Reynolds Cecil R, Shaywitz Sally E
Texas A&M University.
Child Dev Perspect. 2009 Apr 1;3(1):44. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00075.x.
Fletcher and Vaughn (this issue) describe recent changes to federal laws governing special education eligibility for specific learning disabilities focusing on what is commonly known as response to intervention (RTI). We are concerned about what appears to us as a selective review of empirical support for RTI and a consequently overly optimistic view of many practical issues surrounding the implementation of RTI models that neglects the potential negative long-term impact on the range of students with and without a learning disability. These include (1) the lack of a firm evidence base reflected in vagaries and ambiguity of the critical details of the model in practice; (2) the worrisome shortcomings of the RTI process as a means of diagnosis or determination of a disability; (3) the contextual, situation-dependent nature of who is identified; (4) the seeming lack of consideration of bright struggling readers in the RTI process; and (5) the apparent lack of student-based data to guide the most effective choice of approaches to, and specific components of, intervention.
弗莱彻和沃恩（本期）描述了联邦法律近期针对特定学习障碍特殊教育资格规定的变化，重点关注通常所说的干预反应（RTI）。我们感到担忧的是，在我们看来，对RTI的实证支持进行了选择性审查，因此对围绕RTI模式实施的许多实际问题持有过于乐观的看法，而忽视了对有学习障碍和无学习障碍的各类学生可能产生的长期负面影响。这些问题包括：（1）实践中该模式关键细节的变幻莫测和模糊不清反映出缺乏坚实的证据基础；（2）RTI过程作为诊断或确定残疾的一种手段存在令人担忧的缺陷；（3）被认定对象取决于具体情境和情况；（4）RTI过程中似乎没有考虑到有阅读困难的优秀学生；（5）显然缺乏基于学生的数据来指导干预方法及具体组成部分的最有效选择。
