Issue 11 | December 2019
What is Response to Intervention?
Alison Madelaine and Kevin Wheldall
Statement of the problem
Traditional methods of identifying students with
learning disabilities (US definition) such as the IQ-
achievement discrepancy method are problematic.
In addition, students who will need extra support in
academic areas need to be identified early and to be
given appropriate support in a way that makes the best
use of available resources. More intensive intervention
needs to be provided to students based on educational
need rather than labels, to ensure that they do not ‘fall
through the cracks’.
Proposed solution/intervention
Response to Intervention (RTI) or multitier system of
support (MTSS) is an approach to service delivery in
schools (developed in the United States). RTI uses a
system of tiered instruction to provide the appropriate
intensity of intervention. This has been most commonly
used in academic areas such as reading and
mathematics, but RTI can also be applied in the area of
problem behaviour.
The theoretical rationale
There does not appear to be any one set way in
which the tiered instruction model may operate, but
an example of Tier 1 instruction (Primary Prevention)
would be exemplary initial reading instruction (ie.
comprising phonological awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary and text comprehension) at the
whole class level in the regular classroom. Students
who do not ‘respond’ to this (say, the bottom 25%)
are recommended for more intensive intervention. A
Tier 2 intervention (secondary level) might involve
small group instruction 3-4 times per week for 10-20
weeks. Students who are deemed nonresponsive to
this level of intervention are given a Tier 3 intervention
(tertiary level). This may involve 1:1 instruction with a
special educator.
© Alison Madelaine and Kevin Wheldall, 2019.
Nomanis Notes are offered in good faith as a service to the community. This Note may be copied or otherwise reproduced
for not for profit purposes by individuals or organisations on the understanding that it is reproduced in its entirety and that
the original source is clearly acknowledged. (Original unrevised version published as MUSEC Briefing 17, 2009.)
A central concept is how best to determine
‘responsiveness’. The most common approach involves
considering both level of performance AND slope of
improvement (progress) with nonresponders being
those students who are substantially below their
peers on BOTH measures. Progress would usually be
measured using curriculum-based measurement. As
students improve, they may move back up through the
levels to the regular classroom.
What does the research say? What is the
evidence for its efficacy?
There is an enormous amount of support for RTI in
the literature but, while it makes very good conceptual
sense, there is relatively little scientific evidence about
its effectiveness as yet in comparison to other models
of identification and remediation. It is difficult to
determine the efficacy of RTI, although there have been
attempts at evaluation studies, with mixed results and
methodological problems.
Conclusion
RTI may provide a more reliable and equitable means
of identifying students with learning problems, and for
providing timely intervention in academic areas. Note
that the success of RTI depends on the presence of
effective, research-based Tier 1 instruction.
Key references
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention:
What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.
https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.41.1.4
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2017). Critique of the National Evaluation of
Response to Intervention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional
Children, 83(3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917693580
Gersten, R., Jayanthi, M., & Dimino, J. (2017). Too much, too soon?
Unanswered questions from the National Response to Intervention
Evaluation. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 244–254.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917692847