Is "Response/No Response" Too Simple a Notion for RTI Frameworks? Exploring Multiple Response Types with Latent Profile Analysis

Autor/inn/en	Peng, Peng; Fuchs, Douglas; Fuchs, Lynn S.; Cho, Eunsoo; Elleman, Amy M.; Kearns, Devin M.; Patton, Samuel, III; Compton, Donald L.
Titel	Is "Response/No Response" Too Simple a Notion for RTI Frameworks? Exploring Multiple Response Types with Latent Profile Analysis
Quelle	In: Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53 (2020) 6, S.454-468 (15 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Kearns, Devin M.)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0022-2194
DOI	10.1177/0022219420931818
Schlagwörter	Response to Intervention; Reading Comprehension; Reading Programs; Reading Instruction; Elementary School Students; At Risk Students; Grade 1; Grade 2; Reading Skills; Alphabets; Decoding (Reading); Short Term Memory; Nonverbal Ability; Scores; Early Intervention + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Leseverstehen; Leseunterricht; School year 01; 1. Schuljahr; Schuljahr 01; School year 02; 2. Schuljahr; Schuljahr 02; Reading skill; Lesefertigkeit; Buchstabenschrift; Dekodierung; Kurzzeitgedächtnis
Abstract	We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a randomized control trial to explore this question: Does "response/no response" best characterize students' reactions to a generally efficacious first-grade reading program, or is a more nuanced characterization necessary? Data were collected on 265 at-risk readers' word reading prior to and immediately following program implementation in first grade and in spring of second grade. Pretreatment data were also obtained on domain-specific skills (letter knowledge, decoding, passage comprehension, language) and domain-general skills (working memory, non-verbal reasoning). Latent profile analysis of word reading across the three time points with controls as a local norm revealed a "strongly responsive" group (n = 45) with mean word-reading z scores of 0.25, 1.64, and 1.26 at the three time points, respectively; a "mildly responsive" group (n = 109), z scores = 0.30, 0.47, and 0.55; a "mildly non-responsive" group (n = 90), z scores = -0.11, -0.15, and -0.55; and a "strongly non-responsive" group (n = 21), z scores = -1.24, -1.26, and -1.57. The two responsive groups had stronger pretreatment letter knowledge and passage comprehension than the two non-responsive groups. The mildly non-responsive group demonstrated better pretreatment passage comprehension than the strongly non-responsive group. No domain-general skill distinguished the four groups. Findings suggest response to early reading intervention was more complicated than response/no response, and pretreatment reading comprehension was an important predictor of response even with pretreatment word reading controlled. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01