CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 129Behavioral and Psychological StudiesReading and Literacy DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Responsiveness to Intervention: 1997 to 2007

Bradley, Renée, Danielson, Louis, Doolittle, Jennifer·2007·TEACHING Exceptional Children
DOI 10.1177/004005990703900502
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The OSEP Uaming Disabilities initiative In 1997, during the process of reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA), the National Joint Committee on Learnitig Disabilities [NJCLD) wrote a tetter to the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP) expressing concern that neither early nor accurate identification of specific learning disabilities [SLD) was occurring [NJCLD, 1997). The activities that followed the response from OSEP to the NJCLD letter have becotne known as the Learning Disabilities, or LD, Initiative [Bradley & Danielson, 2004). The LD Initiative began as a comprehensive attempt to bring researchers, professional organizations, advocacy groups, educators, and other stakeholders to a consensus regarding the identification and implementation of improved procedures for SLD identification. The goal of the LD Initiative was to improve the process and ensure accurate and efficient identification of students with SLD. Reliance on the use of the discrepancy approach to determine eligibility for special education services had resulted in students with SLD not being identified until they had experienced multiple years of failure. Additionally, this approach provided teachers little information on which they could base instructional decisions. The purpose of this article is to provide: [a) a brief description of tbe conclusions of the LD Initiative and the impact these conclusions have had, [b) an overview of the new regulations regarding respo…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/004005990703900502

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • RTI is thought to better account for interpersonal and institutional factors affecting students and to improve practices on a school-wide basis.

    “RTI is thought to better account for “interpersonal and institutional factors” affecting the student and to improve practices on a school-wide basis (Bradley, Danielson, and Doolittle 2007; Harris-Murri, King, and Rostenberg 2006).”

    From Disproportionality and Learning Disabilities: Parsing Apart Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Language (2011) · cites this paper as Bradley, Danielson, and Doolittle 2007

  • 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).”

    From Disproportionality and Learning Disabilities: Parsing Apart Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Language (2011) · cites this paper as Bradley, Danielson, and Doolittle 2007

  • Despite a 2006 IDEA regulatory guide, the RTI process remains somewhat ambiguous and its effect has not been thoroughly researched.

    “Despite the issuance of an IDEA regulatory guide in 2006, the process of RTI is still somewhat ambiguous and its effect has not been thoroughly researched (Bradley, Danielson, and Doolittle 2007).”

    From Disproportionality and Learning Disabilities: Parsing Apart Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Language (2011) · cites this paper as Bradley, Danielson, and Doolittle 2007

  • Bradley et al. describe three tiers of RTI: research-based instruction for all students, observation of all students for response to instruction, and individualized intensive interventions for students who need them.

    “Bradley et al. (2007) describe the three tiers of RTI as 1) the receipt of research-based instruction by all students, 2) observation of all students for response to instruction, and 3) “individualized and intensive interventions and services” for those students who need it.”

    From Disproportionality and Learning Disabilities: Parsing Apart Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Language (2011) · cites this paper as Bradley et al. 2007

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J.
Corresponding author
Bradley, Renée
Venue
TEACHING Exceptional Children
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2007-05
Volume
39
Issue
5
Pages
8-12
ISSN
  • 0040-0599 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-5684
DOI
10.1177/004005990703900502
OpenAlex
W2227764050
Cited by
129
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 14
FWCI
17.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Teaching Exceptional Children (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 › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
Response to Intervention, specific learning disabilities, IDEA reauthorization, special education eligibility, technical assistance, early identification of learning difficulties

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