Prevention and Early Identification of Students with Reading Disabilities: A Research

Review of the Three-Tier Model

Sharon Vaughn, Jeanne Wanzek, Althea L. Woodruff and Sylvia Linan-Thompson

University of Texas

In D. H. Haager, S. Vaughn, & J. K. Klingner (Eds) (in press), Validated Reading

Practices for Three Tiers of Intervention. Brookes: Baltimore, Maryland

1
 A Three-Tier Model for Preventing Reading Difficulties and Early Identification of

Students with Reading Disabilities

The importance of ensuring that children acquire adequate literacy skills in the

primary grades has been well documented; students who do not learn to read in the first

and second grades are likely to continue to struggle with reading (Juel, 1988; Morris,

Shaw, & Perney, 1990) and are at higher risk for academic failure and school dropout

than children who develop proficient reading skills in the first years of formal schooling.

That we are falling short of all students reading at or above grade level is also well

documented: the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), our national

report card, indicates that over two-thirds of U. S. fourth- and eighth-graders cannot

handle challenging texts at proficient levels (National Center for Education Statistics

[NCES], 2003). Even more alarming, the percentage of students reading at these low

levels has remained relatively stable over the past 10 years. More specifically, fully 37

percent of fourth graders nationally cannot read at a basic level – that is, they cannot read

and understand a short paragraph of the type found in simple children’s books (NCES,

2003). Reading failure is especially prevalent among children living in poverty. Seventy

percent of low-income students in the fourth grade cannot read at this basic level (Lyon,

2001). In an effort to improve the reading achievement of students, recent legislation

(U.S. Department of Education, 2001) has incorporated systems for the early

identification and intervention of students at risk for reading difficulties.

Further evidence of the need for early identification of children at risk for reading

failure comes from data on the progress of children who are identified – typically after

2
one or two years of reading failure – as having a reading-related disability and are

provided with special education services. According to a report published by the Office

of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS, 2001), approximately 60

percent of students are identified too late to derive full benefit from special education

services. The long-term consequences of late identification cannot be underestimated. For

example, at present, only two percent of students receiving special or compensatory

education for difficulties learning to read will complete a four-year college program

(Lyon, 2001).

There is a high rate of elementary students with reading difficulties who qualify

for special education services based on a marked discrepancy between their expected

performance level in reading and their actual reading levels. Thus, the issue of reading

difficulties also serves as an early warning signal for risk that if not heeded may lead to

further problems and referral and placement in special education.

Two of the most significant factors associated with improved outcomes for

students at risk for reading problems are early identification through screening and early

intervention. Screening measures that permit the early and relatively accurate

identification of students at risk for reading failure are now available. Additionally, there

is a large body of research on the types of interventions that are most effective for

students who encounter difficulty in mastering the basic components of reading. Thus, at

least for monolingual English-speaking students and increasingly for bilingual students

(Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Mathes, 2004; Vaughn et al., in press) there is a growing

database of validated early intervention practices.

3
 What is now needed are models of school-wide programs that incorporate best

practices in all the critical areas mentioned above, namely, effective reading instruction

for all students; early identification of students at risk for reading problems; effective

interventions for students at risk; professional development; the efficient and effective

deployment of school resources to sustain the program; and, integrated into each aspect

of the program, the involvement of parents and families.

Response to Intervention (RTI): Early Identification of LD

Rationale for RTI

One of the issues in prevention and early identification of reading problems is the

timing of referral for special education services. Under identification procedures in most

states, students typically do not qualify for services within the category of learning

disabilities until their academic failure is severe. This is due in large part to the use of the

IQ-achievement discrepancy method for identifying students with learning disabilities.

This method inherently requires that students fall behind to a significant degree in areas

such as reading before they can be considered eligible for special services. Although this

model has been questioned for years on many grounds, including whether it accurately

discriminates poor from normal readers or between subgroups of low-performing readers

(Fletcher, Francis, Rourke, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 1992; Siegel, 1992; Stuebing et al.,

2002; Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, in press; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon,

2000), it remains the primary procedure for identifying students with learning disabilities

in the majority of states.

Alternatives to the IQ-achievement discrepancy model have been proposed that

focus on how students respond to an initial intervention as a means for determining

4
special education (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Gresham, 2002). A response to intervention

(RTI) approach is based on monitoring students’ progress, by means of curriculum-based

measures, over the course of their participation in appropriate interventions. Students

who make minimal or no gains can be provided a more intensive and specific

intervention to determine their response over time. Students who fail to profit adequately

from this more intensive intervention are those who may be identified as having a

learning disability. Essential to the effective implementation of a response-to-intervention

model are: (a) reliable and valid measures that are sensitive to intervention and can be

administered multiple times, (b) validated intervention protocols for targeted outcomes

such as reading decoding and comprehension (Vaughn, 2002), and (c) school-level

models delineating a coordinated system of screening, intervention, and placement. The

primary thrust for using identification models that incorporate RTI is to provide early

intervention and/or pre-referral services early to students who exhibit academic

difficulties. The goal is to reduce inappropriate referral and identification and to establish

a prevention model for students – to eliminate the wait-to-fail model in place in many

schools (Fletcher et al., in press).

Research on RTI

Studies examining interventions for students with reading disabilities or

difficulties reveal that even when the intervention group as a whole makes significant

gains, there are students who do not respond as well to the intervention. These students

may be considered nonresponders to the intervention. In recent years it has become

increasingly common for authors to report the number or percentage of nonresponders to

the reported interventions. It is important to note that in almost all cases, students who are

5
referred to as nonresponders are actually either low responders (meaning the slope for

their response rate is not steep enough to accelerate their progress so that they would

eventually be on-level readers) or their start point for the intervention was so low that

even though they are responding they are not making sufficient progress to meet grade

level benchmarks.

To provide a review of the research that addresses RTI for young students with

reading difficulties, we identified the corresponding literature in three stages. First, the 23

intervention studies included in the synthesis of literature by Al Otaiba and Fuchs (2002)

encompassing the years 1966-June 2000 were obtained. Second, a three-step process was

used to identify studies from June 2000-August 2004 including (a) computer searches of

PsycInfo and ERIC for the years 1999-2004, (b) hand searches of 10 major journals

related to the topic for the years 2001-2004, and (c) examination of the reference section

of a relevant meta-analysis to identify additional studies not captured through the

computer and hand searches (Nelson, Benner, & Gonzalez, 2003). Third, a search of

Dissertation Abstracts for the years 1996-2003 was conducted.

The criteria for inclusion of a study corresponded to the criteria set by Al Otaiba

and Fuchs (2002):

1. Dissertations or studies published in peer reviewed journals;

2. Participants ranged from preschool to third grade;

3. Participants included students at risk for reading difficulties (e.g., students with

low ability, low phonological awareness, low income, language disorders, LD,

language disorders);

4. Interventions targeted early literacy and were conducted in English;

6
 5. Study outcomes addressed reading outcomes; and

6. Studies reported descriptions of students unresponsive to intervention. Studies

reporting a percentage of nonresponders without providing descriptive

information on these nonresponders separately from the participants as a whole

were not included.

A total of 42 studies met criteria for inclusion in the synthesis. Twelve studies

described nonresponders without statistical analyses. Twenty-five studies examined

factors predicting nonresponders to reading intervention. Five studies examined the

characteristics of nonresponders after multiple interventions. Unique characteristics of

nonresponders in one study were reported in two different publications yielding a total of

43 publications or dissertations. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to review and

analyze all of these studies, however, for a summary of all studies, see Wanzek (2005).

A consistent definition of nonresponse to intervention is not currently applied in

the field. Thus, nonresponse to intervention was defined in a variety of ways in the

studies we located including lack of grade level outcomes, empirically derived criteria on

specific measures (e.g., students below the 30th percentile on a word reading measure),

and no progress or slow progress in intervention compared to other students. Often, even

the criteria to determine “grade level” or “slow progress” were not specified. It is clear

that before RTI can be used effectively as an identification approach, agreement on what

constitutes response and non-response to intervention is needed. One suggestion for

defining non-response has been to use both the slope of progress and the performance

level for students (Fuchs, Fuchs, McMaster, & Al Otaiba, 2003). Using this definition, a

student who is below average in achievement level as well as making minimal progress in

7
an intervention is identified as not responding to the intervention. In contrast, a student

who begins at a low performance level in an intervention may in fact not make criterion

by the end of the intervention, but if there is a sufficient slope of progress by the student

throughout the intervention there is evidence the student is responding. If the student’s

slope of progress continues to demonstrate response then the student is responding and is

not in need of more intensive interventions or special education. While this approach of

examining student performance level as well as student growth may be leading the field

toward a more consistent definition of non-response, no such consistent process is yet in

place. Thus, a consistent level of RTI is not available across studies.

In addition to inconsistencies in definitions of non-response, the fidelity of

interventions was only reported in 17 of the studies synthesized. The lack of measuring

the validity of the independent variable has been an ongoing problem in the field of

education (e.g., Gresham, MacMillan, Beebe-Frankenberger, & Bocian, 2000). It is

difficult to determine the general effectiveness of interventions employed if the fidelity of

the implementation is unknown or unreported. However, for the studies reported in this

chapter, four of the five studies reported on the fidelity of implementation (Al Otaiba,

2000; Berninger et al., 2002; Vadasy, Sanders, Peyton, & Jenkins, 2002; Vaughn, Linan-

Thompson, & Hickman, 2003) increasing the validity of the results reported.

Studies Providing Multiple Interventions

Five of the identified studies addressed the provision of multiple interventions (Al

Otaiba, 2000; Berninger et al., 2002; Vadasy et al., 2002; Vaughn et al., 2003; Vellutino

et al., 1996). One study reported additional information on nonresponders in a second

article (Vellutino et al., 2000). We selected these studies for review in this chapter since

8
they relate closest to the three-tier intervention model we are proposing which specifies

the provision of multiple interventions for students whose RTI does not indicate the boost

needed so that they are no longer at risk. Each of these studies identified nonresponders

after one round of intervention and provided additional intervention(s) to students

demonstrating insufficient response.

Four of the studies provided intervention to students at risk for reading difficulties

for approximately one semester either in the spring of kindergarten (Al Otaiba, 2000) or

in first grade (Berninger et al., 2002; Vadasy et al., 2002; Vellutino et al., 1996). The

kindergarten intervention (Al Otaiba) focused on phonological awareness, letter sounds,

and blending sounds into words. First grade interventions involved instruction in letter

sounds, word reading, story reading, and spelling. After the semester of intervention,

students making insufficient progress were identified and received additional intervention

during the following grade (first or second grade). In general, the second semester of

intervention in each of these studies built on the first semester by reviewing concepts and

increasing the difficulty of word reading as well as incorporating comprehension

instruction. Vadasy et al. (2002) reported the additional intervention did not significantly

improve outcomes for students. However, in two studies, predictors of continued

nonresponse were identified. Berninger et al. (2002) found that growth in word reading

predicted response on word-reading measures after multiple interventions. Al Otaiba

(2000) reported phonemic awareness, rapid automatic naming, grammatical closure,

vocabulary, sentence imitation, word discrimination, and behavior as significant

predictors of non-response to interventions.

9
 Vellutino et al. (1996) also examined response to word reading and identified

students making “low” growth or “very low” growth compared to students making

“good” growth or “very good” growth after the first intervention. Both the first and

second intervention included one-one-one instruction in fluency, phonological awarenss,

letter names and sounds, sight word reading, vocabulary, and writing. Predictors of group

assignment included attention, phonemic awareness, rapid automatic naming, visual-

verbal association, and verbal memory. Though predictors of continued nonresponse

were not identified, the identified growth groups remained distinct on outcome measures

after the second intervention. In a follow-up study, Vellutino et al. (2000) reported IQ as

unrelated to predicting response to intervention (Vellutino et al., 1996).

In another study, three intervention opportunities within 10-week timeframes

were provided to second-grade students at risk for reading problems (Vaughn, Linan-

Thompson, & Hickman, 2003). Students in this study received intervention in 10-week

increments. Students received instruction in fluency, phonological awareness, word

analysis, spelling, and instructional passage reading on a daily basis. After each ten-week

period, students reaching criteria on reading fluency were exited from the intervention.

Therefore, the duration of intervention was 10, 20, or 30 weeks depending on the

progress made by each student. Some students demonstrated insufficient response

throughout the 30 weeks and were never exited from intervention. The areas of reading

fluency, comprehension, and rapid automatic naming were related to continued

insufficient response even after 30 weeks. For the second-grade students participating in

this study, phonemic awareness and decoding ability did not predict students who would

not exit from intervention. However, in contrast to Vadasy et al. (2002), the additional

10
intervention allowed several more students to progress and meet exit criteria at both the

20-week and 30-week periods.

These studies as well as our own work implementing a three-tier model in reading

raise very interesting and provocative questions about RTI. Most of these questions have

to do with implementing RTI in school settings. For example, should students who do not

respond adequately to a validated intervention be automatically referred to special

education? At what point, in the lack of response to validated interventions do we

consider students eligible for referral to special education? Who is the appropriate person

to provide the validated intervention (e.g., classroom teacher, trained personnel, reading

specialist)? How much confidence do we have that validated reading interventions are

available for teachers to use and how should they obtain the appropriate materials to

implement them? These and many other questions are necessary to address so that

classroom and special education teachers as well as educational leaders have the

information they need to appropriately implement RTI.

Interventions for Students Demonstrating Insufficient Response

Torgesen (2000) suggested that students not responding to effective instruction

may need more intensive intervention. In an effort to examine this hypothesis, a few

researchers have investigated reading outcomes for students with reading difficulties

when various levels of intensity are provided. In these studies, intensity has been defined

as decreasing group size for instruction and/or increasing the amount of time in

instruction.

Though it is not surprising that whole-class instruction is less effective for

students with disabilities than small-group or student-paired instruction (Elbaum,

11
Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 1999; Schumm, Moody, & Vaughn, 2000), this finding does

not provide evidence for what group size offers sufficient intensity for students to make

adequate progress. To address this question of group size, an intervention was

implemented in varying group sizes with second-grade students at risk for reading

problems (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Kouzekanani, et al., 2003). Students were

randomly assigned to receive the intervention in either a group of 10 students with one

teacher, 3 students with one teacher, or one-on-one instruction. The same reading

intervention was provided to students in all three group sizes. Results indicated students

who received instruction in groups of three or one-on-one made considerably more gains

on comprehension measures than students taught in groups of 10. Students receiving one-

on-one instruction demonstrated significantly higher gains in fluency and phonological

awareness than students in groups of 10. There were no significant differences between

the students taught in groups of three and the students who received one-on-one

instruction indicating that the increased intensity of providing one-on-one instruction may

not be necessary to improve student outcomes. A meta-analysis of one-on-one tutoring

interventions found similar results in that one-on-one instruction yielded no different

outcomes than small-group interventions (Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 2000).

Another way to conceptualize intensity is to consider the duration of

interventions. In a meta-analysis of one-on-one instruction (Elbaum et al., 2000), the

study samples were split into interventions of 20 weeks or less and interventions longer

than 20 weeks. Higher effects were yielded in interventions of 20 weeks or less

suggesting students may make the highest gains early in intervention. Though student

progress is still evident in longer interventions, the sizeable gains made in the shorter

12
time period may also suggest the intensity level of intervention is not increased

substantially by providing longer interventions.

A more specific examination of the effect of duration on intervention can be

found in a study of second grade students with reading difficulties who participated in a

reading intervention that lasted either 10, 20, or 30 weeks (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, &

Hickman, 2003). The duration of the intervention was determined by student progress.

Thus, students who achieved a passing score on a screening measure (i.e., more than 55

correct words per minute on a reading fluency measure) and scores of 50 or more words

correct per minute on progress monitoring measures of fluency for at least three

consecutive weeks were exited from the intervention, though their progress was still

followed. Students not meeting exit criteria after each 10-week intervention continued in

the intervention for an additional ten weeks. All 10 of the students who exited after 10

weeks of instruction as well as 10 of 12 students who exited after 20 weeks continued to

make gains in reading fluency with classroom reading instruction only. This finding

indicates a longer intervention assisted even more students in reaching a reading level

that allowed them to benefit from core reading instruction. An additional 10 students met

exit criteria after 30 weeks of instruction, but their progress was not followed after

exiting. This study combined with Elbaum et al.’s (2000) meta-analysis provide evidence

that interventions up to at least 20 weeks can allow many students to make substantial

gains in their reading outcomes.

Both of the studies examining duration of intervention considered the effects of an

increased number of days in intervention on students’ outcomes. Another way to increase

time or intensity in an intervention is to increase the number of sessions or hours of

13
instruction a student spends in intervention over the same number of days (e.g., 2 hours

per day for 10 weeks versus 1 hour per day for 10 weeks). Although the effects of this

type of intervention intensity have not been studied specifically in the literature,

interventions in the reading literature have typically been conducted between 20-50

minutes per day. A notable exception is a study conducted by Torgesen and colleagues

(2001) who provided a reading intervention for two 50-minute sessions per day over 8-9

weeks to 8- to 10-year-old students with reading disabilities. The 67.5 hours of

instruction yielded substantial improvements in word reading and comprehension that

were maintained over the next two years of follow-up. This study suggests more

instruction in a short period of time may benefit students with severe reading disabilities;

however, the study was not designed to specifically investigate whether the increased

time in intervention significantly improved outcomes over interventions of less time per

day.

The research available on intensity of instruction (group size and duration of

intervention) provides preliminary evidence that small-group instruction and increased

duration of intervention may allow more students to succeed in reading. Further research

is still needed to determine what levels of intensity of intervention can improve outcomes

for students who do not make sufficient progress in generally effective reading

interventions. Particularly for students at risk for reading disabilities, this research may

assist schools in determining student need for intervention or referral and placement in

special education, thus providing the most effective intervention in the most efficient

manner and reducing the allocation of extensive resources over time.

14
 The Three-Tier Reading Model

We have organized a Three-Tier Reading Model as a decision-making framework

to support school districts in using resources to meet the instructional needs of all young

readers, particularly those who struggle in the early elementary grades and those who do

not make adequate progress after interventions are provided. The model focuses on

prevention of reading problems and is aimed at identifying students as early as

kindergarten and first grade, before they fall behind, and providing the academic

interventions they need throughout the first four years of schooling. The model may be

conceptualized as a safety net for struggling readers and as an alternative to a “wait-until-

they-fail” model. The model consists of three tiers or levels of instruction: Tier I (core

reading instruction with screening three times a year for all students and progress

monitoring more frequently for students at risk for reading problems), Tier II

(intervention and progress monitoring for students who are struggling), and Tier III

(intensive interventions for students for whom the Tier II intervention was insufficient).

Tier I

Tier I is comprised of three elements: (a) a core reading program based on

scientific reading research, (b) screening and benchmark testing of students to determine

instructional needs at least three times per year (fall, winter, and spring), and (c) ongoing

professional development to provide teachers with the necessary tools to ensure every

student receives quality reading instruction. Tier I reading instruction is designed to

address the needs of the majority of a school’s students. During core classroom reading

instruction, students are at various levels of development in critical early reading skills.

Some students are able to acquire the necessary skills with the standard instruction given

15
by the teacher, while others require more intensive instruction in specific skill areas.

When teachers implement an effective reading program that includes flexible grouping

and targeting specific skills, classroom teachers are often able to meet the needs of most

students. Thus, in Tier I the instruction provided by the classroom teacher is sufficient to

meet many students’ needs.

Tiers II & III

For some students, focused classroom reading instruction is not sufficient to meet

their needs. To accelerate their progress and ensure that they do not slip further behind,

these students require more strategic intervention in addition to the time allotted for their

core reading instruction. Tier II is designed to meet the needs of these students by giving

them an additional 30 minutes of intensive, small-group, reading instruction daily. The

aim is to support and reinforce the skills being taught within the core reading program. In

Tier II, the interventionist may be the classroom teacher, a specialized reading teacher, or

another support person specifically trained for Tier II intervention.

A small percentage of students who have received Tier II intervention continue to

show marked difficulty in acquiring necessary reading skills. These students require

instruction that is more explicit, more intensive, and specifically designed to meet their

individual needs. For these students, a 45- to 60-minute session of specialized, small-

group reading instruction can be provided in Tier III in addition to Tier I instruction. The

Tier III interventionist may be a specialized reading teacher, a special education teacher,

or an external interventionist specifically trained for the intervention. For a more

complete explanation of the components of the three tiers and the differences among

them, refer to Table 1.

16
 ---------------------------------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

---------------------------------------------------------

Relating the Tiers

Tier II and Tier III provide intensive, focused instruction for students identified

by benchmark assessments as having low early literacy skills and being at risk for reading

difficulty. Generally, Tier I instruction (core classroom reading instruction) should meet

the needs of 70 to 80 percent (or more) of learners. The lowest 20 to 30 percent may need

additional support with Tier II intervention, and it is anticipated that 5 to 10 percent will

require Tier III instruction for intensive intervention. The aim of the Three-Tier Reading

Model is to reduce the number of students with reading difficulties and put all students on

track to becoming successful readers. Furthermore, the model holds promise as an

integrated approach for all levels of instruction.

Movement through Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III is a dynamic process, with students

entering and exiting as needed (see Figure 1). Once a student’s needs are met and he or

she is able to achieve benchmarks on the assessments, the intervention may no longer be

required for that student. Benchmark testing of all kindergarten through third-grade

students three times per year (fall, winter, spring) ensures that students who require

additional help are (a) identified early, or (b) re-identified if they have previously

received support and show that they need intervention again. In contrast to previous

interventions for reading, the Three-Tier Reading Model provides a system that is

responsive to students’ changing needs.

-------------------------------------------------------------

17
 Insert Figure 1 about here

--------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment and Progress Monitoring within the Model

Assessment plays a central role in the Three-Tier Reading Model. Two types of

assessments are used to inform instruction: (a) benchmark assessment to determine the

need for intervention, and (b) progress-monitoring assessment to track student progress

(Good, Simmons, & Smith, 1998; Simmons & Kame’enui, 1998). Benchmark

assessments aid in early identification of students at-risk for reading problems – a critical

aspect of the Three-Tier Reading Model. Testing of all students, kindergarten through

third grade, is conducted in early fall, early winter, and late spring. For those who are not

making adequate progress, teachers combine core classroom instruction (Tier I) with an

intervention (Tier II or Tier III) matched to students’ needs and use ongoing progress-

monitoring data to adjust instruction and ensure students’ academic growth.

Benchmark data can be entered into a database so that reading performance can

be analyzed at the individual, classroom, grade, and school levels. Reports can then be

issued to teachers and administrators to (a) identify students who will benefit from

reading intervention, (b) customize reading instruction based on students’ needs, and (c)

help school personnel determine the effectiveness of Tier I (the core reading program)

and decide the professional development needs of the teachers.

Students receiving Tier II or Tier III instruction receive frequent and ongoing

progress monitoring (Kame’enui & Carnine, 1998; Pressley, Rankin, & Yokoi, 1996).

Teachers’ instruction improves when they use progress monitoring to (a) track student

learning, (b) plan instruction, and (c) provide feedback to students (Fuchs, 1986). The use

18
of these assessments, combined with timely intervention, yields fewer students with

reading difficulties and ultimately reduces the number of students referred for special

education services.

Research Study on the Three-Tier Reading Model

We initiated a five-year project to examine the effectiveness of the Three-Tier

Reading Model for improving student outcomes (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Elbaum et

al., 2004). The participants in this longitudinal study are kindergarten through third-grade

students and their teachers at six schools. Before we began implementation of the model,

the kindergarten and first-grade students and teachers in these schools were identified as

a historical control group (HC) with whom we could compare the students and teachers

who would participate in the Three-Tier Reading Model implementation. During this first

year of the project, these kindergarten and first-grade students were assessed, but none of

their teachers received professional development (Tier I) from the research team, nor

were any of the students provided intervention (Tier II) by us. During the second year of

the study, implementation of the Three-Tier Reading Model began with professional

development for all kindergarten teachers at the participating schools and delivery of Tier

I instruction to all kindergarten students at these schools. As these students move from

one grade to the next, teachers at each successive grade level participate in the ongoing

professional development program and students continue to be provided Tier I

intervention (for a summary of the grade levels participating in each cohort during each

year of the project, see Table 2). The project documents changes over time in the skills

and perceptions of both students and teachers. With regard to students, the focus is on

growth in reading and language skills. With regard to teachers, the focus is on improved

19
teaching skills and perceptions concerning barriers and facilitators related to school-wide

implementation of the model.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Insert Table 2 about here

--------------------------------------------------------------

Students who meet risk criteria on the benchmark assessments for Tier II

intervention are randomly assigned to receive either Tier I plus Tier II (Tier I+II) or Tier I

with typical school services (Tier I+SS). Thus, a treatment group and a control group of

at-risk readers are utilized for examining the Tier II instruction. Each classroom teacher

has students in the Tier I+II group and the Tier I+SS group to control for Tier I teacher

effects. Students who enter second grade and have not adequately responded to Tier II

interventions will be engaged in Tier I core instruction plus a Tier III intervention that is

even more extensive (45-60 minutes per day) and more intensive (ongoing progress

monitoring, smaller groups size) to address the more extensive reading needs of students.

20
 To better understand the extent to which a three-tier model of reading prevents

reading difficulties and assists in the appropriate early identification of students with

reading disabilities, we intend to use our sample and data set to address several critical

research questions. We plan to address the relative influence of each tier of instruction

when compared with students who did not receive these tiers of instruction. We are

interested in the patterns of response to these tiers and the characteristics of students and

teachers that differentiate response to various tiers of instruction. We are also interested

in students who are identified early as demonstrating reading difficulties and then no

longer exhibit these difficulties as well as students whose early skills (kindergarten and

first grade) indicated that they were on level but demonstrated low performance in

reading in later grades (second or third grade). We are also interested in students

identified for special education and requiring intervention in reading. The extent to which

the number of students identified for special education alters over time and is influenced

by the Three-Tier Reading Model will be documented.

Preliminary Findings

To examine the effectiveness of both Tiers I and II, we are comparing three

groups of students who are struggling with basic literacy skills: (a) a historical control

group, (b) a Tier I plus Tier II group, and (c) a Tier I with typical school services group.

During the first two years of our study, students in each of these groups were assessed at

the middle and end of kindergarten and the beginning of first grade. Across these time

periods, we utilized three measures within the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early

Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 2002) and two measures within the

Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised (WRMT-R; Woodcock, 1987). Preliminary

21
findings, thus, relate to several literacy skills: (a) naming upper- and lower-case letters

fluently and accurately; (b) segmenting words into phonemes fluently; (c) decoding VC

and CVC nonsense words; (d) decoding both simple and complex nonsense words

accurately; and (e) reading words accurately.

In each of these areas, a pattern emerges across the three time periods when

comparing the scores for the three groups of struggling readers. In the middle of

kindergarten, all three groups looked very similar across the measures; however, at the

end of kindergarten and beginning of first grade, differences emerged among the three

groups. Specifically, at these two later time periods, the Tier I with typical school

services group demonstrated higher scores across the five areas assessed when compared

to the historical control group. Such improvement in students’ scores illustrates the effect

that our Tier I intervention alone had on students’ literacy skills. Further, the Tier I plus

Tier II group’s scores across the five skill areas exceeded both the historical control

group’s and Tier I with typical school services group’s scores, a finding that validates the

importance of combining a targeted, strategic intervention (i.e., Tier II) with improved

regular classroom reading instruction (i.e., Tier I).

22
Summary

Appropriate identification and placement of students with learning disabilities

into special education programs has been problematic since its inception. In no small

part, the challenges of identifying individuals with learning disabilities are rooted in the

inappropriate criteria of discrepancy between intelligence and achievement that has

prevented many districts from providing early intervention. While a great deal is known

about validated interventions for struggling readers, there is a need for school-wide

programs to address student needs. The Three-Tier Reading Model is a decision-making

framework to assist schools and school districts in meeting the instructional needs of all

young readers. The Three-Tier Reading Model includes the implementation of a core

reading program based on scientific reading research, ongoing assessments to identify

struggling readers and make appropriate instructional decisions, professional

development for teachers to meet the needs of students, and interventions that increase in

intensity as needed for individual students. The use of the Three-Tier Reading Model can

assist educators in providing effective instruction, identifying struggling readers early,

providing appropriate interventions, and making instructional decisions throughout the

school year. Although there are many unanswered questions about RTI and its effective

implementation in schools (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), we are optimistic that current and

future research will assist in addressing these questions.

23
 References

Al Otaiba, S. D. (2000). Children who do not respond to early literacy intervention: A

longitudinal study across kindergarten and first grade. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 61 (04), 1354A. (UMI No. 9970028)

Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to

early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special

Education, 23, 300-316.

Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Vermeulen, K., Ogier, S., Brooksher, R., Zook, D., et al.

(2002). Comparison of faster and slower responders to early intervention in

reading: Differentiating features of their language profiles. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 25, 59-76.

Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. W. (1999). Grouping practices and

reading outcomes for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65, 399-

415.

Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-

to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at-risk for reading

failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 92, 605-619.

Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (in press). Alternative

approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some

questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia.

24
Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Rourke, B. P., Shaywitz, B., & Shaywitz, S. E. (1992). The

validity of the discrepancy-based definitions of learning disabilities. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 25, 555-561, 573.

Fuchs, L. S. (1986). Monitoring progress among mildly handicapped pupils: Review of

current practice and research. Remedial and Special Education, 7(5), 5-12.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for

reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities

Research and Practice, 13, 204-219.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., McMaster, K. N., & Al Otaiba, S. (2003). Identifying children at

risk for reading failure: Curriculum-based measurement and the dual-discrepancy

approach. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of

learning disabilities (pp. 431-449). New York: Guilford Press.

Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Smith, S. B. (1998). Effective academic interventions in

the United States: Evaluating and enhancing the acquisition of early reading

skills. School Psychology Review, 27, 45-56.

Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the

identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P.

Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp.

467-547). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E., & Bocian, K. M.

(2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention research: Do we

really know how treatments are implemented? Learning Disabilities Research

and Practice, 15, 198-205.

25
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first

through fourth grade, Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

Kame’enui E. J., & Carnine D. W. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that

accommodate diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lyon, G. R. (2001). Measuring success: Using assessments and accountability to raise

student achievement. Address to U. S. House of Representatives Subcommittee

on Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce. Statement

retrieved on September 30, 2004, from http://www.nrrf.org/lyon_statement3-

01.htm

Morris, D., Shaw, B., & Perney J. (1990). Helping low readers in grades 2 and 3: An

after-school volunteer tutoring program. Elementary School Journal, 91, 133-150.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). National assessment of educational

progress. Retrieved December 23, 2003, from

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/results2003

Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., & Gonzalez, J. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence

the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review.

Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 255-267.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (2001).

Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of instructional practices of

primary teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific Studies

of Reading, 1, 145-160.

Schumm, J. S., Moody, S. W., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Grouping for reading instruction:

Does one size fit all? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 477-488.

26
Siegel, L. S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 25, 618-629.

Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (Eds.). (1998). What reading research tells us about

children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., &

Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading

difficulties: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469-

518.

Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in

reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities

Research and Practice, 15, 55-64.

Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., &

Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe

reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional

approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.

U. S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (2001).

No Child Left Behind. Washington, D.C.

Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., Peyton, J. A., & Jenkins, J. R. (2002). Timing and intensity

of tutoring: A closer look at the conditions for effective early literacy tutoring.

Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 227-241.

Vaughn, S. (2002). Using response to treatment for identifying students with learning

disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification

27
 of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 549-554). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate

response to treatment: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities

Research and Practice, 18(3), 137-146.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Elbaum, B., Wanzek, J., Rodriguez, K. T., Cavanaugh,

C. L. et al. (2004). Centers for implementing K-3 behavior and reading

intervention models preventing reading difficulties: A three-tiered intervention

model. Unpublished report, University of Texas Center for Reading and Language

Arts.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a

means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional

Children, 69, 391-409.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D. P., Dickson, S., & Blozis,

S. A. (2003). Reading instruction grouping for students with reading difficulties.

Remedial and Special Education, 24, 301-315.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S. Mathes, P. G., Cirino, P. T., Carlson, C. D., Francis, D.

J. et al. (2004). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade English

language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Manuscript submitted for

publication.

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., Francis, D.H.,

Pollard-Durodola, S., & Hagan, E.C. (in press). First-grade English language

28
 learners at-risk for reading problems: Effectiveness of an English intervention.

Elementary School Journal.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-

to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 33, 223-238.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., et al.

(1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor

readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and

experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.

Wanzek, J. (2005). The effects of varying amounts of time in reading intervention for

students demonstrating insufficient response to intervention. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

29
 Table 1. The Three-Tier Reading Model: Tiers of Instruction
Tier I Tier II Tier III
Definition “Core” curricular and Programs, strategies, and Specifically designed and
instructional reading procedures designed and customized reading
programs and employed to supplement, instruction that is
strategies, including enhance, and support Tier extended beyond the time
ongoing professional I which take place in allocated for Tier I and
development and groups of 3 to 5 Tier II and takes place in
benchmark assessments groups of 3
three times per year
Focus For all students in For students identified with For students with marked
Kindergarten through marked reading difficulties, difficulties in reading or
3rd grade and who have not reading disabilities and
responded to Tier I efforts who have not responded
adequately to Tier I and
Tier II efforts
Program Scientific-based Specialized, scientifically- Sustained, intensive,
reading instruction and based reading program(s) scientifically-based
curriculum emphasizing the five reading program(s)
emphasizing the five critical elements of emphasizing the five
critical elements of beginning reading critical elements of
beginning reading beginning reading
Instruction Many opportunities to  Additional attention,  Carefully designed and
practice embedded focus, support implemented, explicit,
throughout the school  Additional opportunities systematic instruction
day to practice embedded  Fidelity of
throughout the day implementation
 Pre-teach, review skills; carefully maintained
frequent opportunities to
practice skills
Interventionist General education Intervention provided by Intensive intervention
teacher personnel determined by provided by personnel
the school determined by the school
Setting General education Appropriate setting Appropriate setting
classroom designated by the school designated by the school
Grouping Flexible grouping Homogeneous small-group Homogeneous small-
instruction (e.g., 1:4, 1:5) group instruction (1:3)
Time Minimum of 90 Minimum of 30 minutes Minimum of two 30-
minutes per day per day minute sessions per day
Assessment Benchmark Progress monitoring twice Progress monitoring
assessments at a month on target skill to twice a month on target
beginning, middle, and ensure adequate progress skill to ensure adequate
end of academic year and learning progress and learning

30
Table 2. Research Study: Grade Levels within Each Cohort and Year

Cohorts Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Historical Kindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade

Control 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade

Cohort 1 Kindergarten First Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade

Cohort 2 Kindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade

31
32
 Figure Caption

Figure 1. Movement through Tiers I, II, and III.

33