals were the Journal of Learning Disabilities, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, Remedial and Special Education, Exceptional Children, and the Journal of School Psychology. We selected these journals because they have published RTI studies in the past. Our hand- search did not yield any additional studies. Thus, our search procedures yielded 1. Once a study was identified for inclusion, we conducted a descriptive analysis. Key descriptive variables for each study are presented in Table 1. In addition, we provide an expanded description of each study (i. These expanded descriptions can be accessed by the links in Table 1. In addition, we further analyzed the studies in terms of the quality of the research design used, as well as other methodological variables (e. Descriptions of the research designs used in the studies as well as a brief description of their level of rigor are presented in Figure 1. Figure 1: Types of Research Designs. Randomized Control Trials (RCTs). The RCT is considered the best design to control for threats to internal causal validity, because study participants are randomly assigned to groups (i. Randomization ensures equality on all variables between the groups; thus, an outcome (e. Quasi- Experimental Designs (QEDs). The QED is a group design that includes a control group but does not use randomization procedures and thus is considered less rigorous than RCTs. This shortcoming can be partially compensated for if the researchers can show that the experimental and control groups are equivalent at baseline/pretest on all measured variables. Historical Contrast Design (HCD). In this design, the posttest of the group receiving the treatment (e. RTI) is compared to a similar group from the past. For example, data are obtained for students exposed to RTI for a period of time and the postintervention outcomes (e. RTI program. This design is considered to be relatively weak in establishing causality (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2. Descriptive. With this type of study, data are collected (e. RTI and then any changes or trends over time are noted. The lack of a control or contrast group limits conclusions about the impact of the intervention. Multiple Baseline (MB). Multiple baseline designs are a type of single- case methodology. For example, the intervention (e. RTI program) is introduced to one school at a time to see if changes (e. A- B Design (AB). The weakest of all single- case designs, this design is implemented by taking baseline data (e. However, this procedure does not control for any competing explanations for why the behavior changed. Correlational. This design statistically quantifies the relationship between two variables (e. Although this design quantifies a relationship, it does not establish causality. Results and Discussion. Each of the 1. 6 RTI programs included in this review can be classified as either a problem- solving or standard protocol model as well as an existing or a researcher- developed model. A problem- solving model uses individually tailored interventions designed to address student failure to adequately respond to instruction, and these interventions are typically developed or selected through a team- based decision process. The standard protocol model refers to the use of preselected interventions that are used when personnel deem that the existing intervention has not led to the desired response by the student (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2. Existing model studies are studies of the effectiveness of an in- place RTI program typically developed by school, district, or state- level personnel, with the interventions delivered by building- level personnel (e. The researcher- developed model examines the effects of an RTI program developed and implemented primarily by university- based researchers. Of the 1. 6 studies, eight were problem solving, three were standard protocol, and one was a combination of both (Callender, 2. Table 1). Of the eight problem- solving models, seven were existing models with school personnel implementing the interventions. There was one researcher- developed, problem- solving model that used both researchers and teachers to implement tiered interventions (O’Connor, Harty, & Fulmer, 2. Overall, existing models tended to use problem- solving procedures for selecting interventions, with school personnel implementing the program; researcher- developed models tended to be standard protocol designs. As shown in Table 1, all of the studies were conducted at the elementary school level, with four studies extending into Grade 8 or above. Those studies that included only elementary students typically focused on Grade 4 or lower. Table 1: Programmatic Field Studies of RTI (Click author to view field study)Authors*Model Name**Problem Solving or Standard Protocol Implementer Grade Level(s)# of Schools/# of Students Used Design Measured Outcomes. Ardoin et al. Croix River education district model RBM - Idaho results- based model MII - Midwestern intervention intensity. BSM - Behavior support model EMERGE - Exemplary model of early reading growth and excellence. IST - Pennsylvania instructional support teams MPSM - Minneapolis problem- solving model. RTI& R - Response to intervention and retention. TRI - Tiers of reading intervention SDBM - South Dakota behavior model. FSDS - Illinois flexible service delivery system model IBA - Ohio intervention- based assessment. STEEP - System to enhance educational performance EGM - Exit group model ARTI - Albany response to intervention. In terms of outcome measures, reading progress was a focus of seven studies: two studies measured math performance, two measured frequency of problem behaviors and office referrals for behavior, one examined retention rates, and another examined time on task and task completion. Six studies looked at the impact of RTI on special education referral and/or placement rates. A variety of research designs were used to establish the impact of the program on the selected outcome(s). Five studies used single- case methodology (i. A- B), four used HCDs, four included QEDs, one used correlational procedures, and six included descriptive methods. Only one study used an RCT design and those that used QEDs did not provide information as to whether baseline equivalency was established between the treatment and control groups. Academic Outcome Studies. Reading. As noted earlier, seven of the studies reported measuring reading outcomes linked to an RTI program (Bollman, Silberglitt, & Gibbons, 2. Callender, 2. 00. Gettinger & Stoiber, 2. Murray, Woodruff, & Vaughn, 2. O'Connor et al., 2. Vaughn, Linan- Thompson, & Hickman, 2. Vellutino, Scanlon, Zhang, & Schatschneider, 2. Croix River Education District (SCRED) students showed a gradual rise on curriculum- based measurement measures over a 1.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |