Response to intervention (RTI) has been promoted for nearly 20 years as a valid supplement to or alternative method of learning disability (LD) identification. Nevertheless, important unresolved questions remain about its role in disability identification. We had two purposes when conducting this study of 229 economically and racially diverse poor readers in Grades 4 and 5 in 28 public elementary and middle schools in Nashville. First, we examined predictors of the children’s response to a reading comprehension tutoring program. Second, we explored the utility of different methods (growth vs final status) and measures (near- and mid-transfer vs far-transfer) in operationalizing “response,” and whether these contrasting methods and measures identified similar children. Findings indicated students with higher pretreatment scores on expressive vocabulary, nonverbal IQ, teacher ratings of attention, and reading comprehension measures were more likely classified as responsive with final status methods. Students with lower pretreatment comprehension scores were more likely identified as responsive with growth methods. These and other findings suggest “response” is strongly context dependent, raising questions about the validity of RTI as a means of disability identification.

中文翻译：

---

对干预的反应的个体差异是否受用于定义反应的方法和措施的影响？识别有学习障碍的儿童的意义

作为学习障碍 (LD) 识别的有效补充或替代方法，对干预 (RTI) 的反应已被推广近 20 年。尽管如此，关于它在残疾识别中的作用仍然存在重要的未解决问题。在对纳什维尔 28 所公立小学和中学 4 年级和 5 年级的 229 名经济和种族多样化的贫困读者进行这项研究时，我们有两个目的。首先，我们检查了儿童对阅读理解辅导计划的反应的预测因素。其次，我们探讨了不同方法（成长与最终状态）和措施（近和中期转移与远转移）在实施“响应”方面的效用，以及这些对比方法和措施是否识别了相似的儿童。结果表明，在表达性词汇、非语言智商、教师注意力评分和阅读理解量方面具有较高预处理分数的学生更有可能被归类为对最终状态方法有反应的学生。预处理理解分数较低的学生更有可能被认为对成长方法有反应。这些和其他发现表明“反应”强烈依赖于上下文，从而引发了关于 RTI 作为残疾识别手段的有效性的问题。