等待1级还是立即干预:一项检查阅读一年级干预反应(RTI)的随机实验。

IF 2.2 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Exceptional Children Pub Date : 2014-10-01 DOI:10.1177/0014402914532234
Stephanie Al Otaiba, Carol M Connor, Jessica S Folsom, Jeanne Wanzek, Luana Greulich, Christopher Schatschneider, Richard K Wagner
{"title":"等待1级还是立即干预:一项检查阅读一年级干预反应(RTI)的随机实验。","authors":"Stephanie Al Otaiba,&nbsp;Carol M Connor,&nbsp;Jessica S Folsom,&nbsp;Jeanne Wanzek,&nbsp;Luana Greulich,&nbsp;Christopher Schatschneider,&nbsp;Richard K Wagner","doi":"10.1177/0014402914532234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This randomized controlled experiment compared the efficacy of two Response to Intervention (RTI) models - Typical RTI and Dynamic RTI - and included 34 first-grade classrooms (<i>n</i> = 522 students) across 10 socio-economically and culturally diverse schools. Typical RTI was designed to follow the two-stage RTI decision rules that wait to assess response to Tier 1 in many districts, whereas Dynamic RTI provided Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions immediately according to students' initial screening results. Interventions were identical across conditions except for when intervention began. Reading assessments included letter-sound, word, and passage reading, and teacher-reported severity of reading difficulties. An intent-to-treat analysis using multi-level modeling indicated an overall effect favoring the Dynamic RTI condition (<i>d</i> = .36); growth curve analyses demonstrated that students in Dynamic RTI showed an immediate score advantage, and effects accumulated across the year. Analyses of standard score outcomes confirmed that students in the Dynamic condition who received Tier 2 and Tier 3 ended the study with significantly higher reading performance than students in the Typical condition. Implications for RTI implementation practice and for future research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48164,"journal":{"name":"Exceptional Children","volume":"81 1","pages":"11-27"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0014402914532234","citationCount":"108","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To Wait in Tier 1 or Intervene Immediately: A Randomized Experiment Examining First Grade Response to Intervention (RTI) in Reading.\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie Al Otaiba,&nbsp;Carol M Connor,&nbsp;Jessica S Folsom,&nbsp;Jeanne Wanzek,&nbsp;Luana Greulich,&nbsp;Christopher Schatschneider,&nbsp;Richard K Wagner\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0014402914532234\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This randomized controlled experiment compared the efficacy of two Response to Intervention (RTI) models - Typical RTI and Dynamic RTI - and included 34 first-grade classrooms (<i>n</i> = 522 students) across 10 socio-economically and culturally diverse schools. Typical RTI was designed to follow the two-stage RTI decision rules that wait to assess response to Tier 1 in many districts, whereas Dynamic RTI provided Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions immediately according to students' initial screening results. Interventions were identical across conditions except for when intervention began. Reading assessments included letter-sound, word, and passage reading, and teacher-reported severity of reading difficulties. An intent-to-treat analysis using multi-level modeling indicated an overall effect favoring the Dynamic RTI condition (<i>d</i> = .36); growth curve analyses demonstrated that students in Dynamic RTI showed an immediate score advantage, and effects accumulated across the year. Analyses of standard score outcomes confirmed that students in the Dynamic condition who received Tier 2 and Tier 3 ended the study with significantly higher reading performance than students in the Typical condition. Implications for RTI implementation practice and for future research are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Exceptional Children\",\"volume\":\"81 1\",\"pages\":\"11-27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0014402914532234\",\"citationCount\":\"108\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Exceptional Children\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914532234\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Exceptional Children","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914532234","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 108

摘要

这个随机对照实验比较了两种干预反应(RTI)模型的效果——典型RTI和动态RTI——包括34个一年级教室(n = 522名学生),来自10所社会经济和文化多样化的学校。典型的RTI设计遵循两阶段RTI决策规则,等待评估许多地区对第一级的反应,而动态RTI根据学生的初步筛选结果立即提供第二级或第三级干预措施。除了干预开始的时间外,其他情况下的干预措施都是相同的。阅读评估包括字母发音、单词和短文阅读,以及教师报告的阅读困难的严重程度。使用多层次模型的意向治疗分析表明,总体效果有利于动态RTI条件(d = .36);成长曲线分析表明,动态RTI学生表现出立竿见影的成绩优势,且效果是常年累积的。对标准分数结果的分析证实,动态条件下获得Tier 2和Tier 3的学生在结束研究时的阅读表现明显高于典型条件下的学生。讨论了RTI实施实践和未来研究的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
To Wait in Tier 1 or Intervene Immediately: A Randomized Experiment Examining First Grade Response to Intervention (RTI) in Reading.

This randomized controlled experiment compared the efficacy of two Response to Intervention (RTI) models - Typical RTI and Dynamic RTI - and included 34 first-grade classrooms (n = 522 students) across 10 socio-economically and culturally diverse schools. Typical RTI was designed to follow the two-stage RTI decision rules that wait to assess response to Tier 1 in many districts, whereas Dynamic RTI provided Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions immediately according to students' initial screening results. Interventions were identical across conditions except for when intervention began. Reading assessments included letter-sound, word, and passage reading, and teacher-reported severity of reading difficulties. An intent-to-treat analysis using multi-level modeling indicated an overall effect favoring the Dynamic RTI condition (d = .36); growth curve analyses demonstrated that students in Dynamic RTI showed an immediate score advantage, and effects accumulated across the year. Analyses of standard score outcomes confirmed that students in the Dynamic condition who received Tier 2 and Tier 3 ended the study with significantly higher reading performance than students in the Typical condition. Implications for RTI implementation practice and for future research are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
14.30%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Exceptional Children, an official journal of The Council for Exceptional Children, publishes original research and analyses that focus on the education and development of exceptional infants, toddlers, children, youth, and adults. This includes descriptions of research, research reviews, methodological reviews of the literature, data-based position papers, policy analyses, and registered reports. Exceptional Children publishes quantitative, qualitative, and single-subject design studies.
期刊最新文献
Examining STEM Preferences in Autistic Students: The Role of Contextual Support, Self-Efficacy, and Outcome Expectations An Open Letter to the Field: Contemplating Special Education's Collaborative Role in Developing Inclusive Education A Descriptive Portrait of the Paraeducator Workforce in Washington State Ethnoracial Diversity of the Special Educator Workforce Over Time Deeping the Commitment to Our Editorial Vision and Recognizing Areas for Comprehensive Reform in Special Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1