Responsiveness to General Education Instruction as the First Gate to Learning Disabilities Identification

By D. Speece, L. Case, Dawn Eddy Molloy. 2003

244 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fbe652746ef7ac49c1b71de9a5eb77ee4211fc39

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 Safety Research

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Estimates of the Standard Error of Measurement for Curriculum-Based Measures of Oral Reading Fluency (2007, background): “Although the definition and procedures of RTI have yet to be fully established, it seems that much of what was previously defined as problem solving is now encompassed within the multitiered framework of RTI (Christ, Burns, & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2003; Speece & Case, 2001; Speece et al., 2”
Technical Adequacy of Response to Intervention Decisions (2011, methodology): “Speece, Case, and Molloy (2003) also provided a rigorous longitudinal evaluation of the validity of RTI and its potential to discriminate students at risk for poor outcomes in school.”
Responsiveness–to–Intervention: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for the Learning Disabilities Construct (2003, unknown): “It has also been the focus of concept papers (e.g., L. S. Fuchs, 1995; L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Speece, 2002) and recent research (e.g., Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2003; McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2003; Speece & Case, 2001; Speece, Case, & Molloy, in press; Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003; Vellutino et”
From IDEA to Implementation: A Discussion of Foundational and Future Responsiveness–to–Intervention Research (2007, background): “Beginning with inherent beneﬁts, the tiered construction emphasizes accountability in the general education environment (e.g., D. Fuchs et al., 2003; Speece et al., 2003)—an advantage to all learners.”
Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention (2005, result): “Thus, the comparisons of mean reading scores and prevalence rates between DD and the individual criteria (post-intervention fluency level and fluency growth with four criteria) supported the superiority of DD over individual criteria, as was the case in previous research as well (Fuchs, 2003; McMast”
Service Delivery for Response to Intervention: Core Components and Directions for Future Research (2007, background): “…1998) normative student comparisons and the utility of dual-discrepancy decision making in the area of reading (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2004; Speece et al., 2003) are promising, comparative studies evaluating outcomes resulting from the application of different decision-making criteria…”
Long-Term Diagnostic Accuracy of Curriculum-Based Measures in Reading and Mathematics (2008, background): “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 the decile in which the students performed during the fall assessment (Silberglitt & Hintze,”