Cited by 148Behavioral and Psychological StudiesReading and Literacy DevelopmentEducational Assessment and Improvement

Identifying Students at Risk, Monitoring Performance, and Determining Eligibility Within Response to Intervention: Research on Educational Need and Benefit From Academic Intervention

Shinn, Mark R.·2007·School Psychology Review

Abstract

The new Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) offers local education agencies the choice of using a student's response to intervention (RTI) as a major component to determine eligibility for special education under the category of specific learning disabilities (SLD). Using a RTI model, it is not expected that different students will be identified as SLD than those identified historically. For more than 25 years, accumulated evidence has strongly suggested that most students labeled SLD have been those students with severe educational needs (i.e., have performance discrepancies compared to students in their own communities), regardless of the stated eligibility criterion (e.g., ability–achievement discrepancies). What is unique about RTI is that educational need is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for SLD identification. Students also must not be responding to high-quality general education instruction (i.e., receiving educational benefit). This article first explores the scientific evidence for operationalizing the educational need component using curriculum-based measurement. Second, the use of curriculum-based measurement to assess RTI is presented not only within a special education eligibility process, but also for universal screening and progress monitoring for all students within a three-tier problem-solving model. The article concludes with important research questions within RTI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02796015.2007.12087920

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA attempted to address variable and inaccurate diagnostic practices through a disproportionality amendment and the incorporation of Response to Intervention.

    “An attempt to address variable and inaccurate diagnostic practices occurred with the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, via a specific “disproportionality amendment” and the incorporation of a new choice of diagnostic model, Response to Intervention (RTI) (Bradley, Danielson, and Doolittle 2007; Harris-Murri, King, and Rostenberg 2006; Shinn 2007).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shinn, M. R.
Affiliations
National Louis University (US)
Corresponding author
Shinn, Mark R.
Venue
School Psychology Review
Published
2007-12-01
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
601-617
ISSN
  • 0279-6015 (ISSN-L)
  • 2372-966X
OpenAlex
W187514376
Cited by
148
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 15
FWCI
12.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
School Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
Keywords
Response to Intervention, specific learning disabilities, special education eligibility, curriculum-based measurement, educational benefits, at-risk students, progress monitoring, universal screening, ability-achievement discrepancy, Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review