Cited by 129Behavioral and Psychological StudiesReading and Literacy DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Responsiveness to Intervention: 1997 to 2007

Bradley, Renée, Danielson, Louis, Doolittle, Jennifer·2007·TEACHING Exceptional Children

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…

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. U.S. Department of Education (USED), 2006, Federal Register, 71, 156

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 129

Metadata

Authors
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J.
Corresponding author
Bradley, Renée
Venue
TEACHING Exceptional Children
Published
2007-05
Volume
39
Issue
5
Pages
8-12
ISSN
  • 0040-0599 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-5684
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
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