Reynolds Cecil R, Shaywitz Sally E
retired Texas A&M University.
Sch Psychol Q. 2009 Jun 1;24(2):130. doi: 10.1037/a0016158.
Response to Intervention (RTI) models of diagnosis and intervention are being implemented rapidly throughout the schools. The purposes of invoking an RTI model for disabilities in the schools clearly are laudable, yet close examination reveals an unappreciated paucity of empirical support for RTI and an overly optimistic view of its practical, problematic issues. Models are being put into practice without adequate research and logistical support and neglect the potential negative long-term impact on students with disabilities. Many implementation problems exist: (a) the vagaries of critical details of the model in practice; (b) the lack of consideration of bright struggling readers; (c) the relativeness, contextual, situation dependent nature of who is identified; (d) the worrisome shortcomings of the RTI process as a means of diagnosis or determination of a disability; and (e) the apparent lack of student-based data to guide effective choice of approaches and components of intervention. Practiced as a model of prevention, the authors agree with the concept of RTI. As the authors witness its application to disability determination sans the benefit of a reliable and valid empirical basis, the potential benefits to some children with disabilities remain an unproven hypothesis while the potential detriment to some children with disabilities remains a very real possibility.
回应干预（RTI）诊断与干预模式正在各学校迅速推行。在学校中为残疾问题采用RTI模式的目的显然值得称赞，但仔细审视会发现，RTI缺乏实证支持且对其实际存在的问题看法过于乐观。这些模式在没有充分研究和后勤支持的情况下就付诸实践，忽视了对残疾学生可能产生的长期负面影响。存在许多实施问题：（a）该模式在实际操作中关键细节的多变性；（b）未考虑学习困难但聪明的阅读者；（c）被认定对象的相对性、情境依赖性；（d）RTI过程作为诊断或判定残疾手段存在令人担忧的缺陷；（e）明显缺乏基于学生的数据来指导有效选择干预方法和组成部分。作为一种预防模式，作者认同RTI的理念。但作者目睹其在缺乏可靠有效实证基础的情况下用于残疾判定，对一些残疾儿童的潜在益处仍是未经证实的假设，而对一些残疾儿童的潜在损害却很有可能成为现实。
