Cited by 76Behavioral and Psychological StudiesReading and Literacy DevelopmentEducational Assessment and Improvement

Reliability of Decision-Making Frameworks for Response to Intervention for Reading

Burns, Matthew K., Scholin, Sarah E., Kosciolek, Stacey, Livingston, Judy·2010·Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Abstract

The current study examines the consistency of two response-to-intervention (RTI) decision-making models. Weekly progress monitoring data for 30 students participating in a Tier II intervention were collected for 30 weeks. The data were examined by comparing them to an aimline with a yearly goal and by computing a dual discrepancy (DD) using numerical slope and postintervention reading level. A κ coefficient was computed between the two models regarding student growth using three categorical decisions of making sufficient progress, not making sufficient progress, and exceeding expected progress. The resulting coefficient of .29 represents fair agreement. Data were also assigned to one of two sets in an every-other order, with resulting new aimlines and new DDs. The consistency between the two sets of data resulted in coefficients of κ = .29 for aimline and κ = .58 for DD. Finally, the standard error of measurement for the baseline data point affected the decision made (κ = .13) for aimline but not for DD (κ = .93). Implications for research, practice, and special education decision making are included.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0734282909342374

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Teachers can determine who is benefitting and who is not benefitting from the instructional program using (a) the normative distribution of student performance based on all those in the group or a subset of students similar to the targeted student or group, (b) a standard that corresponds with a successful outcome, or (c) individual reference using a comparison to an individual student's prior数据.

    “Using one of three references, teachers can determine who is benefitting and who is not benefitting from the instructional program using (a) the normative distribution of student performance based on all those in the group or a subset of students similar to the targeted student or group, (b) a standard that corresponds with a successful outcome, or (c) individual reference using a comparison to an”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burns, M. K., Scholin, S. E., Kosciolek, S., & Livingston, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • St. Croix River Education District, Rush City, MN
  • Mahtomedi Public Schools, Mahtomedi, MN
Corresponding author
Burns, Matthew K.
Venue
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
Published
2010-03-21
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
102-114
ISSN
  • 0734-2829 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-5144
OpenAlex
W2034738590
Cited by
76
References
37
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
7.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment (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, reading intervention, decision-making framework, progress monitoring, inter-rater reliability, special education decision-making, standard error of measurement, student development

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