Similarities and Differences of Students Who Don’t Respond to Research-Based Interventions

By Elisa Jamgochian, Beth A. Harn, and Danielle M. Parisi

To successfully implement Response to Intervention (RTI), schools must employ a continuum of systematic, coordinated, evidence-based practices targeted to student needs. Within this approach is an inherent prevention orientation: only after students receive intensive instructional supports and fail to respond are they considered learning disabled. These students are often termed “non-responders” or “treatment resisters.” We can share our preliminary findings based on analysis of a group of such students to discern relevant similarities and differences among them.

Among the students who did not respond to such intensive efforts, typical issues of attendance, free and reduced lunch status, and English language learner status were not variables they had in common. Fluency-based measures as well as a teacher report of low academic competence were common across most students.

Potentially examining these issues in conjunction with a lack of response to research-based interventions implemented with high quality may assist the field in identifying which students may require special education as well as highlight areas for researchers to more fully investigate in the future (i.e., contextual fit, fluency deficits).

This research emphasizes the importance and power of: a) early intervention through the use of validated literacy screening measures (e.g. DIBELS); b) research-based interventions delivered with quality; and c) coordinating instructional practices at the school level to intensify supports in response to student needs. It highlights the importance of using measures that assess the fluency or automaticity of skill development (i.e., phonological awareness, letter knowledge, connected text). It is not enough for a student to be simply accurate on the component skills of reading; the skills must be so well developed that the accuracy and pace of performance is effortless in order to support continued reading development. Students who do not display this ease early in their reading development are the most in need of intensive instructional supports. 
 
These struggling students were part of a five-year longitudinal study designed to implement and evaluate the efficacy and sustainability of multi-tiered reading models. These students were identified either at the end of kindergarten or the beginning of first grade as at-risk for reading difficulties based on school-wide screening of early literacy skills. Based on the level of risk identified by these measures, the students were provided either strategic or intensive instructional supports from first through third grade. Our study focused on 11 students who, even with this level of support, still required intensive intervention at the end of third grade.

Click here to read more about this research study.

The authors are from the University of Oregon and are members of Oregon CEC. Beth A. Harn is an assistant professor of special education, Elisa Jamgochian is pursuing a doctoral degree in educational leadership, and Danielle M. Parisi is pursuing a doctoral degree in school psychology.

Preparation of this chapter manuscript was supported in part by Project CIRCUITS, Grant No. H324X010014, OSEP, U.S. Department of Education. This material does not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, nor is the material necessarily endorsed by the Federal Government.

CEC members are welcome to distribute information published in CEC Today. Please attribute this content to the Council for Exceptional Children.