Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models

Matthew K Burns, James J. Appleton, Jonathan D. Stehouwer

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

101 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) approach to diagnosing LD is a leading alternative to current practice. This study conducted a meta-analytic review of research on four existing large-scale RTI models and other models implemented for research. Twenty-four effect sizes and unbiased estimates of effect (UEE) were computed. Results found a larger UEE for studies of existing RTI models than those implemented by university faculty for research, but both were strong. The UEE for student achievement and systemic outcomes both exceeded 1.0, but the UEE for systemic outcomes among field-based RTI models was nearly twice as large as for student outcomes. Further, RTI models implemented for research led to an UEE of 1.14 for student outcomes and 0.47 for systemic outcomes. The mean percentage of nonresponders in the studies was 19.8% (SD = 12.5), and an average of 1.68% (SD = 1.45) of the student population was placed into special education. Implications for practice and future research are included.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)381-394
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Psychoeducational Assessment
Volume23
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2005

Fingerprint

field research
Students
Research
Special Education
student
special education
Population
university

Cite this

Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research : Examining field-based and research-implemented models. / Burns, Matthew K; Appleton, James J.; Stehouwer, Jonathan D.

In: Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Vol. 23, No. 4, 01.12.2005, p. 381-394.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Burns, Matthew K ; Appleton, James J. ; Stehouwer, Jonathan D. / Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research : Examining field-based and research-implemented models. In: Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2005 ; Vol. 23, No. 4. pp. 381-394.
@article{410a3f5af219466ea9bfde4814ae9497,
title = "Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models",
abstract = "A responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) approach to diagnosing LD is a leading alternative to current practice. This study conducted a meta-analytic review of research on four existing large-scale RTI models and other models implemented for research. Twenty-four effect sizes and unbiased estimates of effect (UEE) were computed. Results found a larger UEE for studies of existing RTI models than those implemented by university faculty for research, but both were strong. The UEE for student achievement and systemic outcomes both exceeded 1.0, but the UEE for systemic outcomes among field-based RTI models was nearly twice as large as for student outcomes. Further, RTI models implemented for research led to an UEE of 1.14 for student outcomes and 0.47 for systemic outcomes. The mean percentage of nonresponders in the studies was 19.8{\%} (SD = 12.5), and an average of 1.68{\%} (SD = 1.45) of the student population was placed into special education. Implications for practice and future research are included.",
author = "Burns, {Matthew K} and Appleton, {James J.} and Stehouwer, {Jonathan D.}",
year = "2005",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/073428290502300406",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "381--394",
journal = "Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment",
issn = "0734-2829",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research

T2 - Examining field-based and research-implemented models

AU - Burns, Matthew K

AU - Appleton, James J.

AU - Stehouwer, Jonathan D.

PY - 2005/12/1

Y1 - 2005/12/1

N2 - A responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) approach to diagnosing LD is a leading alternative to current practice. This study conducted a meta-analytic review of research on four existing large-scale RTI models and other models implemented for research. Twenty-four effect sizes and unbiased estimates of effect (UEE) were computed. Results found a larger UEE for studies of existing RTI models than those implemented by university faculty for research, but both were strong. The UEE for student achievement and systemic outcomes both exceeded 1.0, but the UEE for systemic outcomes among field-based RTI models was nearly twice as large as for student outcomes. Further, RTI models implemented for research led to an UEE of 1.14 for student outcomes and 0.47 for systemic outcomes. The mean percentage of nonresponders in the studies was 19.8% (SD = 12.5), and an average of 1.68% (SD = 1.45) of the student population was placed into special education. Implications for practice and future research are included.

AB - A responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) approach to diagnosing LD is a leading alternative to current practice. This study conducted a meta-analytic review of research on four existing large-scale RTI models and other models implemented for research. Twenty-four effect sizes and unbiased estimates of effect (UEE) were computed. Results found a larger UEE for studies of existing RTI models than those implemented by university faculty for research, but both were strong. The UEE for student achievement and systemic outcomes both exceeded 1.0, but the UEE for systemic outcomes among field-based RTI models was nearly twice as large as for student outcomes. Further, RTI models implemented for research led to an UEE of 1.14 for student outcomes and 0.47 for systemic outcomes. The mean percentage of nonresponders in the studies was 19.8% (SD = 12.5), and an average of 1.68% (SD = 1.45) of the student population was placed into special education. Implications for practice and future research are included.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33646523372&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33646523372&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/073428290502300406

DO - 10.1177/073428290502300406

M3 - Review article

VL - 23

SP - 381

EP - 394

JO - Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

JF - Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

SN - 0734-2829

IS - 4

ER -