Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention

By M. Burns, Barbara V. Senesac. 2005

119 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Safety Research, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a872c9b2c632d6806449deee59a9f8a8f8c21cf2

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

1. A. Vanderheyden
2. K. McGrew
3. M. Burns
4. Milena A. Keller‐Margulis
5. T. Keith
6. John M. Hintze
7. E. Shapiro
8. Cynthia L. Jiban

In Safety Research

1. John M. Hintze
2. E. Shapiro
3. Milena A. Keller‐Margulis
4. A. Vanderheyden
5. Cynthia L. Jiban
6. J. Kauffman
7. E. Clark
8. Noel Gregg

In Statistics and Probability

1. John M. Hintze
2. A. Vanderheyden
3. E. Shapiro
4. Milena A. Keller‐Margulis
5. K. McGrew
6. Cynthia L. Jiban
7. M. Burns
8. J. B. Hale

Citations in the corpus

• Long-Term Diagnostic Accuracy of Curriculum-Based Measures in Reading and Mathematics (2008, methodology): “…models of response to intervention were based on growth rates as part of the key decision-making process for special education eligibility (Burns & Senasac, 2005; Compton, 2000; Speece, Case, & Molloy, 2003), and students’ expected growth rates were substantially different depending on…”
• Response-to-Intervention: Separating the Rhetoric of Self-Congratulation from the Reality of Specific Learning Disability Identification (2008, background): “Children who are below peers in both intervention out come level and slope of reading progress would be con sidered SLD (e.g., Burns & Senesac, 2005; D. Fuchs, L. Fuchs, McMaster, & Al Otaiba, 2003; Speece, Case, & Molloy, 2003).”
• Assessing the Instructional Level for Mathematics: A Comparison of Methods (2006, methodology): “The 66th percentile was used to identify high responders because previous research examining nonresponders found that the 33rd percentile adequately differentiated student skills (Burns & Senesac, 2005).”
• Varying Intervention Delivery in Response to Intervention: Confronting and Resolving Challenges With Measurement, Instruction, and Intensity (2007, background): “For example, Burns and Senesac (2005) found that as many as 29.7% of students who received a commercially available remedial reading program (i.e., a standard protocol) were identified as nonresponders based on postintervention level and progress rates below the 50th, 33rd, or 25th percentiles.”
• Critical Issues in Response-To-Intervention, Comprehensive Evaluation, and Specific Learning Disabilities Identification and Intervention: An Expert White Paper Consensus (2010, background): “…earlier, dual discrepancy approaches such as low achievement and failure to respond to intervention (Ardoin et al., 2005; Barnett et al., 2004; Burns & Senesac, 2005; Fletcher, Lyon, & Barnes, 2006; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs et al., 2004; Speece, 2005; Ysseldyke & Marston, 2000) cannot…”
• Specific Learning Disability and Response to Intervention: State-Level Guidance (2013, background): “In such cases, a student with SLD is identified when academic performance and student’s learning rate are significantly below the norm (Burns & Senesac, 2005; Fuchs, Fuchs, McMaster, & Al Otaiba, 2003).”