Mathematics Screening and Progress Monitoring at First Grade: Implications for Responsiveness to Intervention

By Lynn S. Fuchs, Douglas Fuchs, Donald L. Compton, Joan D. Bryant, C. Hamlett, Pamela M. Seethaler. 2007

173 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4b0f3c2f1976c0347cf5155adb288d72d531bcf0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Assessing preschool number sense: skills demonstrated by children prior to school entry (2010, background): “, 2009; Laski & Siegler, 2007; Malofeeva, Day, Saco, Young, & Cianco, 2004; Van Luit & Schopman, 2000), coupled with recognition of the benefits of early intervention in addressing the educational needs of students ‘at risk’, has resulted in research into early number sense as a measurable phenomeno”
Longitudinal Outcomes for Mathematics Achievement for Students with Learning Disabilities (2011, background): “Fuchs et al. (2007), after reviewing studies on mathematics LD, commented, “Screening measures investigated to date may be insufficiently difficult to yield fine discriminations at the lower end of the distribution” (p. 316).”
The Effects of Tier 2 Intervention on the Mathematics Performance of First-Grade Students who are at Risk for Mathematics Difficulties (2008, methodology): “…that prove problematic for students at risk for mathematics disabilities and should serve as the core of screening measures (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001; L. Fuchs et al., 2005; L. Fuchs et al., 2007; Geary, Hamson, & Hoard, 2000; Jordan, Kaplan, & Hanich, 2002; Jordan, Kaplan, Oláh, & Locuniak, 2006).”
Validating a Number Sense Screening Tool for Use in Kindergarten and First Grade: Prediction of Mathematics Proficiency in Third Grade (2010, background): “Response to intervention is a multitiered prevention system for increasing student achievement (Fuchs et al., 2007).”
Response to Intervention: A Research-Based Summary (2011, background): ““For a prevention system to work effectively, procedures for determining risk must yield a high percentage of true positives while identifying a manageable risk pool by limiting false positives” (Fuchs et al., 2007, p. 312).”
Behind Mathematical Learning Disabilities: What about Visual Perception and Motor Skills?. (2012, methodology): “…and Related Health Problems (ICD-10; World Health Organization [WHO], 1992), three criteria are used to determine whether or not a child has a clinical diagnosis of a MLD, namely the resistance criterion, the exclusion criterion and a lack of responsiveness to instruction (Fuchs et al., 2007).”
Universal Screening in Mathematics for the Primary Grades: Beginnings of a Research Base (2012, background): “Fuchs et al. (2007) also found that teachers’ appraisal of attentiveness was a significant predictor of future mathematics achievement.”
A Model for Implementing Responsiveness to Intervention (2007, unknown): “For studies, see Compton, D. Fuchs et al. (2006), D. Fuchs (in press), L. S. Fuchs, et al. (2005), L. S. Fuchs et al. (2007), and Compton, Fuchs, and Fuchs, (submitted).”
Review of Academic Mathematics Instruction for Students with Mild Intellectual Disability (2012, unknown): “Even though mathematics received increased attention in the past decade due the educational climate (e.g., NCLB, 2002), historically less research has been conducted on students with disabilities and mathematics than literacy (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2007).”
Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (2008, unknown): “Both studies—one in reading and the other in math ( Fuchs et al., 2005, 2007 ) were conducted at first grade, with annual follow up throughout the intermediate grades.”
The Predictive Utility of Kindergarten Screening for Math Difficulty (2010, methodology): “An AUC below .70 indicates a poor predictive model; .70 to .80, fair; .80 to .90, good; and greater than .90, excellent (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2007).”
Identifying Early Numeracy Indicators for Kindergarten and First–Grade Students (2009, methodology): “A recent study by Fuchs et al. (2007) obtained criterion validity coefﬁcients that were lower than in previous studies (.34 to .44 with measures such as the arithmetic subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test-3 and word problems); however, this may have been due to the exclusion of…”