Responsiveness to Intervention and the Identification of Specific Learning Disability: A Critique and Alternative Proposal

By K. Kavale, J. Holdnack, M. Mostert. 2005

148 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eda40c2b0908cf4b1e85fbfd7262732d17d941fe

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. Hollenbeck
2. Caresa L. Young
3. Joseph W. Madaus
4. S. Shaw
5. Douglas Fuchs
6. Lynn S. Fuchs
7. Donald L. Compton
8. Yan Ping Xin

In Safety Research

1. S. Shaw
2. Douglas Fuchs
3. Caresa L. Young
4. A. Hollenbeck

Citations in the corpus

• On the Irrelevance of Intelligence in Predicting Responsiveness to Reading Instruction (2006, result): “As indicated by Kavale et al. (2005), policymakers did not change the definition of LD in the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA.”
• From IDEA to Implementation: A Discussion of Foundational and Future Responsiveness–to–Intervention Research (2007, methodology): “Many researchers caution against obfuscating LD categorization in this manner, with strong opposition exemplified by Kavale, Holdnack, and Mostert (2005): “The RTI model as presently described appears to radically alter the LD concept, and consequently, cannot be endorsed; in fact, it will have the…”
• The Impact of the IDEA 2004 on Transition to College for Students with Learning Disabilities (2006, background): “For more detailed explanations of RTI models, see Fuchs et al. (2003), Kavale et al. (2005), Mellard (2005), National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (2005), Speece, Case, and Malloy (2003), or Vaughn and Fuchs (2003).”