Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process

Abstract

Abstract The purpose of this article is to underscore why we need to maintain the presence of comprehensive evaluations in the identification of students with specific learning disabilities (SLDs). Response to intervention (RTI) models hold great hope for early instruction, and the reduction of the overrepresentation of students in special education who are minorities or who are culturally and linguistically diverse; however, new regulations under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA; 2004) allow for the identification of individuals with SLDs based on an individual's response to instruction. The regulations provide states the option to include standardized testing as part of the RTI model. This approach was proposed as a solution to the widely criticized aptitude–achievement discrepancy formula; however, the unfortunate result could be to simultaneously remove the comprehensive evaluation, an important part of SLD identification. Eliminating the aptitude–achievement discrepancy formula from the identification of SLDs should not be construed as negating the necessity of a comprehensive evaluation (i.e., the need to identify problems in one or more basic psychological processes). Response to intervention models without a comprehensive evaluation cannot provide the evidence needed to identify students with SLDs or to provide protections to appropriately transition students with SLDs from high school to postsecondary services. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychol Schs 43: 883–888, 2006.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 43 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.